The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday.
Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines.
“This bill would stop the sale of weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Helmer said.
This will only embolden the feral hogs.
Usually we just call them ‘Republicans’ or ‘2a nuts’.
deleted by creator
Might be insulting to the feral hogs though
We don’t need guns to deal with wild hogs. Asterix and Obelix do just fine with biceps.
deleted by creator
Uh-oh, I know what the next Cody Showdy is going to be about…
I wonder what database is in place that would allow them to determine what weapons were made after that date. It seems there would be a lot room for getting around that aside from just buying used.
When a firearm is manufactured by a licensed individual or company, it is logged into a book or database. When a firearms retailer receives a firearm, they log it into a book or database. When that firearm is sold, it is logged into a book or database. That is federal law.
Some manufacturers include the date of manufacture with paperwork, but that may only be month and year.
To my knowledge, there is no way for an FFL(licensed firearm retailer) to know a precise date of manufacture without inquiring with the manufacturer if it is not provided with the documents that are supplied.
The law is poorly written, so the real-world effect would be no new sales of specified firearms after the effective date. How restricting the sale of new firearms and not all firearms of the type that they want to restrict does anything is outside of my understanding.
Maybe it’s not so poorly written. The ambiguity could be a feature.
If the manufacturer date can’t be proven, you shouldn’t be able to sell the gun. So maybe more guns get prohibited in practice that would otherwise be allowed.
And it forces folks to keep more detailed records going forward.
You’ll be happy to know that as long as you don’t sell it, it’s completly legal to manufacture your own firearms without serialization
Depends on your state.
It is effective. Machine guns had a similar law placed on them in 1968, now buying one is at least 10k, making it virtually unheard of to be used in crimes, as well as limiting the total number in existence, as some machine guns break beyond repair over time.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 created a registry for fully automatic firearms. The registry was closed to civilian individuals by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, meaning all lawful machine guns had to be registered by May 1986 and any machine guns manufactured after that date could only owned by special excemption. The law in question has no registration requirement, unlike Illinois recent assault weapon registry and sales ban.
Registered machine guns have only been used in crimes 4 times since 1934 and two of those were unlawful police use during the commission of a crime and one was military with his service rifle. There are over 638,000 civilian registered machine gun in the US.
Unlawful machine guns are used in crimes more often in recent years. The recent prevalence of “Glock switches”, which illegally convert a Glock handgun into a machine gun, has increased machine guns being used in shootings. There are other means to convert various firearms to fire fully automatic, some as simple as a bent coathanger or 3D printed parts. The exact number of illegal or converted machines guns being used or recovered is not well documented, but detection of events of automatic fire in cities with acoustic shot detection increased from around 400 in 2019 to 5,600 in 2021. The ATF recovered more than 1,500 conversion devices in 2021. That trend has increased.
The law does not stop criminals and it does not address gun deaths in any meaningful way. Mental healthcare reform and improving socioeconomic circumstances would reduce gun deaths by up to 2/3 by reducing suicides using a firearm. Using a magic wand to remove semi-automatic rifles would reduce gun deaths by <2%, because that is how often they are used to kill. Under 9,000 people are murdered with a firearm every year, ~43,000 die in car accidents(~14k alcohol involved), ~80-100,000 from overdoses, and 480,000 die from smoking related illness.
Out of curiosity, what source do you use for gun violence data? The Gun Violence Archive puts the number of non-suicide gun deaths at almost 19,000 in 2023. I’m sure there are other groups running their own estimates though, and I’m curious how the methodology and results differ.
How restricting the sale of new firearms and not all firearms of the type that they want to restrict does anything is outside of my understanding.
Love this phrase. I may start using it regularly. Like, in response to other things as well… It’s so… Good. Thank you.
Registeries have been ruled unconstitutional. So thats their shitty workaround.
What are the odds a court deems this unconstitutional?
that question depends on when glenn youngkin is up for re-election
I’d argue that you could ban anything that you don’t have to manually pack gunpowder into.
That’s what was available when the constitution was penned.
You don’t even need to ban the guns. Just ban bullets.
That’s a bad precedent to set. There are certainly reasons why this can be upheld, but saying that anything new is by default banned unless explicitly allowed is the opposite of what it states in the constitution.
That would allow for decisions like the freedom of speech doesn’t exist on the internet because the internet didn’t exist when the constitution was penned.
A potential loophole: many rifle owners save money by pressing their own cartridges. The tools required are a bit pricey but not out of reach for the average person. You’d have to use some careful wording to ban home made bullets but not muzzleloaders.
That’s a word they’d use but the actual reasons would not be mentioned as mentioning them would be damaging to the collective American psyche.
Only if the court is part of a well regulated militia
Hand guns are where the actual violence is. This is theater.
The problem that I have is, “what is an assault style weapon?” because a ruger 10/22 looks like
, but if you put a scope on it and get the black version, it looks like 
. If you put a pistol grip on it and a larger magazine, it looks like 
, but it’s all the same gun. It does the same things. The shape of the magazine does not affect the gun in any way aside from more ammo. But you don’t have to get a banana clip to do that.To me, if the magazine is bigger than 5, and you can just hold the trigger, it should be illegal. Five rounds with five finger presses is all somone should ever need for hunting.
I don’t know shit about guns nor do I care for them, but that is just my general feeling. It’s the mag size and the speed it can be discharged at that matters.
and you can just hold the trigger, it should be illegal
Good news, full auto and burst fire have been illegal for decades.
Bump stocks, which would bounce the trigger back against your finger causing it to fire effectively like a full auto despite being semi, were banned by trump of all people.
Good news, full auto and burst fire have been illegal for decades.
The pro-gun community does not support this ban
Bump stocks, which would bounce the trigger back against your finger causing it to fire effectively like a full auto despite being semi, were banned by trump of all people.
The pro-gun community fought this for years, despite claiming they were “just a range toy” even after their role in the deadliest mass shooting America had ever seen.
So let’s not pretend the pro-gun community are reasonable people making reasonable concessions.
So let’s not pretend the pro-gun community are reasonable people making reasonable concessions.
I wasn’t doing that. The guy I replied to wanted one specific thing to be illegal, I explained to him that it’s already illegal. Whatever else you’re reading into my post isn’t there
The push back against full auto and bump stocks is particularly interesting because there are two advantages to full auto:
1: Haha that was fun for two seconds
2: There’s a crowd of people I want to shoot into and accuracy doesn’t matter.
From a cold blooded logical perspective full auto on small arms is mostly useless for hunting, self defense, and military needs alike. If you want to argue for burst fire, fair enough, but there’s just no need for full auto or imitations.
I think that realistically the push back is because the full auto ban undermines a lot of their rhetoric.
After high profile mass shootings such as the Saint Valentines Day Massacre – which includes the kind of photo you’ll never see on a Wikipedia page about Sandy Hook or Ulvade – killed 7 people, fully automatic weapons were deemed an unacceptable public risk without stricter regulations.
Like you say, they have functionally zero redeeming qualities and are far more useful to criminals than to “responsible gun owners”. The laws have stood for a long time, the sky hasn’t fallen and full auto weapons aren’t turning up in mass shootings or organised crime. The regulations worked and they weren’t even an outright ban.
But now people are asking why we can’t do the same thing, for the same reasons, with semi-automatic weapons and the pro-gun community desperately doesn’t want that for various self-aggrandizing, baseless reasons.
They know that “some weapons should be more tightly regulated because of the risk they pose to the public but not these ones” is a much weaker position than “no weapons should ever been regulated”, so they opt for the latter.
If they actually succeeded, we would absolutely see those weapons used to create higher levels of violence, but the pro-gun community is fine with sacrificing more innocent lives for their hobby, especially if they get 2 seconds of fun at the range.
It was actually never determined if he used bump stocks or not. Some of his rifles had them but not all and the consistency and firing rate isn’t typical of bump firing. There is a very real possibility that he just had illegally modified machine guns. During the course of the investigation the ATF was specifically prohibited from inspecting his weapons to determine if any modifications were made and the official report never actually stated one way or another if he did in fact use the bump stocks.
The pro-gun community opposes this because the intent of 2A was always to protect the ownership of militarily-useful arms.
The gov’t already has the right to raise and provide arms for an army, as part of article 1 of the constitution; claiming that 2A protects the gov’t’s right to arm itself, when it was already granted that right earlier in the constitution, is laughable. Militias were groups of armed citizens, separate from the army, and they were often expected–and legally obligated in some cases–to provide their own arms in serviceable condition, and to train themselves in their use.
The way to effectively curtail violence without curtailing rights is to change the circumstances that lead to violence. Yes, you can cut out lung cancer, and even possibly do a lung transplant, but it’s far, far easier to prevent lung cancer by not smoking than it is to cure it after you’ve been smoking for 50 years. Same with violence; look at the factors that lead people to pick up and use a gun illegally, then work to prevent those, and you’ll have a greater net effect.
The pro-gun community opposes this because the intent of 2A was always to protect the ownership of militarily-useful arms.
Isn’t it cool how the intent of the amendment happens to align exactly with what the pro-gun community wants, which in turn aligns exactly with what is most profitable to the gun lobby?
It’s a good thing it does too, otherwise you’d have to say things like “I want to play with a full auto and I think the consequences will happen to people I don’t care about”.
Militias were groups of armed citizens, separate from the army, and they were often expected–and legally obligated in some cases–to provide their own arms in serviceable condition, and to train themselves in their use.
So do the gun laws in America mandate that a gun is kept in serviceable condition and it’s owner is trained in how to use it? Or have we shrugged off “intent” before the second paragraph?
The way to effectively curtail violence without curtailing rights is to change the circumstances that lead to violence
And while you spend the next 100 years doing that, the best way to minimize the amount of violence those people can inflict is to not sell them semi-automatic weapons after token checks that routinely fail.
I hate to break it to you, but gun control isn’t about stopping all violence forever and never has been. It’s about turning a murder into a black eye.
The fact that you slipped so effortlessly into that straw man makes it clear that you let pro-gun groups tell you what gun control is and then never thought critically about it.
So do the gun laws in America mandate that a gun is kept in serviceable condition and it’s owner is trained in how to use it? Or have we shrugged off “intent” before the second paragraph?
I would fully support laws that required people to train in the arms that they choose to own, and provided the ammunition and expertise as part of income taxes that everyone is supposed to pay. I think that would be great. Heck, let’s bring back marksmanship to schools; there used to be rifle teams in high schools, and I think that we should bring that back along with archery. We are a country that’s heavily armed, but often sorely lacking in the skill to use those arms, and we should fix that to bring the people more in-line with the intent of the 2A.
Yes, ownership is a right, but that right also carries responsibilities. Guns aren’t magic talismans that protect you simply by having one.
The fact that you slipped so effortlessly into that straw man
This isn’t a straw man; I’m steel manning your argument. Your best claim is that you would give that right back once all violence had been eliminated. But that’s an impossibility; even countries that have exceptionally low murder rates, with or without firearms, continually attempt to exert greater control over ownership of the tools of violence whatever those tools are. I’m acquainted with people that live in Finland, a country that has a murder rate that would be the envy of any politician in the US, but each murder committed with a firearm–legally owned or not–sees calls for more and more restrictions on the ownership of arms. What is a murder rate that you would consider to be acceptable such that you wouldn’t attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms of any kind by individuals?
Wasn’t the bump stock ban overturned by SCROTUS?
If so i didn’t hear about it and can’t find it on Google.
It looks like it’s on the docket, so expect it to get overturned 6-3, especially since their friends in the 5th circuit already gave them their argument
Under federal law, a machinegun is a gun that shoots multiple bullets “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger,” or any accessory that allows a gun to do so. This definition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled, clearly does not apply to bump stocks, which harness a rifle’s recoil to rapidly depress the trigger without the shooter having to pull and release his trigger finger. But even if the definition were not clear, the 5th Circuit continued, bump stocks should be excluded from the definition of “machinegun” under the rule of lenity, a doctrine that instructs courts to apply ambiguous criminal laws in the way that is most favorable to defendants.
That is some insane non-sequitur logic.
and you can just hold the trigger
you ABSOLUTELY cannot, that’s been the case for a very long time now.
5 rounds …is all someone should ever need for hunting so if you’re hunting or just for whatever reason in an area with bears or the like, 5 rounds is all you need? The bear gonna give you time to swap mags?
there are plenty of other things like that, it’s not simply just a ‘here’s what you need to kill a deer and that’s all you get’
I’m not a hunter, I don’t kill or even eat animals; the motivation behind owning firearms doesn’t begin or end with hunting.
It’s the mag size and the speed it can be discharged at that matters.
Nobody is out there with full auto. period.
Five rounds with five finger presses is all somone should ever need for hunting.
Looks like they may have edited it, they also hate normal ol’ semi. Can’t please the Anti-Self Defense people.
That’s a fair thought. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings on it.
For what it’s worth, automatic (holding the trigger) weapons are not available to American civilians without a class 3 permit. This permit is expensive and requires (I think) annual reapplication. I have never met anyone with this permit.
As for magazine size, I like to have a higher capacity for more fun at the range. One person I know got a 50 round drum magazine for their handgun. If you saw it, it would look silly and the thing would not be easily concealed. It’d be like carrying around a full Nintendo 64.
For my own opinion on the matter I think we need to focus on proper storage. No need for a teenager to have unrestricted access to guns. If we stopped that, there wouldn’t have been a columbine shooting. Most if not all gun accidents are from mishandling, any time a person underage has one, it’s due to improper storage (not locked up). I guess what I’m saying is the responsibility falls on the gun owner to ensure their items are secure and handled properly and with respect.
I have never met anyone with this permit.
That’s because it doesn’t exist. There are licensing requirements for manufacturers and dealers of NFA items, but as long as you’re legally allowed to own them in your state, you don’t need a permit to buy a registered and transferrable machine gun.
What you need is $10k at a minimum and time to wait for the ATF to approve your Form 4 transfer application.
As for magazine size, I like to have a higher capacity for more fun at the range.
Many countries that the pro-gun community insists have “banned guns” will let you go to a range, unlicensed, and fire basically anything the range offers.
Meanwhile in America, scoping gun laws to reasonable use is staunchly opposed. We’re supposed to accept that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity accessories are going to be sold to domestic terrorists and idiots, so people can “have fun at the range”.
Not only is that deeply fucked in the head, it’s not even necessary.
I have never met anyone with this permit.
What a strange coincidence, I’ve never heard of these weapons being used in a mass shooting or gang crime, despite the pro-gun community insisting that regulations don’t work.
Not necessary is not a good reason to not have something. Cars don’t need to go 100mph, clothes don’t need to have colors, Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food. You’re doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists. Not everyone who owns guns is a murderer, just like not every person crossing the border is a terrorist.
Cars don’t need to go 100mph
Cars are subjected to licensing and safety regulations that are being constantly changed. Heavy vehicles will soon include mandatory ECU speed limiters to address exactly this. As far as I’m aware, drivers haven’t been parading around making flowery death threats over it.
Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food.
The FTC has had principles for marketing junk food to children for almost a decade and harmful additives are routinely banned. As far as I’m aware, children haven’t been parading around making flowery death threats over it.
You’re doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists
Which is why legal immigration processes scrutinize character and intent and can be revoked at any time.
All your “but other things are dangerous” list does is demonstrate that gun laws aren’t held to the standard as any every other public risk.
We’re supposed to accept that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity accessories are going to be sold to domestic terrorists and idiots, so people can “have fun at the range”.
could you be anymore reductive with this statement?
Not only is that deeply fucked in the head, it’s not even necessary.
yes, smack down that strawman argument you just propped up!!
I know you want to clean up after him and pretend there’s some noble use for high capacity, semi-automatic weapons but it’s literally the reason he gave for owning them.
Gonna need at least 15 rounds for a self-defense oriented pistol, and 30 for a home defense rifle.
This is the classic problem with democracy “I don’t know anything about this topic but I definitely have opinions anyway.” And look, I get it, and I don’t have a solution to this democratic problem. There’s no good test for reasonable expertise so we can’t be excluding people from having opinions in areas based on knowledge. Furthermore, if you feel strongly that an issue affects you, how well educated do you really need to be before your opinion becomes valid?
Gonna need at least 15 rounds for a self-defense oriented pistol, and 30 for a home defense rifle.
Yea, I don’t buy it. I’m saying I don’t know much about guns because I don’t want any in my house, but given what people “claim” they need guns for (hunting / defense) 5 bullets should be plenty.
WTF do you need 30 rounds for? Are you fighting an army? My guess is that any burglar is running away after the first shot, you’re not going to be in an action movie 30 minute shoot out.
This is the problem with 2a people, they have these fantasies of what is “needed” that’s completely detached from reality and just serves to provide guns to maniacs that can go on shooting rampages.
Self-defense pistols require higher mag capacity for 2 reasons.
One reason is because the goal of shooting an attacker isn’t to kill him from blood loss in 40 minutes. It’s to stop him from killing you in 5 seconds, meaning it generally requires multiple hits to physically stop them.
And the bigger reason is because precise shooting under stress is really, really difficult. In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots. You carry 12-15 rounds in the mag not so you can shoot someone 12 times - you do it so you have 12 chances to hit.
It’s also one of the reasons you don’t hear about people with concealed firearms taking out mass shooters very often. Anyone with a lick of training knows they’re going to miss most of their shots and that they’re more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.
If the goal is to stop someone in 5 seconds, why would you need more rounds for the higher caliber rifle? Seems like 5 rifle rounds and 12-15 pistol rounds would be enough stopping power.
But if your argument is more chances to hit, well then you’re just advocating for more rounds going somewhere other than there target, and 30 (high caliber rifle) rounds is certainly too much to fire out your walls willy nilly.
Seems like 5 rifle rounds and 12-15 pistol rounds would be enough stopping power.
it’s like you only read half of the comment and raced to post this reply…
the comment you replied to said:
the bigger reason is because precise shooting under stress is really, really difficult.
the reason why you need more than 5 rifle rounds, IS NOT about stopping power. It’s about giving you more than enough chances to land hits (if such a thing is absolutely necessary, the #1 goal of any sane gun owner is to avoid a firefight at ALL FUCKING COSTS).
Precise shooting in a stressful environment is really fucking hard, your heart is hammering your hands are shaking, you realize this could be the end. All of these factors heavily affect shooting ability in the moment.
But if your argument is more chances to hit, well then you’re just advocating for more rounds going somewhere other than there target, and 30 (high caliber rifle) rounds is certainly too much to fire out your walls willy nilly.
you are making a lot of assumptions here, like assuming it’s home defense shooting 556 or the like. What happens when you’re out in the wilderness and end up in a face off with a bear or a cougar? There are so many complex settings and situations and here you are framing the conversation as if this only applies to defending your bedroom or hallway.
For home defense, many many people take this into account and avoid calibers with high penetration power. Not every home defenser has 5.56 or .300blk. Plenty of “assault weapons” that shoot pistol calibers
In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots.
Then the same is true for the person attacking you.
Anyone with a lick of training knows they’re going to miss most of their shots and that they’re more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.
The pro-gun community insists that even “a lick of training” should be entirely optional.
There are multiple reasons you need a small handful of bullets for self defense:
-
You don’t want to have to count rounds during the most stressful situation in your life. You should be focused on other tasks besides worrying about round count and reloading.
-
Bullets are the fastest and most reliable way to disable someone, yes, but they’re not instant like in the movies. Unless you get a head shot (usually not advised) or hit their spine (a bit of luck) they don’t have to stop fighting for a decent amount of time. You need multiple hits until they give up or are forced to.
-
You use up bullets way faster than you think. Your scenario where a 30 round magazine is appropriate (to you) would average one shot per minute. A typical self defense shooting is averaging multiple shots per second.
-
Smart home invaders bring buddies.
-
If they knew you only had five shots, couldn’t they just count your shots and then come after you?
-
Do you really want to have to deal with a potentially deadly encounter with “enough” preparation, or would you like to have way more than enough?
-
Going by the pro-gun communities own statistics, it takes 75 million gun owners to see 100,000 “defensive gun uses” that can be independently verified.
So it looks like for 99.9% of gun owners, they needed exactly 0 rounds.
Thankfully. However I bet those 100k were glad they had a few.
Do you think this logic should be used for statutory rape laws? Should we let the experts in having sex with children write them because surely nobody else could get it right?
We can all clearly see the problems and we can all clearly see the “experts” doing absolutely nothing to solve them.
It’s a person on social media making a comment. It’s not even actual legislation.
But anyway, just to let us know your qualifications, how many people have you killed in self defense and how many bullets did it take?
Do you think this logic should be used for statutory rape laws? Should we let the experts in having sex with children write them because surely nobody else could get it right?]
what an absurd false equivolency. The person you are replying to is saying that we shouldn’t be forcing through bad laws written by lawmakers who don’t understand the specifics of the thing they are crafting law for, and your response is to say that we shouldn’t use pedos to write child sex laws?
We should just pass laws on feelings and not specifics?
It’s a person on social media making a comment. It’s not even actual legislation.
This is absolutely about actual legislation
No problem, we can ban those too.
It’s both.
deleted by creator
Pro-gun isn’t just a conservative/republican thing.
I was kind of hoping the rampant gun nuttery of Reddit would be one of the things that didn’t migrate over here. But, no such luck. So long, Lemmy. It’s been real.
weapons similar to those I and many of the other veterans carried in Iraq and Afghanistan
And so what? Americans have always had equivalent, or better, rifles than the military. (I know nothing about the presenter, been told he’s rightwing, but there are no political opinions presented.)
So why is weapon choice suddenly a problem? We had AR-15s when I was a child in the 70s. If you would like a weapon that passes this ban, let me introduce the Ruger Mini-14.
FFS, we have a social problem, not a gun problem.
Liberals: “We want gun bans! Lotsa bans!”
Uh, that backfired over alcohol, drugs and abortion…
Liberals: “STFU! BANS!”
Our society is sick, and dems are fighting a losing battle and losing votes. FFS, these idiots could win every election if they would drop these ineffectual bans and get on board with helping us.
Liberals: Ok, let’s fund mental healthcare or a social safety net to solve that social problem.
The same people complaining about this law: REE!! Communism, socialism, trans pedophiles in bathrooms…
Don’t give me that shit.
I lived in Chicago for over a decade. Chicago has been a Democratic supermajority city, in a Democratic supermajority state for something like 100 years. Under Democratic mayors and aldermen, community mental health and resources were slashed. (I know this because my therapist had been community mental health working with people that were chronically homeless until his position was eliminated by budget cuts.) To social safety nets have been consistently cut, while cops get more and more funding. Public housing? Good fucking luck, there was a 15 year wait when I was living there. The city is still deeply racially divided from the 1960s or so, when redlining was legally eliminated (but lemme tell you, legally ended or not, it’s still very, very real).
If Dems really wanted these things in fact, and not in theory, they could have them in Illinois, in New York, in Massachusetts, in New Jersey, in California, in Hawai’i. But they don’t. Instead they want gun ban band-aids that fix none of the problems that cause the violence in the first place.
Well it sure as fuck isn’t conservatives trying to fund those things. There’s a reason I said liberals and not elected Democrats but I guess basic reading comprehension wasn’t a priority for your screed. So take that self righteous indignation and shove it up your ass.
Liberals are Dems in the US. But keep insisting that they aren’t, and see how far that gets you. Progressive and DemSoc candidates sure aren’t getting any traction, because it turns out that the people that tend to support that simply don’t vote in significant enough numbers to make a difference.
deleted by creator
Most Americans, myself included, don’t like giving up personal rights for “security.”
To draw a parallel that I figure you’ll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don’t think the “solution” to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say “well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It’s that easy!”
The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn’t that free speech exists, it’s unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn’t happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.
Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they’ve changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would’ve been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.
Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This “solution” does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying “Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It’s that simple!”
You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"
Me: I’d rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn’t breed people that murder children because they’re so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.
But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they’ll instead say that AR15s are what’s murdering babies and if you don’t support banning them, then you’re pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.
Most Americans, myself included, don’t like giving up personal rights for “security.”
Disregarding that “most” is probably incorrect and the long history of pro-gun candidates stripping rights from people, who cares what you “don’t like”? The south didn’t like giving up slaves. Hungry people don’t like rationing. We’re under no obligation to politely tolerate immoral, harmful things because you don’t like them.
Those are also some extremely dubious use quotation marks around security.
It’s inarguable that for most people, gun laws that actually work are vastly safer than selling guns to anyone who can fill out a form. Every single person who has ever been killed by a “responsible gun owner” (or a firearm that a “responsible gun owner” failed to secure) would have had better odds under gun control.
But the pro-gun community doesn’t care because “fuck you, I got mine”. Their security comes at everyone else’s expense – sometimes even at the expense of their own family.
To draw a parallel that I figure you’ll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it.
Way more irrelevant that you realize. You’re not actually advocating “we should do something about extremism and mental health” like you think, you’re advocating "we should do something about extremism and mental health while continuing to maximise the violence they’re able to cause with easily accessible firearms.
Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying “Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It’s that simple!”
Oh you mean the things we’re already able to do because there isn’t a self-absorbed death cult preventing it?
When car and truck attacks started happening, areas with a high number of pedestrians had vehicle blocking installed. The attacks never killed remotely close to as many people as semi-automatic weapons did but waned anyway.
Bomb attacks just aren’t happening, despite the pro-gun crowd constantly claiming they will the moment they stop selling guns to people with a history of abuse.
The reality is that building bombs requires far more time, effort and risk for usually underwhelming results. The Boston Marathon bombing killed three people. Sure, Timothy McVeigh still holds the scumbag high score, but where are the copycats? Probably in jail, since buying enough explosives to fill a truck gets you a visit from their feds.
Then of course the token “but knives!”, which only works if you don’t actually think about it. Terrorists aren’t choosing knives, even in the rare cases where a gun isn’t an option.
A moderately strong door can stop a knife attack. It’s much safer for a coo or armed guard to engage someone with a knife. Stab wounds are more survivable than gunshot wounds. Stabbing multiple people takes far longer and is more physically demanding, especially as they take wounds by being in arms reach.
Can we acknowledge just how low a bar the gun laws set when “someone stabbing as many school children as they can before they’re subdued or killed” would be a measurable improvement?
But I’ll tell you what: If you give gun control the same 20 years we’ve politely given your dogshit solution, every time a school is attacked you can come to us and demand solutions.
And I promise we’ll do better than blaming video games and gay people, taking millions of dollars of donations from knife manufacturers and staunchly opposing any revisions to the law for the rest of time.
and the long history of pro-gun candidates stripping rights from people,
So, what you’re saying here is that people are having to make choices about which rights they want. That’s not a very strong argument, IMO. I don’t like Republicans trying to strip rights from LGBTQ+ people, or trying to cram religion down my throat. I don’t like Dems trying to take my guns. Civil rights are civil rights, end of story.
Bomb attacks just aren’t happening
Patently false. Theodore Kaczinski is perhaps the most famous one, but there was also the Weathermen, the Boston Marathon, at least one attempt on the World Trade Center, the McVeigh/Nichols bombing in Oklahoma City, the Columbine murderers had improvised bombs that failed to explode, women’s health centers, historically black churches… The list goes on, and on, and on. Bombs have been used in many, many cases, and in some of the worst mass casualty events in US history. (The Oklahoma City Bombing killed 168 people; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed less than half of that.)
So, what you’re saying here is that people are having to make choices about which rights they want.
If that’s supposed to be my view, then I guess yours is “rights are granted by slavers and rapists 300 years ago and may never be changed for any reason, even as public attitudes switch”.
Patently false. Theodore Kaczinski is perhaps the most famous one, but there was also the Weathermen, the Boston Marathon, at least one attempt on the World Trade Center, the McVeigh/Nichols bombing in Oklahoma City
Sure, we can play the list game if you want. You name a bombing, I’ll name a shooting and we’ll see who runs out first. If you want to play hard mode, we can limit it to the last 10 years.
Columbine murderers had improvised bombs that failed to explode
So in in other words, the only reason anybody died at Columbine was because they had guns.
The killed 168 people; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting killed less than half of that
Sure, we can play the numbers game too. We can start at Oklahoma and count up “bombs vs guns” since. Honestly though, do we even need to? By your own admission, a single “responsible gun owner” got half way to a literal truck full of explosives that demolished a building.
deleted by creator
It’s just the pro-gun crowd. They can’t shoot people over the internet, so they brigade, downvote and drown out.
deleted by creator
Gun violence: a co-location of guns and violence.
We can get rid of the violence without getting rid of the guns. (Guns have different effects on violence depending on how you ask the question, by the way.)
Anyway, policies I support that would reduce gun violence that have nothing to do with guns:
*Medicare for all
*Walkable towns of all sizes
*Ban right to work
*Increase in convenient public hang out spaces
*After school group therapy
*$20 minimum wage
*Ban single family housing zoning
*Ban single use residential zoning
*Night sky safe lighting
*Sugar tax
*End corn subsidies
*Mixed agriculture subsidies
*The world’s fastest bullet train network
*Ban gas and oil (with change-over subsidies)
*Require biodegradable packaging
*Prosecute wage theft
*Narrow police responsibilities and hand off functions to other groups (E.G. social workers and traffic-specific ticketters)
*Ban bail
*Ban shit tons of stuff surrounding probation/parole
*Ban charging inmates or their families for anything
*Ban civil asset forfeiture
*Rehabilitative prison
*Provide school lunch
*Free college
*House the homeless
*Fund public defenders at the same rate as prosecutors
*Tighter noise pollution laws
*Probably other stuff
The Mini-14 is not a good rifle. Accuracy and reliability are both very poor compared to a bone-stock AR-15; typically you’re looking at about 4-5MOA on a Mini-15. Many of the parts are MIM, are are more likely to fail or be out of tolerance than forged and milled parts.
As far as saying that American citizens have access to better arms than the US military… No. Yes, a civilians AR-15 can be better than what the military buys, and civilians usually take better care of their firearms, and don’t beat them to shit. But TBH, the AR-15 is one of the best all-purpose mid-sized cartridge rifles out there. Other rifles may be better in some ways, but an AR-15 has very, very good balance between cost, reliability, durability, accuracy, power, range, and weight. Sure, my AR-10 in 6.5 Creedmoor has more power, much better range, and is sub-MOA, buuuuuut ammunition weighs 2x as much and costs 4x as much, my rifle is 1.5x heavier, is 12" longer than a standard M4, and barrel life is about 1500-2000 rounds before it’s worn out. (Also, typical infantry firefight ranges are <300y, and often much close than that in urban environments; a long range rifle isn’t helpful there.) As far as hunting goes, 5.56x45mm in heavier weight bullets is quite adequate for varmint and mid-sized game at typical hunting ranges.
As far as armaments beyond rifles, American civilians don’t have legal access to most of the things that win conventional wars. I can’t buy modern artillery shells, or guided missiles. Small arms alone aren’t going to win a conventional full-scale battle. OTOH, small arms and IEDs can make occupation impossibly expensive for an invader.
That said - yeah, Lucas Botkin is a far-right christian nationalist homo/transphobic shitbag. T-Rex Arms make great holsters, which sucks, since I’m not ever going to send any money to them for any reason. You have to take a lot of his shooting advice with a handful of salt, because he’s not personally that good of a shooter. If you want good advice about how to shoot well, look specifically at people that compete; if a person is telling you how to shoot, but isn’t willing to test their own skills on the clock and against other people, odds are that they’re full of shit.
And yea - all of the violence is a social issue, and we should be trying to fix those, not banning shit. And by social issue, I don’t mean some kind of personal responsibility nonsense, or this garbage idea that we need more harsh deterrents and prisons, more cops, etc.; I mean that we need to stop treating people like they’re trash.
And so what? Americans have always had equivalent, or better, rifles than the military.
hahahaha
This is a fact. The military just gets better toys than rifles alone.
FFS, we have a social problem, not a gun problem.
Then when you’re all done fixing those social problems, you can have your guns back.
If you don’t like idea, jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s.
with that attitude, let’s do the same for automotives. Back to horse and buggy everyone, too many drunk and crazy aggressive drivers, too many needless deaths. Guess we should just ban em all!
Oh you mean the things we are constantly adjusting legislation for to reduce the risk to the public?
Fortunately, the alcohol lobby isn’t donating millions of dollars to Republicans to make sure DUI laws never happen.
Cool, now lets do speech, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, right to remain silent, drinking, and voting. Until every single person out of 350M people in the US can use those rights in a way that is deemed socially acceptable, they should be completely eliminated.
We have deemed the way they use those rights to be socially acceptable.
It’s theater. They want to seem as if they’re doing something about the problem, so they pass laws that sure do seem like they’re relevant if you pay zero attention, in the hope the public is appeased. How appeased the public actually is, I have no idea.
Yeah they’re plenty appeased. They see the constant mass shootings in America and say “thank fuck we don’t live there”. When their laws do fail, they’re scrutinized by the public and the press. They demand to know how it happened and what is being done to stop it happening again. They demand accountability for anyone who dropped the ball.
It’s measurably more effective than starting a gun worshiping cult and threatening children who survived school shootings.
If we’re talking theatre though, remind us again now many tyrants America has overthrown? How is the crime rate going? How are rights going for women and minorities under the most pro-gun candidates?
What about the correct thinking foreigners who like to watch the incidents and aftermath of those weapons being used? Don’t they get a say?
Can you describe correct thinking, and also which foreigners you’re referring to?
Thinking that there is correct thinking is incorrect
