comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Gallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol."
] |
>
Except that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy."
] |
>
Do you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset."
] |
>
Yea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?"
] |
>
Hold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(
In my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.
Don't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them."
] |
>
C'mon Biden wtf are you doing?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold."
] |
>
Aren't "assault weapons" already banned?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?"
] |
>
One suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?"
] |
>
Okay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at."
] |
>
I think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.
With these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.
The only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?"
] |
>
I don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Outside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though."
] |
>
Not sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.
2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school."
] |
>
I agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.
Anyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun.
Here’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized.
Most civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc."
] |
>
Might as well go yell at a cloud.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers."
] |
>
Biden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud."
] |
>
With the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think."
] |
>
House GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat.
I foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds."
] |
>
there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control
Uh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?
Y’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take."
] |
>
Demilitarize the police first.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope."
] |
>
The DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs
Trust the Science
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first."
] |
>
Assault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making.
It's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over.
It's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science"
] |
>
Wasn't it a handgun?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down."
] |
>
"assault pistol" according to the "genius" sheriff
but yes, it was a handgun
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?"
] |
>
Ironically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun"
] |
>
Banning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10"
] |
>
If he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder."
] |
>
Man protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters"
] |
>
The people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians."
] |
>
I live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings."
] |
>
Let's do it with all the other rights too.
Also somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops."
] |
>
Probably
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?"
] |
>
How about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably"
] |
>
And gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work"
] |
>
Guns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them"
] |
>
Making assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control"
] |
>
Sigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US.
Mass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people."
] |
>
Please stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system..."
] |
>
God he is the absolute worst.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere."
] |
>
“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst."
] |
>
How about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit."
] |
>
Bro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better."
] |
>
They used pistols…….
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns."
] |
>
Now that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols……."
] |
>
The funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?"
] |
>
Since California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America"
] |
>
I find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.
Clown world.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people."
] |
>
America is already awash with guns, bit late.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world."
] |
>
There are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.
America has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late."
] |
>
nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.
with 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch "let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power"
it's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen."
] |
>
Dems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the "Republican Revolution".
Just try it lol.
Their virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation.
They have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.
No more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal.
Even better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.
Want to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.
Shall not be infringed! We will always win.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024."
] |
>
I think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win."
] |
>
Dude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)"
] |
>
i would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?"
] |
>
This is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.
You don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?
You are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle"
] |
>
I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.
"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand"
You don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?
you do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.
impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country.
until they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.
It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.
"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay"? is that really your stance here?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion."
] |
>
First, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.
Putting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.
This is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.
I expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?"
] |
>
this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate?
i demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them.
anything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation.
You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy
it's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.
This is partially why lobbyists exist
and you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?
If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.
literally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.
I expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.
what the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work.
if they want the battle cry to be "common sense gun control", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill.
yes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you."
] |
>
Maybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk."
] |
>
I think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen."
] |
>
Republicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s"
] |
>
How would that even work?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?"
] |
>
How about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?"
] |
>
Same shit every time
Mass shooting
thoughts and players
Call to ban weapons
Nothing happens
Mass shooting
(Restart cycle here)
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch"
] |
>
Yes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)"
] |
>
Shithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over."
] |
>
The people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really
Bad “ solutions” to the problem.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out."
] |
>
He clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem."
] |
>
Do we even know what weapon was used yet?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans."
] |
>
A pistol according to a BBC story I read.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?"
] |
>
Then why use this event to ban assault weapons?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read."
] |
>
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?"
] |
>
He should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel"
] |
>
Gun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes."
] |
>
They’re profile tho, save the children
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit"
] |
>
Every News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy.
Spoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children"
] |
>
There needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like "let's just make a billion guns disappear" or "let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it"
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns."
] |
>
I could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease.
We live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\""
] |
>
These threads always put the sociopaths on display.
Go on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people."
] |
>
You've provided great solutions to the problem.
Added a lot to the conversation.
Good talk!
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them."
] |
>
"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers."
"If you insist."
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!"
] |
>
Dawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\""
] |
>
2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person"
] |
>
The pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen."
] |
>
And let an arms dealer go. He is silly
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works."
] |
>
People in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly"
] |
>
Simple stop selling guns.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny."
] |
>
What is false equivalency
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns."
] |
>
10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency"
] |
>
Since guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one."
] |
>
Counterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't.
It's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.
Regulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why."
] |
>
What are you implying it means then?
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives."
] |
>
What a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.
Want to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.
Of course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?"
] |
>
when the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something."
] |
>
too lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward."
] |
>
In most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.
They act.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it"
] |
>
This isn’t a dictatorship. Biden can’t just unilaterally order change. That has to get approved by Congress.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it",
">\n\nIn most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.\nThey act."
] |
>
Yes, they act to change it, not just call it.
See what the right wing government in Australia did.
They acted, they didn't call for anything.
If it ended in them being voted out, it was still going to happen because it was the right thing to do. If it gets rebuffed by the other side through the Democratic process, it's still acting rather than calling.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it",
">\n\nIn most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.\nThey act.",
">\n\nThis isn’t a dictatorship. Biden can’t just unilaterally order change. That has to get approved by Congress."
] |
>
I'm sure you can easily explain the steps Biden can unilaterally take to ban guns. I'm sure you have an answer that makes perfect sense. Go ahead. I'll wait here patiently.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it",
">\n\nIn most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.\nThey act.",
">\n\nThis isn’t a dictatorship. Biden can’t just unilaterally order change. That has to get approved by Congress.",
">\n\nYes, they act to change it, not just call it.\nSee what the right wing government in Australia did.\nThey acted, they didn't call for anything.\nIf it ended in them being voted out, it was still going to happen because it was the right thing to do. If it gets rebuffed by the other side through the Democratic process, it's still acting rather than calling."
] |
>
I hate this all around and laws aren’t going to fix it. There needs to be a shift in culture and a focus on mental health. Someone motivated to kill will kill by any means necessary. I’m tired of the argument on both sides. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals by definition do not follow the law. High capacity magazines should be outlawed that is a promising step to take but people will find a way around it. Look at Illinois some of the toughest gun laws in the US and look at Chicago’s gun violence stats. I can’t count how many feeds on social media show off switches on glocks and I highly doubt the majority of those owners have obtained that apparatus legally and have it documented with the ATF. Mental health and poverty need to be the talking points not banning the shootier 100 round clip banana assault force machine gun semiautomatic grenade launcher in black.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it",
">\n\nIn most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.\nThey act.",
">\n\nThis isn’t a dictatorship. Biden can’t just unilaterally order change. That has to get approved by Congress.",
">\n\nYes, they act to change it, not just call it.\nSee what the right wing government in Australia did.\nThey acted, they didn't call for anything.\nIf it ended in them being voted out, it was still going to happen because it was the right thing to do. If it gets rebuffed by the other side through the Democratic process, it's still acting rather than calling.",
">\n\nI'm sure you can easily explain the steps Biden can unilaterally take to ban guns. I'm sure you have an answer that makes perfect sense. Go ahead. I'll wait here patiently."
] |
>
Why not ban elderly from owning a firearm considering the last two shooters were 72 and 67 years old.
|
[
"The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings.",
">\n\nLike the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s \nBut whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.",
">\n\nAre you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban?",
">\n\nQuite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems \"military\" in purpose...\nCompletely farcical.",
">\n\nI understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed.",
">\n\nDoes less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. \nIt's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.",
">\n\nI can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.",
">\n\nIt gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.\nAlso, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.",
">\n\nVery few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.",
">\n\nneither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?",
">\n\nIt is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking.",
">\n\nyes\n\n\nRegardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.",
">\n\nthe funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying \"he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s\" but I'll get downvoted if I say \"hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun\"\n\nEDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.",
">\n\nIt's easy. Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes. Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.\nWhat this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men.",
">\n\nI don't even consider myself \"anti-gun\" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers.",
">\n\nBoth CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.\nBanning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.\nThe “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit.",
">\n\nHave you tried holding it sideways?",
">\n\nAs a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.\nNo different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.\nBuy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.",
">\n\nMy wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however....",
">\n\nSo many shitty guns in the 80’s.",
">\n\nWe should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained.",
">\n\nI’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.\nWhat about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone. In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.\nI don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security.",
">\n\nThe lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting.",
">\n\nwe have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police.",
">\n\n\nplenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem \n\nThey don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.\nIn other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. \nThat is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.",
">\n\nand thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. \nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. \none last thing, abolish the uvalde police force.",
">\n\nRight -- but now you are changing the topic.\nYou claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.\n\nwe dont trust the government to not be corrupt\n\nThe government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is.",
">\n\nyour right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. \nwe do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils.",
">\n\nYou suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.\n\nour voting system exploits that\n\nThe American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. \nAn average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).\nAmericans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.\nParliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. \nIn the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions.",
">\n\nim not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.\ntake abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them?",
">\n\n\"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024\"\nSeriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.\nThe mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.",
">\n\nGallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban. In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy. It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy.",
">\n\nExcept that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset.",
">\n\nDo you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias?",
">\n\nYea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular. And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect. They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them.",
">\n\nHold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(\nIn my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.\nDon't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again :( Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold.",
">\n\nC'mon Biden wtf are you doing?",
">\n\nAren't \"assault weapons\" already banned?",
">\n\nOne suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at.",
">\n\nOkay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?",
">\n\nI think of them as combat rifles, basically. So, shorter than the long rifles used in hunting, but with higher capacity. Maybe anything fully automatic as well.\nWith these a person could take out a lot of targets without reloading, at range or just through volume of rounds fired.\nThe only things I know about guns come from playing Fallout, though.",
">\n\nI don’t want to argue in circles. I want to help do my part to fix this, but I feel like it isn’t being done in good faith. Why can’t the Democratic legislators hire / consult a few outside firearms experts, use gun violence research data and come up with something a little more specific than just “semiautomatic weapons” or “assault weapon”. It’s too broad in scope and will be struck down as unconstitutional. \nOutside of an amendment to the constitution removing the second amendment right to bear arms, this is what you guys are going to do. Or we aren’t going to fucking get anywhere and prevent more innocent American kids from dying cos they went to school.",
">\n\nNot sure they're acting in bad faith, but there is probably some difficulty nailing things down with the variety of weapons and configurations.\n2A is subject to interpretation, like everything else. Rights are balanced against other rights, aren't without meaningful limitations, etc.",
">\n\nI agree. Congress has the right to regulate firearms and balance that right against others. But in order to do that, they need to learn how firearms work. What each component does, etc.\nAnyone can buy all the components of a gun other than a lower receiver without needing to go through a background check. Why? The optics, grips, upper receiver, stock, barrel and trigger/ firing mechanisms are not legally considered a gun under federal law. The component that is subject to regulation and requires a background check if you’re purchasing it — is the lower receiver. That is the only part that legally is considered a gun. \nHere’s a fun fact. I can legally gift a lower receiver to someone without going through a federal background check or process, long as I was confident and knew they were not felons. 💯 legal to do so. It becomes illegal if I gifted it to someone who has a felony on their record. So, obviously it’s not a good idea to go around gifting lowers to people you don’t know very well. Those lower receivers are stamped with the manufacturer logo and seralized. \nMost civilians buy firearms already kitted out and don’t just typically purchase the lowers.",
">\n\nMight as well go yell at a cloud.",
">\n\nBiden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.",
">\n\nWith the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.",
">\n\nHouse GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control. It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat. \nI foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control. Bleak future, but that's what it will take.",
">\n\n\nthere are enough moderates to vote for more gun control\n\nUh huh. Just like there were “enough moderates” to cross the aisle to work with Democrats to keep the Speaker of the House from being a spineless sack of turds entirely controlled by the Freedom Cocks?\nY’all need to stop pretending there’s some secret pool of moderate GOP out there. Literally everything since 2016 shows that to be just cope.",
">\n\nDemilitarize the police first.",
">\n\nThe DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs\nTrust the Science",
">\n\nAssault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. \nIt's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. \nIt's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down.",
">\n\nWasn't it a handgun?",
">\n\n\"assault pistol\" according to the \"genius\" sheriff\nbut yes, it was a handgun",
">\n\nIronically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10",
">\n\nBanning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder.",
">\n\nIf he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters",
">\n\nMan protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.",
">\n\nThe people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings.",
">\n\nI live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops.",
">\n\nLet's do it with all the other rights too. \nAlso somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people?",
">\n\nProbably",
">\n\nHow about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work",
">\n\nAnd gun control it can be all these things not just 2 of them",
">\n\nGuns aren’t the problem and there’s no way everyone’s giving up their guns it’s unrealistic and never going to happen. Universal healthcare could’ve been implemented many times but it never does even when dems hold all the control",
">\n\nMaking assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people.",
">\n\nSigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. \nMass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system...",
">\n\nPlease stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.",
">\n\nGod he is the absolute worst.",
">\n\n“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.",
">\n\nHow about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.",
">\n\nBro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns.",
">\n\nThey used pistols…….",
">\n\nNow that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it. See how this works?",
">\n\nThe funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America",
">\n\nSince California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California. You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people.",
">\n\nI find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.\nClown world.",
">\n\nAmerica is already awash with guns, bit late.",
">\n\nThere are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.\nAmerica has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen.",
">\n\n\nnobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.\n\nwith 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch \"let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power\" \nit's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024.",
">\n\nDems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the \"Republican Revolution\".\nJust try it lol.\nTheir virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. \nThey have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.\nNo more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. \nEven better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.\nWant to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.\nShall not be infringed! We will always win.",
">\n\nI think they meant that gun owners will win the legislative battle, because they can innovate faster than gov't can regulate. Hope that helps :)",
">\n\nDude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?",
">\n\ni would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle",
">\n\nThis is such a dumb argument. I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina. \nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\nYou are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.",
">\n\n\nI would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.\n\n\"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand\"\n\n\nYou don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?\n\nyou do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.\n\n\nimpossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. \n\nuntil they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.\n\n\nIt’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.\n\n\"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay\"? is that really your stance here?",
">\n\nFirst, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.\nPutting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy. I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state. Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules. There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge. If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.",
">\n\n\nthis idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts. Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? \n\ni demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. \nanything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. \n\n\nYou seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy\n\nit's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.\n\n\nThis is partially why lobbyists exist\n\nand you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?\n\n\nIf we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.\n\nliterally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.\n\n\nI expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.\n\nwhat the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. \nif they want the battle cry to be \"common sense gun control\", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. \nyes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk.",
">\n\nMaybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen.",
">\n\nI think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s",
">\n\nRepublicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?",
">\n\nHow would that even work?",
">\n\nHow about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch",
">\n\nSame shit every time \nMass shooting \nthoughts and players\nCall to ban weapons\nNothing happens \nMass shooting \n(Restart cycle here)",
">\n\nYes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.",
">\n\nShithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.",
">\n\nThe people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really\nBad “ solutions” to the problem.",
">\n\nHe clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans.",
">\n\nDo we even know what weapon was used yet?",
">\n\nA pistol according to a BBC story I read.",
">\n\nThen why use this event to ban assault weapons?",
">\n\n\nYou never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.\n\nRahm Emanuel",
">\n\nHe should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes.",
">\n\nGun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit",
">\n\nThey’re profile tho, save the children",
">\n\nEvery News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. \nSpoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting. The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns.",
">\n\nThere needs to be a proposed series of steps to mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like \"let's just make a billion guns disappear\" or \"let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it\"",
">\n\nI could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. \nWe live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people.",
">\n\nThese threads always put the sociopaths on display. \nGo on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them.",
">\n\nYou've provided great solutions to the problem. \nAdded a lot to the conversation. \nGood talk!",
">\n\n\"You'll have to pry my beloved assault rifle from my cold, dead fingers.\"\n\"If you insist.\"",
">\n\nDawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person",
">\n\n2nd amendment is right every American should have,seen what happening in china last month and also ban on these weapon doesn’t guarantee shooting will not happen.",
">\n\nThe pro-gun narrative has showed its cards. Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc. And while blocking federal studies for decades. So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works.",
">\n\nAnd let an arms dealer go. He is silly",
">\n\nPeople in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny.",
">\n\nSimple stop selling guns.",
">\n\nWhat is false equivalency",
">\n\n10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one.",
">\n\nSince guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why.",
">\n\nCounterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. \nIt's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.\nRegulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.",
">\n\nWhat are you implying it means then?",
">\n\nWhat a waste of time. Banning the guns that the rich people like. It's flashy, it's wedgy, great politics.\nWant to make a difference? Ban the shitty little .22 and .25 pistols. Then lets start some buybacks. Begin with $200/gun. Add a $200/gun tax on new guns to help pay for it. Melt down everything that gets turned in.\nOf course that just helps get a lot of crappy guns off the street, doesn't really solve the fundamentals. But it's something.",
">\n\nwhen the british owned india, they offered a bounty for dead cobras. lots of snakes got killed at first, but then people just started breeding cobras to kill for the reward.",
">\n\ntoo lazy to find the source but there was a “no questions asked buy back” where some dude just 3d printed the cheapest crappiest pistol he could find and monetized it",
">\n\nIn most countries the leadership doesn't 'call' for things.\nThey act.",
">\n\nThis isn’t a dictatorship. Biden can’t just unilaterally order change. That has to get approved by Congress.",
">\n\nYes, they act to change it, not just call it.\nSee what the right wing government in Australia did.\nThey acted, they didn't call for anything.\nIf it ended in them being voted out, it was still going to happen because it was the right thing to do. If it gets rebuffed by the other side through the Democratic process, it's still acting rather than calling.",
">\n\nI'm sure you can easily explain the steps Biden can unilaterally take to ban guns. I'm sure you have an answer that makes perfect sense. Go ahead. I'll wait here patiently.",
">\n\nI hate this all around and laws aren’t going to fix it. There needs to be a shift in culture and a focus on mental health. Someone motivated to kill will kill by any means necessary. I’m tired of the argument on both sides. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals by definition do not follow the law. High capacity magazines should be outlawed that is a promising step to take but people will find a way around it. Look at Illinois some of the toughest gun laws in the US and look at Chicago’s gun violence stats. I can’t count how many feeds on social media show off switches on glocks and I highly doubt the majority of those owners have obtained that apparatus legally and have it documented with the ATF. Mental health and poverty need to be the talking points not banning the shootier 100 round clip banana assault force machine gun semiautomatic grenade launcher in black."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.