Removed by mod
I can’t actually tell if that’s meant to be satire, but I doubt the people upvoting you can either. So just to be safe…
Congratulations, you’ve fallen for the same idiot hero fantasies as the right-wing gun cultists have. The gun lobby wrote a version of them just for you and you swallowed it without a single critical thought.
Do you know who is going to win when you and the MAGA morons face off with your cool guns?
Whoever is the biggest piece of shit, just like always.
Is anyone who becomes law enforcement falling for hero fantasies?
Or fantasies of being judge, jury, and executioner.
Which differs from “I bought a gun to kill anyone who tries to break into my suburban home and steal my iPad” how exactly?
But I don’t want to be Judge Judy and executioner!
Is anyone who becomes law enforcement falling for hero fantasies?
Pretty sure nowadays they are power and domination fantasies.
Do all gun owners in America work in law enforcement?
The ones who last do, yeah. All the good ones I’ve met are ex-police.
But they became police in the first place, meaning they fell for the hero fantasies.
deleted by creator
So then who can defend you from an attack?
deleted by creator
Of course, so maybe you should be able to defend yourself?
You’re right, the multiple white supremacist militia groups that have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their attempt to overthrow the government at the behest of the previous president trying to desperately cling to power is just a boogeyman created by the gun lobby
If you think it’s the gun lobbyists who’re making the right wing extremists look like violent, dangerous fascists, you really really have not been paying attention
I really enjoyed this comment. Not because it was in any way insightful or entertaining, but because you couldn’t actually create a logical link from my comment to your own, but you were so desperate to push exactly the propaganda I was talking about that you went ahead and posted it anyway.
You’re right, the multiple white supremacist militia groups that have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their attempt to overthrow the government at the behest of the previous president trying to desperately cling to power is just a boogeyman created by the gun lobby
Yet here you are, leaping to the defense of the companies (and laws they’ve written) that sell those groups all the semi-automatic weapons their black little hearts desire.
I wonder who is the most grateful for your service?
The violent, dangerous far-right extremists that are responsible for the majority of mass shootings and actively target minorities with them?
The gun lobby members banking record profits even as mass shootings, domestic homicides and impulse murders surge?
The Republicans who have been enjoying $16 million a year in open bribes ever since Sandy Hook doubled them, plus a small army of single-issue voters who will tolerate any amount of bigotry, stupidity, oppression and exploitation as long as gun safety remains optional?
Or the minorities who are told “If you don’t want to be murdered then buy more guns and carry them with you everywhere and be ready to kill another person at any moment”, like that’s an existence aspired to by anybody except bloodthirsty gun-owners (and one that isn’t a requirement in any other wealthy, progressive country with functional gun laws)?
Nobody outside of a deeply stupid, easily manipulated and heavily astroturfed pocket of social media believes you’re helping anybody besides extremists, greedy psychopaths and yourself.
You won’t go down in history with the likes of climate change deniers, you’ll go down in history with the people who claimed that “I only want what’s best for black people and that’s actually being enslaved by white men”.
I wrote a bit of a response to this, but I honestly can’t really be bothered, I’m sure your waxing poetic will save you from the wall if they take power though
But you’re going to shoot them all with your cool guns if they try right?
You’re just waiting for the perfect moment that for some reason – despite you openly acknowledging the danger of them – isn’t now nor when there were high profile state executions of unarmed minorities nor any other time in the last decade.
Or is the idea that they’re supposed to be intimidated? Because with America far closer to the brink of fascism than comparable countries with gun control, it looks like it was nothing more than yet another slice of unfit-shifting pro-gun bullshit.
But you’re going to shoot them all with your cool guns if they try right?
That’s the idea, and hopefully anyone else who believes in things like democracy and civil rights.
At the end of the day, ideals will only look good on our epitaph (if we’re even allowed one in this scenario), might makes right, and if you also care about those sorts of things, you better damn well make sure your side’s got more of it.
You’re just waiting for the perfect moment that for some reason – despite you openly acknowledging the danger of them – isn’t now nor when there were high profile state executions of unarmed minorities nor any other time in the last decade.
Because (despite the Republican’s best efforts) we still nominally live in a democracy governed by the rule of law, and our institutions, while definitely damaged as of late, are still intact
A democracy will naturally have some turbulent periods, but as long as it’s still actually a democracy, things are always recoverable non-violently through one of the first three boxes (soap box, ballot box, jury box). It’s only once it’s clear that we live in a democracy no longer that the fourth box comes out (the ammo box), and even then, the last stopgap before all out civil war would be the civilian leadership of the military and the top officers + soldiers who serve choosing a side.
Or is the idea that they’re supposed to be intimidated? Because with America far closer to the brink of fascism than comparable countries with gun control, it looks like it was nothing more than yet another slice of unfit-shifting pro-gun bullshit.
Honestly who in their right mind would be intimidated by the Democrats? Fascists don’t care about peaceful protests and Rolling Stone articles, they only know violence, and we can’t make the mistake of not being ready and willing to speak their language. America is clearly very politically sick, I honestly think it’s incredibly silly to some how blame that solely on gun lobbying of all things.
But you’re going to shoot them all with your cool guns if they try right?
That’s the idea, and hopefully anyone else who believes in things like democracy and civil rights.
🤣
As a progressive Democrat, that’s my #1 reason for being a gun owner.
I don’t want these assholes being the only people armed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Prayer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
Which is sad, because the only winners are the gun manufacturers. They want you to fear your neighbors
I WISH they were our neighbors. They are out of towners who come here purely to stir up trouble, AND, in many cases, they’re actively working WITH the police. So it’s not like you can expect the cops to do anything.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/portland-police-proud-boys-training-1290583/
https://theintercept.com/2021/08/23/portland-police-proud-boys-protest/
You forgot
Which once activated will only be stopped by bullets.
That’s the truth, a 2nd Trump term will result in a literal civil war.
Where’s John Titor when you need him? ;)
Removed by mod
When there are 24 million guns of that type sold and only a handful used illegally each year, is that really a problem on the manufacturer though?
Seems like the vast, vast, majority of them are used legally or simply not used at all.
When your product’s only use is to commit mass murder and you advertise it as making you an invincible badass then yes.
Your point is irrelevant. “Only a tiny fraction of the land mines I placed outside a school killed any children.”
That’s the thing, that’s NOT the only use for the platform. If it were, it wouldn’t be the best selling rifle in the US.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
The primary reason for choosing one is weight.
My grandfathers Remington 721 weighs 8.4 pounds (3.8kg), carries 4 rounds, and in .30-06 is arguably a stronger caliber than the .223 in an AR platform.
My Henry .45-70, the caliber rated for all big game in North America (and jokingly rated by Marlin for T-Rex), weighs 8.1 pounds (3.67kg) and carries 4+1 rounds.
Something like the Ruger AR556 weighs a relatively svelte 6.5 pounds (2.95kg) and comes stock with a 30 round capacity, making it easier to carry.
I know, I know, 1.9 pounds (0.86kg) doesn’t SOUND like a lot, but it FEELS a lot heavier when you’re marching around the woods with a rifle strap digging into your shoulder.
And being able to pick up something fast and use it in a home defense situation makes all the difference in the world.
And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense.
(2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/“Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”
(2010)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
(2016)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
(2022)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.
A huge comment, but I fail to find what you consider other uses beside what you commented on.
You don’t require any other use besides the desire for self defense. That’s the position of the Supreme Court.
The supreme court says whatever the fuck they want. It’s not some sacred institution that should be respected.
You can go tell them that, and see how far it gets you.
The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the constitution means and they set the landscape of the current law of the land.
Their opinions can change (abortion), but it takes generations to make that change.
No it doesn’t. It just takes putting your political toadies in the seats. They just say whatever the fuck they want to say. It’s not an institution that means anything. Not any further than ‘they get to say whatever the fuck they want’ that is. Have you read their decisions? They’re barely even trying to pretend anymore. Why are you?
Removed by mod
The primary reason for choosing one is weight.
It is not true that cutting food is the primary use of a funco brand model A kitchen knife
The primary reason for choosing one is weight
But honest question, why do you buy a gun like that if you’re never ever going to use it? For what purpose do people buy these things anyway?
If police and proud boys have them…
I do use mine for target practice though. I shot competitively when I was younger and really appreciate the skill aspect. I have fond memories of my grandpa teaching me how to shoot, but hunting has never been on my radar.
January sixth, probably played a pretty big role in me actually “pulling the trigger” tbh. That and a PB demonstration down the street from me.
If I was honest, it’s basically a super dangerous bowling ball to me.
Sorry I’m seeing your reply after writing a veritable essay to someone else above you. :)
But the primary reasons are weight and self defense.
A traditional hunting rifle has a stronger caliber, but is around 2 pounds heavier and has a lower capacity.
In terms of self defense, you want a lighter weight and a higher capacity. Makes it easier to carry, easier to control, and easier to defend yourself against multiple intruders, something which, unfortunately, has happened multiple times:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Quick! While you’re doing numbers, compare the number of times a gun didn’t “solve” that problem vs the number of times a gun was misused and someone died. False-negative vs false-positive. It’s just numbers and not relevant, but see how it goes.
All we can go by are the overall numbers and how often guns are used illegally, either for suicide or offense, and it’s actually surprisingly small.
There are over 474,000,000 guns in the United States, of all types.
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/
On average, every year, there are 25,000 suicides by gun. 6 out of every 10 gun deaths.
https://www.everytown.org/issues/gun-suicide/
25,000 / 474,000,000 = 0.005274%
So if 25,000 is 6/10 that means the other 4/10 is somewhere around 16,666. (25,000 / 6, *4).
Of those, a further 800 to 900 are people shot and killed by police.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
Each death is, individually, a tragedy, but when you’re talking 474 million guns and 330 million people, it’s not a statistically significant number (0.003516% of guns and 0.005050% of people). There are a lot of stupid people out there and IQ is not a barrier to gun ownership.
If the guns themselves were the sole problem, the number of deaths would be in the millions, not the low thousands.
The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for “assault weapons” other than killing people.
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
Is this article trying to tell me I’m using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don’t involve killing people.
Removed by mod
Target shooting? Pretty sure more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone. So yea…common use says, target practice.
Removed by mod
Better ban alcohol then, it kills more people than rifles of any kind used in homicides by around 5xs the numbers…knives as well, since they kill around 2 times what rifles of any kind do… hilarious that you bring up lawn darts though…do you want to wrap everyone in bubble wrap? Let’s keep all drugs banned as well since they kill basically more people than anything else.
Living life to it’s fullest can be dangerous…if you want to live in a nanny way, do it to yourself but leave the adults the fuck alone.
Removed by mod
more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone
That’s probably true, but what percentage of that shooting range ammo is used in preparation for shooting people (whether offensively or defensively)?
Way way way less than .00000001%
People don’t practice suicide at the range
Cops who on average kill 1k civs a year also practice very little
And gangs and drug violence is the same… you’re not seeing them go to the range.
I mean, what are you practicing for?
I shoot long range mainly, it’s a lot of fun trying to hit a small target at hundreds of yards. It’s not easy at all. It’s a hobby, people shoot bows for hobby as well, or slingshots or air rifles.
I also hunt and own a farm. I keep an AR10 in the utv Incase of wild boar, which are fucking scary… I’d rather face a bunch of pissed off coyotes than a single wild bore.
They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.
Removed by mod
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
Removed by mod
We are all doing fine as for me and mine, so you have no need to worry about us. The overall society is something I have zero control or influence over, so it’s basically none of my concern.
You seem to be looking at the big picture like you’re meditating on it from Cloud 9 and imagining the way things could be if you had the powers of a magical genie to reform everything into a peaceful Zen tranquility. That’s simply not reality, it’s wishful thinking.
Removed by mod
Can I get one of those defence rifles? All I see is assault rifles.
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
I use a butter-knife to open paint cans with, but that’s not what it’s for.
Removed by mod
Shooting down a tree limb to recover a stuck ball or boomerang or drone from up high. A small bore shotgun like a .410 is pretty good for taking down tree limbs like that.
Removed by mod
I’m talking about higher up than any stick or ladder reaches you goof. Embarrassing is you not being able to imagine that.
Removed by mod
“Destruction of life” - we are talking about a branch or two on a tree, so what? Trees get trimmed and pruned all the time out of necessity of landscaping.
Imagine the countless microorganisms that live and die each day, whose cellular membranes could be disrupted by the soap you bathe with. There could be billions or more living things that you murder on a daily basis by washing yourself. Imagine if your house was infested with roaches and fleas and you had to hire an exterminator to exterminate those lives.
Death and taking of life is simply a part of life, and we are inherent members of the food chain which perpetuates it, so it’s not productive to worry about every minuscule effect that every action has as a result.
Hey, you’re right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it’s useful for a lot more than just butter. It’s almost as if it’s a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you’re on to something.
Okay, you named six alternatives there to butter.
What are the six uses of your semi-automatic rifle that don’t involve the threat of killing people? Because I can think of two- target shooting and hunting. And neither of those require the sort of rifles or handguns used in most modern mass shootings.
Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word “sole”.
The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an “assault rifle” is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It’s good at that, and so it’s good at being customized for a lot of different uses.
The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot…some of them by double. It doesn’t mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.
If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don’t actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn’t always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don’t like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.
From the gun manufacturer’s perspective, the ‘sole purpose’ of “assault rifles” isn’t to “kill people as fast as possible”, it’s to: sell weapons and make profit. The “sole purpose” of a thing is defined by the user…and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.
I didn’t say anything about purpose. I specifically said use. As did you. So that’s all irrelevant. You named six uses for a butter knife. You have not for a gun. I wonder why?
I don’t care whether you said “purpose” or not. RTFA - “sole purpose” came from the article, and that is what I my original top level comment was challenging.
Removed by mod
I already replied to a similar comment hours before you posted this one. In summary, you are moving the goalposts of the specific comment chain I replied to, and in any case pretending these are not weapons designed to kill doesn’t strengthen your argument, it makes it look disingenuous.
If you want to argue in favor of gun rights, be as honest as the other guy. You are arguing for the right to kill people in specific situations. I’m not saying there isn’t some merit to that argument, I’m saying be honest about it, because this whole “nuh-uh they weren’t really designed to kill people” thing is dishonest and doesn’t serve your purposes.
Cutting eggs? What, you don’t have a chainsaw in the kitchen for that?
Get back to me when a butter knife hurts someone from a range more than 50 feet. We’re not talking about butter-knife-to-paint-can people; we’re talking about “shoot the lock” types.
I’m surprised the ar15 is so light. My c7 was 7lbs.
Are you telling me this hammer is built for pounding lots of nails? I only use mine for pulling nails and securing staples that have come loose.
As soon as I see the term “assault weapon” all credibility goes right out the window.
As soon as I see the pedant arguing semantics, their credibility goes right out the window.
It’s not tho. Use specific terms and u don’t look like an incompetent fool.
Dismissing someone’s argument over semantics is trivial objection that doesn’t engage in the actual argument. You understand perfectly well what the argument is, and that it’s addressing a different issue than categories of armament.
Plus, declaring your opponent an “incompetent fool” to dismiss their argument is a bonus ad hominem fallacy.
It is not semantics. People honestly don’t know what defines an assault rifle vs a semi auto. Also looking incompetent isn’t me saying that to dismiss their argument it is them simply looking like they don’t know what they’re talking about and thus their own actions make them able to be disregarded.
You really don’t understand logical fallacies or how they work it seems.
Well I will agree that one of us does not have a grasp on logical fallacies.
People do not NEED to know the textbook definition of an assault rifle to know that a weapon designed for maximum carnage should be regulated. You also don’t NEED to hear an accurate reference to a specific weapon to understand their argument. You know what they mean.
By outright dismissing them because they haven’t defined a term to your satisfaction, you are not engaging in good faith.
If you really were interested in discussion, you would respond to establish a standard definition and then, based on that definition, provide your counter argument.
What else is it? Definitely not a defense weapon lol
Semi automatic rifle? You know…what it actually …is
Well that was easy.
Would an attacher be any less credible if they murdered people with a handgun rather than a rifle ? what is the point you’re trying to make ? don’t people still die ? is the ammo type really relevant here ?
People who don’t like the term “assault rifle” think it basically means “scary-looking rifle” rather than “particularly deadly rifle”. In New York state law, for example,
Assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) a thumbhole stock; (4) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (5) a bayonet mount; (6) a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator; or (7) a grenade launcher.”
So a semiauto rifle in .223 Remington with a wooden stock is a “varmit hunting rifle”, but simply giving it a black folding stock makes it an “assault rifle”.
Honestly, things like NYS’s limits on magazine size makes more sense to me than banning telescoping stocks or a second pistol grip.
I didn’t say anything about ammo type. See this is the problem. You have no clue what you’re actually talking about here.
Don’t forget the fearsome “deadlier-than-military-weaponry, AR-15 style assault shotguns”
I spent about two minutes trying to come up with a good joke about this one, but honestly I think it speaks for itself
What’s really funny is that the 12g built off the AR frame doesn’t actually qualify for the “assault weapon” description, so said AR-15 style assault shotgun is a greenlight.
They characterize semi-automatic shotguns like they’re this brand new, evil gun lobby invention, thought up to sell to crazed lunatics who can’t get their kicks just shooting regular bullets into school children any more
Meanwhile, people have been shooting ducks with the Browning Auto-5 since literally the year 1900, and it only stopped production in 1998
But that’s made of wood and doesn’t have the shoulder thing that goes up, so it’s not scary
It’s a social issue not a gun issue. Shitty parents, shitty economics, shitty education and a shitty social structure are what makes America a higher crime nation in general and a higher gun crime nation specifically.
deleted by creator
Available guns can make it more easy, but we also sometimes see other forms, like explosives, poison, etc. I live in a country where guns are heavily restricted and that obviously helps, but it’s just the tip of t iceberg. Bullying, extremism, hate speech, stress, medical care, therapy. Those are more important IMO
Exactly, if a country is filled with rocks there will be more rock related deaths but a country that is filled with rocks but is effectively governed and educated will have fewer.
I imagine people are going to claim me to be against gun control but that isn’t true, I’m for reasonable gun control. License, register educate and own a tank for all I fuckin care, a big part of the issue is they’re less controlled than my what 3000lb Honda Civic that could run through a crowd at 100+ and do the same damage. Most people aren’t going to use their car as a weapon because it’s attached to them, the same would apply to guns.
What other country, at least Western country, has, per capita, explosives or poisonings or things like that at the level of murder as the U.S.?
Third world shitholes maybe. I’m sure it sucks to live in Syria.
Third world shitholes maybe
Ooof bud goddamn.
Sure, just not with the same access and instead other crimes are more prolific and arguably more heinous. How many cases of acid attacks happen in the us every year adjusted to population? Now how many for say India or for instance England.
Nah different. Acid attacks are most normally done towards women as a form of punishment. Not intended to kill.
Obviously violence will happen. But why are you ever arguing to make the violence easier?
If there was one item you could remove from society that truthfully they don’t need, and acid attacks wouldn’t happen. Wouldn’t you do that? Especially since acid attacks are so awful?
It’s one example, notably stabbings are higher in basically every other county by orders of magnitude.
It’s no easier to get a gun than a car, one just happens to be easily and effectively tracked back to the owner.
If we’re doing theoreticals that item would be ignorance.
we aren’t doing theoreticals? this is about guns.
so you agree then removing guns would help resolve America’s issues with gun violence
If there was one item you could remove from society that truthfully they don’t need, and acid attacks wouldn’t happen.
That sir is a theoretical, and notably not at all about gun violence as you stated it.
You are a moron. Fullstop
A knife can kill one person per minute. An AR-15 can kill dozens within that same time.
It’s a false equivalency fallacy.
Not at all true, swords are still an execution method and I can guarantee you it doesn’t take half a minute let alone a minute.
It isn’t, but hyperbole is your path to tread if it makes you happy I suppose.
You are actually proposing that one idiot with a sword can slaughter dozens of people in less than a minute. LOL
It’s time to turn off your video game and touch grass.
Is it even proportionally at the same level? Are you claiming that, adjusted to per capita, acid attacks in India are on par with mass shootings in the U.S.? And if so, are there mass acid attacks on schools at the rate of mass shootings in U.S. schools?
No I’m saying the human monster will use whatever is available. When guns are less available other crimes are more likely, and gun crime persists anyway. For India specifically they have about a third of the gun crime the US has.
Got it. Never make any laws against anything because people might not obey them.
Not at all what I said and actually that’s specifically the opposite of what I’ve suggested.
I’m for registration and licensing, I dunno maybe read a bit before you decide to douche it up for no reason.
Making Americans suffer the consequences of their sowing FUD for profit is good business.
Their children don’t get mutilated beyond recognition at school, because their children’s schools are very, very expensive.
Why don’t their children get killed? Why would an expensive school not have shootings?
There’s no need to be rhetorical. We know what schools have been targeted by mass murderers and whose children were killed.
For example, the Ulvade shooter used semi-automatic rifles that were purchased from for-profit company Daniel Defense, founded by Marty Daniel, whose children have never been mutilated beyond recognition
They can likely afford better security for one thing.
Can you name one that has?
deleted by creator
With all the guns around in US I am genuenly surprised that most of these shooters just go on random killing sprees instead of political assasinations. In japan a DYI gun was enough to kill former prime minister Shinzo Abe so would think country so divided as United states would have far more of these cases.
Guess the people on top truly are untouchable at least for most of the time.
deleted by creator
Most people like their politician. When they are polled about Congress and rate it unsatisfactory, it’s because they want all of Congress to be like their rep (or exactly their rep’s opposite, if they’re a minority voter in the area).
It’s a lot easier to assassinate your local rep than it is to shoot a senator from West Virginia or whatever, so the impulse to kill them is lower. Add in their significantly greater security and you can see how this lessons the odds of attempted assassinations.
They may like their politician but that still leaves out a lot of the congress who they may dislike and target with their radicalized outrage.
But yeah the fact that these people are protected by greater (armed) security the chance for failure is far greater.But still quite surprised how little actions or lack of have backfired on people in power.
Guess things will need to get way worse for more shit to start piling on their backyards.I don’t disagree, I was just offering my best explanation. With the way rhetoric is accelerating, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more political violence as 2024 approaches.
Also likely that it just comes in waves - bigger cycles will mean a higher chance at crazy.
Removed by mod
We license drivers and require training and insurance.
Don’t bother. Check their comment history and just move on. What hurts them most is being ignored like they are in the rest of their life.
Cool…to use the car on public roads…you can also transport them across state lines with no issue.
I can buy a car with cash, from private hands, across state lines, have it shipped directly to me, and I don’t have to insure it nor do I need a license for it…also can buy one at any age.
So trying to compare gun ownership with owning a car is naive.
But you can’t USE that car legally without a license or insurance. Stop being daft.
I mean, I absolutely can. I own track cars, no insurance on them, no license for them, not registered and I trailer them to the tracks. I can also drive them here on my property, I’ve got a old military jeep that isn’t road legal and use it driving around here all the time.
I’m not the one being ignorant of the laws.
A car’s design intent isn’t to kill. A rifle’s is
Tell that to the 40k+ people who are killed every year in the USA from basically negligent people driving (large portion of that being alcohol related). My guns have never taken anyone’s life, and the odds of them doing so is so damn small, that I’d probably win the lottery before they’re used against another human.
Tell that to the 40k+ people who are killed every year in the USA from basically negligent people driving
Drunk driving and our terrible drinking culture is an entirely different crisis altogether. I don’t understand why you’re trying to draw parallels here (no matter how weak)? Both are bad things.
My guns have never taken anyone’s life
Neither have mine but I don’t have my head so far in the sand to not understand that guns are designed to kill things.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That American liberals focus on rifles in regards to gun violence more than 1/20 as much as they do handguns or 1.75x as much as the president’s recommended shotgun, nevermind the fervor for AWBs, betray the lack of concern and understanding of the issues truly driving America’s culture of violence beyond “big ones are scarier”.
All compounded by their laws’ universal exemptions for police current and former, on-and-off-the-clock demonstrating no fear of arming the most violent among us as long as they swear fealty to minority oppression and dissident suppression in the name of maintaining capital’s status quo, sleeping sound assuming those barrels won’t turn inwards towards them. Hell, that the fight against gun violence now includes banning armor to protect oneself from it shows how important it is that we be obliged to let them indulge.
The body armor regulations are the real WTF for me. It’s just a bold faced admission that they (i.e. the police and government) don’t like the notion that maybe the police can’t just roll up and kill you whenever they want.
The other reiteration I’ll add to your point about police exemptions is (in case anyone missed the “former”) that most of these bans and gun regulations not only exempt the police, they also exempt retired policemen. So if these guys are off the force, why do they need machine guns, switchblades, big magazines, > .50 caliber, etc., etc., etc., exactly?
It’s the same reason the FAA has such stringent safety regulations for aircraft, while tens of thousands of people die in traffic accidents every year: Mass shootings are huge amounts of death and also rare, compared to crimes of passion or suicides by gun.
The problem is that to solve any of these problems will involve two things that Republicans hate: Providing social services and confiscating guns from people who shouldn’t have them. Both of those are far less likely to pass than a simple ban on a small subset of guns.
So until Republicans put up or shut up about “it’s mental health” nothing will get done.
Removed by mod
I seem to recall a whole bunch of armed people at Uvalde and it didn’t do much good.
Let’s play a game of guess the active shooter and their accomplices in a crowd of armed citizens.
Please do
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The industry’s alpha-male sales pitches promise buyers the power to “control your destiny.” According to law-enforcement records, Card had been haunted by phantom voices — including taunts that he had a “small dick.” The Ruger SFAR, with its thick barrel, is marketed without subtlety as “Bigger and Stronger Where It Needs to Be.”
Wilson Combat sells the “Urban Super Sniper.” Franklin Armory markets assault rifles in its “Militia Series.” An ad from Patriot Ordnance Factory-USA features a hooded man with an AR-15 standing in the ruins of a city, with the tagline “When corrupt politics fail, our guns won’t.”
But it doesn’t take many people to execute a military mission, to shatter families and communities, and create national panic and anxiety.” In the case of Card, Koskoff adds, “He’s one person, one weapon — and the entire state of Maine was frozen.”
(The AR prefix stands for “Armalite Rifle.”) The Pentagon sought an infantry weapon that was light, lethal, and versatile — that could match the “killing power” of the bulky, World War II-era M1 in close combat, but still be capable of “penetrating a steel helmet or standard body armor at 500 yards.”
But in a quest to make the rifle lighter and more maneuverable, it developed the AR-15, with smaller rounds — fired at extraordinary velocity to create “maximum wound effect.” Though marketed today with a cachet of manhood, the military prized the AR platform because its feather weight and minimal recoil were well-suited for the “small stature of the Vietnamese” allies whose “average soldier,” one document stated, “stands five feet tall and weighs 90 pounds.”
The department then sent regional law-enforcement agencies a warning that Card “made threats to shoot up the National Guard armory in Saco” and was “committed over the summer … due to his altered mental health state.” It advised that he should be approached with “extreme caution.”
The original article contains 4,150 words, the summary contains 314 words. Saved 92%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
Let me start by saying I may be more liberal but I grew up in WV so I’ve been around guns all my life. I like shooting them, but not necessarily hunting because I can buy all the food I need. But I could do it in a heartbeat if I was hungry.
To me the best way to address stuff like this is to educate people. I’m sure you know but not everyone does is that the AR is AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle. Most people just assume the AR means assault rifle or automatic rifle. Now the AR-15 does use the 7.62×51mm NATO round which was and still is primarily used for war, i.e. killing things. This round is verify similar to a .308 Winchester, and its slight longer cousin, the .30-06, or as any deer hunter would call it a 30 ought 6. Now I guarantee you’d never hear of a .30-06 being described as an assault rifle. But guess what, the .30-06 was designed specifically as a military round.
So as my debate couch told me in high school, it all comes back to definitions. How do you define assault rifle? And I ain’t touching that one 😀
Removed by mod
But most civilians can’t get full auto in the first place. And having fired full auto on several occasions they are damn near useless anyway. It’s a waste of ammo because they absolutely suck at being accurate because of the recoil and muzzle jump. Burst fire is a different story.
Now was the full auto fun? Hell yes it was.
Removed by mod
It’s simple, gun companies in America want to be as rich as they can be. If they have to do things like take time to evaluate who should be allowed to buy weapons or how long it should take before an individual receives them, they make less money than they would have. So instead, they make sure the time from wanting a gun and getting a gun is as little as possible.
The claim is further that going through someone’s mental history, or being disclosed details of treatment would be violative of HIPPA laws. I say, when you’re about to give someone a weapon that is basically designed for nothing else but killing humans, maybe you look into past treatment if someone saw a doctor because he was having dreams of killing every school child. Ask the question of the health professional first, and if it meets the criteria when you get more details.
guncompaniesin Americawant to be as rich as they can beThat’s the cause of most problems in this world
That’s what is even taught in business school in germany at least. First goal of every company is maximizing profits and to attach your whole thinking around it.
I don’t offer pole-lease a lot of operating room emotionally in the US.
But I do think that pole-leasing in the US must feel different to lots of other places.
Just so many freaking guns with all types of people. And it makes even a traffic stop just as dangerous as going to a domestic dispute or an armed robbery. Fucking guns.
That is not at all true. Being a cop in the US rarely crosses the line into the top ten most dangerous professions. The top ten most dangerous professions include being a fisherman, being a garbage colllector, being a professional driver, things like that. And just for some more fun, the danger levels of these jobs are radically skewed.
Here’s a report on job related fatalities in the US. I’m not sure why fishermen aren’t included in this particular one as they normally top these lists, but it says they selected from about 250 professions so they might have just been excluded.
In any case, the list starts with loggers at over 100 per 100k and airline pilots at over 50 per 100k. Scroll down past farmers, delivery drivers, construction workers, landscapers, and mechanics, and eventually you’ll find police at position 22, with 14 per 100k. These numbers remain pretty constant year to year, with the exception of Covid related fatalities.
The problem is that there is a specific school of training for police that amps up their perception of danger far above what reality actually shows. They escalate encounters which increases both the chance of themselves bringing injured and very much the chance that the person they encounter will be injured or killed.
It doesn’t matter that being a cop is less dangerous than other jobs, it matters that being a cop is more dangerous than in other countries.
Considering guns didn’t protect either Breonna Taylor or Philando Castile and not a single cop was killed in either incident, is it really more dangerous to be a cop in America?
