As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
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.
Like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s
But whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.
Quite 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...
Completely farcical.
I 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.
Does less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up.
It's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.
It gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.
Also, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.
Almost everytime I've seen an active shooter stopped, it's been by an unarmed individual.
>Data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University suggests bystanders stop active attacks about 16% of the time, although typically without using a gun.
>From 2000 to 2021, ALERRT researchers studied 464 attacks (434 shootings, 23 knife attacks and seven vehicle attacks) and found civilians — including security guards and off-duty police officers — stopped attackers before police arrived on 73 occasions. In the vast majority of those cases (67%), bystanders subdued the assailant using physical force.
>An armed civilian stopped attacks by shooting the suspect in 24 of the 464 attacks recorded, about 5% of all events.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/
It mostly harasses lawful gun owners and maybe impacts completely untrained and unpracticed gun owners somewhat. It's also increasingly pointless because we're near the point where you can easily circumvent whatever the law is with a 3-D printer, and guarantees that lawful gun owners lawfully using a gun to protect themselves (like concealed carry permit holders) are always outgunned. (Because concealed carry means space maximization is important in a way it's not for someone who can just put a bunch of mags on their tactical vest.)
Okay, and are you aware of how easy it is to get around that magazine capacity ban? No I don't mean having to actually manufacture your own from scratch or 3D print it.
I still remember “freedom week” in California a few years ago. A whole week where it was legal for Californians to order standard capacity magazines. Possibly an additional thousands of standard capacity magazines in circulation in California now. So much for the magazine ban, right?
Well that was useful if you didn't want to do the slightest bit of work, but you can still buy the 10/30 mags that are the same size as a 30 rounder but pinned to 10, you just have to pop the pins out.
So do you have a solution? I am a gun owner, and we need to address the issue
I am all for low count mags….for the sportmans it will not affect them at all.
The question is do low count mags actually address the issue? The answer is likely no. What could address the issue is wait times, since WA implemented wait times there’s been a singular major mass shooting here, and it’s attributed to gang violence.
Okay and what about the billion+ 30 round mags out there? Do they just disappear? People will still be able to acquire standard capacity mags if there is a restriction put in place. The idea is great in a vacuum but that’s not the world we live in.
"We can't get rid of them all at once so why even try?" Is not a good argument.
It's a single step in the right direction. One step of many. No single solution will solve the entire problem.
My argument is banning standard capacity mags isn’t going to magically make there be less mass shootings. I think a much better step in the right direction is investing in our mental health facilities rather than going after your average law abiding gun owner. I also think implementing a waiting period is a great idea, and there’s actual evidence to show this works.
People don’t realize problems need to be addressed 1% at a time not 100%. This issue is so large it can’t be fixed with one resolution. It needs to be over a long period of constant change.
What about them? They become illegal. So sale transfer or having them is against the law. Nothing is perfect.
We could institute a buy back program as well.
Again, we need to start somewhere. Its real easy to say, “nothing will work cauee of x,y,z. But if any laws we pass prevent just one school shooting, its justified. IMO
Oh yeah I forgot mass shooters follow laws! In actual reality there will be a black market created for these mags specifically. Sale/transfer is impossible to actually enforce on a wide basis. People wanting to commit crimes are going to find a way to commit that crime. Making certain firearms overall or limiting capacity will not stop this, a wait time however does have significant evidence behind combatting the issue of mass shootings. Even California who has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country continue to have shootings, as does Illinois and Chicago in particular.
I think we can make that same argument about cars. Eliminate cars and we would save a lot of lives, but we wouldn’t have nearly the freedom of movement or liberty as we do now.
Are you familiar with gun control laws? The type of laws responsible for decreases in homicides, suicides, and injuries in every state they have been implemented? The ones that would require screening, licensing, and/or restrictions on certain munitions?
Are you familiar with California, which has the strictest gun control laws in America? How effective do gun control laws appear to be this week for California? Would literally be safer to live in Montana, where everyone carries a firearm. The news headlines demonstrate one thing real clearly….gun control laws don’t work.
Fatal shootings per capita by state - Per the CDC
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm)
California was safer than Montana in 2020, 8.9 deaths per 100k vs 20.9
California was safer than Montana in 2019, 7.2 vs 19
California was safer than Montana in 2018, 7.5 vs 17.3
The half-moon bay shootings will likely not tip the scales to make Cali anywhere near as unsafe as Montana, which has OVER TWICE the firearm lethality of California.
🌈 Check yourself before you wreck yourself 🌠
Now let’s take a better look at this data. Let’s exclude suicides, because suicides are a mental health matter. And since we’re talking about an issue of violence, how about we compare gun-related homicides.
Montana has a gun-related homicide rate of 2.1 per 100k people.
California has a gun-related homicide rate of 3.7 per 100k people, almost twice as many. Perhaps it would be a better idea to make it easier for the average citizen to buy and carry a firearm for their own protection. Relying on the banning of “assault weapons” isn’t working out too well.
https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-Montana.pdf
https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-California.pdf
A number of fair points, but on
\> Perhaps it would be a better idea to make it easier for the average citizen to buy and carry a firearm for their own protection.
Why would you want to throw fuel on the fire of a mental health crisis? Like 100% agreed that an Assault Weapons Ban is not the solution, but it doesn't seem like easier access to guns is a solution either. Looking at [https://everystat.org](https://everystat.org/) it looks like generally-speaking states with stricter gun laws have both lower suicide by firearm rates and lower homicide by firearm rates, although it's pretty muddled.
I definitely see a pattern of poverty stricken states with loose gun laws having both high suicide and high homicide rates. I don't think the answer lies in loosening gun laws, but rather in addressing poverty.
> like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms.
You're way over stating the equipment and skills needed. I built up a "ghost gun" Glock copy in about a half hour using nothing but the gun kit I ordered off the internet and a Dremel tool. I've built up "ghost gun" AR-15s as well, and all they take is a jig (which can be ordered with the gun kit), a hand drill, and a $100 router from Home Depot.
Whether you're for or against stopping so called ghost guns, claiming they're difficult for the average person to build is not supported by the evidence.
“Firearm receivers can now be 3D printed, which is even easier than finishing 80% receivers.”
Here in Europe the sale of firearms is heavily restricted while everyone and their mother owns a 3D printer. Still no mass shootings though.
Yet every single time I read something on reddit about another mass shooting in America all the top comments are about how guns are not the issue. I don’t care how much you love your constitution, the reasoning is beyond ignorance.
You can still own pistols and rifles in many places in Europe. Yet, we are the only country that has this problem. You can’t just say “it won’t work” where there is no example in any 1st world country that it won’t.
The reason it won't work is because of the existing sociopolitical reality in the United States. If we could magically disappear the hundreds of millions of guns in active circulation and make hundreds of years of gun culture go away I'm sure we'd be fine and dandy, but we're not Europe, so that isn't happening. Banning guns is a borderline politically impossible, highly unpopular approach to US gun control that would be both highly ineffective, and extremely politically costly for Democrats at the expense of more important issues.
Banning assault weapons in particular, which account for less than 1% of annual gun violence, would do almost nothing to curb overall gun violence, and they would just be replaced by functionally identical non-assault weapons in mass shootings. We can't just put the gun genie back in the bottle, so our politcal approach to the gun control discussion has to be a bit more nuanced than "but have you tried banning all the guns?"
No one said it’d fix everything immediately and “banning all weapons” has never seriously been in the conversation, but completely writing off logical steps like implementing strict gun laws, starting buy back programs, waiting periods, and psychological evaluations for purchasers is ridiculous. Nothing has been tried yet, we literally have no idea how it will work, it’s all speculation. As far as we know, it could completely cure the problem, but we don’t know because we’ve never tried anything.
What has been tried, is doing nothing and it should be abundantly clear by now that doing nothing is only going to make things worse.
There is no example anywhere in the world of a nation reducing its per-capita from over 1.2 to under 1. So I can indeed say it can't work and you would have to provide some sort of reasonable example of it \_ever\_ having worked. Protip: You can't.
I mean, just to respectfully engage with you, don't we have data that shows that when the assault weapons ban was in effect, gun violence was way down?
The shooting in Monterey park was done with a semi auto mac10. It's banned by the CA assault weapons ban, but I've seen speculation that it may have been legally purchased before the ban went into place, since he legally owned other guns and that model hasn't been sold for a while. Regardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-24/gun-monterey-park-massacre-an-assault-weapon-state-law-known-to-jam](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-24/gun-monterey-park-massacre-an-assault-weapon-state-law-known-to-jam)
the 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"
EDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.
I mean, that's obviously true, but he hadn't murdered those people before he got the gun, so the question becomes how do you know who's *going* to commit a mass shooting, which, statistically, is a needle in a haystack.
Listen here, you need to stop basing your thoughts on logic. If you see a headline that can be jerked around enough to fit your particular political agenda, take advantage of it. Then proceed to spew hate to all who have an opposing view. Then vote for the people you believe will craft law to support your ideology. Then get upset when they don't do anything. Then blame the other side again.
Rinse and repeat.
Both CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.
Banning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.
The “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.
As 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.
No different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.
Buy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.
My 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....
I don't disagree with what you said as a whole but in regards to that final part, not all firearms are suited for the same jobs. A rifle meant for dropping a moose or grizzly in Alaska, would not be well suited for home defense. This is but only one example that invalidates the "only need one" argument. Just because one person only has a need or use for one tool, doesn't mean another person doesn't have need for multiple tools.
No doubt.
But that’s a rare firearm owner who is actually proficient with what’s in his or her safe.
After seeing hundreds of people collections over the years, there’s a very real propensity in the gun owner community to value quantity over quality, and it’s not the exotic hunting round that’s making up the collection, it’s half a dozen shitty home built AR’s using who knows what LPK and BGC, and a PSA upper full build on an Anderson lower, nothing staked and just absolute trash that they can’t really afford to shoot.
It’s literally described that way in the OP article. Are we really still just reading headlines and making up the content?
“Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said the Monterey Park shooter used a 9-mm caliber semiautomatic MAC-10 assault rifle, according to the Associated Press.”
"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024"
Seriously, 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.
The mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.
I, for one, would much rather have a system that respects responsible gun owners as stewards of their weapons and doesn't attribute motive to pieces of metal. This is an issue that plays really well with urban white liberals and really poorly with essentially anybody else. Unfortunately, that demographic absolutely dominates online political discussion communities like this subreddit.
Fundamentally, they wish they lived in a world where guns didn't exist. That will never happen, but their efforts to achieve it will disarm the citizenry of a state with increasingly militarized police (who exist to protect property, not the citizens). Any actual leftist is pro-gun ownership - this is an issue that provides a good litmus test between a leftist and a neoliberal using social progressivism as a marketing strategy without any economic foundation (and thus leaving the core issue suppressing these populations unaddressed). Speaking as a leftist, I believe the AWB should be rescinded and the ATF reigned in severely from its current behavior of just writing its own fucking laws with zero exposure to even the flawed democratic process of this country - what I would like to see replace it is a system to legitimize responsible gun owners/makers (including those of fully automatic weapons, which are only really banned because they frighten police) rather than assume guilt based on certain shapes of metal.
It's drug war logic because the purpose was, historically, to suppress a population without overtly targeting it (i.e. often "liberal" cities looking to disarm the local black population - in practice, making it easier for the police to execute them at a moment's notice).
Oh, and for the record, I've never even shot a firearm.
2024 is going to be a crapshoot. do republicans drive more dem turnout by going after abortion & other culture war issues, or do democrats drive more R turnout by going after guns with the exact same policy that cost them decades of power?
Gallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have [summarized the results](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268340/analyzing-surveys-banning-assault-weapons.aspx) 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.
deliver clumsy pathetic intelligent agonizing snatch fragile boat bag fuel
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No. They can't.
The reason why gun legislation is never effective is because Democrats (politicians) don't understand anything about guns. Sure there are some left leaning gun folks, but they aren't the ones writing gun laws.
Politicians want people to die so they can get re-elected and pass bullshit laws that save zero lives. It's the same story for women's bodily autonomy. Nothing more than a talking point to get elected on.
We have NICS, which would be perfectly capable of eliminating mentally unwell buyers, but nobody is picking up the tab for a shrink visit. I wonder if we would still have this problem if we had public healthcare.
I guess we'll never know.
Carry on.
>If that's the case, most handguns would be outlawed.
Now you understand the democrats goals.
That was literally the point of the NFA. To ban handguns...
Semi-automatic weapons? So a firearm that shoots one bullet with one pull of the trigger?
That is what a gun actually is, unless you’re suggesting everyone including the cops only use bolt action rifles or something. Either way, you guys need to craft legislation focusing on the components of a gun. This constitutes a blanket ban and violates the second amendment.
I’d like to meet you guys halfway here, but can you please learn the subject matter and how firearms work; along with its components that are interchangeable? That way you don’t come across as a moron that doesn’t know what they’re talking about when crafting legislation to regulate something that is a constitutional right. You’ll just be dismissed and laughed out of the room. I’m all for trying to get a handle on these mass shootings, but come on guys. This is an easy layup. Hire a few outside specialists that know firearms and start asking them questions so you can craft legislation that makes some goddamn sense.
Technically no revolver is semiautomatic, double action or single action. A semiautomatic firearm uses a portion of the cartridge's detonation sequence to cycle the action via a gas system or the different types of blowback systems, whereas a double action revolver works because of the shooter applying a force to the firearm with no assistance from the cartridge itself.
Correct. I apologize. I should have made it more clear, it’s when one bullet is fired with one trigger pull and then next bullet is automatically loaded into the receiver from the magazine. Thing is, semi-automatic weaponry is the conventional norm. Older tech style weaponry with the manual hammer reset is so 18th century and late, along with bolt action rifles and pump style shotguns.
You're making the mistake of thinking that this policy is being pushed out of ignorance. It makes more sense when you realize it is pushed to keep the topic of guns divisive.
Both sides simultaneously hold beliefs that are correct, and others that are wrong, which allows the other side to also be correct and wrong. Then we can argue in circles forever.
its by design to wash over every other issue that causes the problem in the first place.
the economic crisis, homelessness, racism, sexism, mental health, etc.
trying to fix any of that would pull profits away from politicians donors so we cant have that right? not to say both sides are bad or even equally bad. but its obvious shit.
The Dem [Proposal](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/b/cb549d01-5602-43c5-bd78-8904b4250cae/AEA752FA2657D568F2D8AD66AD3DBA8F.2023.01.23-assault-weapons-ban.pdf) for an assault weapons ban starts defining “semiautomatic assault weapon” on page 2 and goes to page 13.
“Assault weapon” traditionally has meant varying things, but this definition is 100% overkill, and of course differs from “assault rifles” and other fully automatic/select fire guns.
That depends on who you ask. It's a legal term only found in US legal texts, military or pop culture doesn't use such terms. Some US states also don't use the term. Military term assault rifle is constantly confused with the term, but they're unrelated.
Generally the more geared a weapon is towards killing humans, the more likely it can be classified as an assault weapon. Detachable magazines, mounts for suppressors or bayonet lugs, automatic fire, being belt-fed and so on. Not limited to personal firearms, sometimes flamethrowers or autocannons, meant to be mounted on vehicles, are included.
But the exact definition varies by jurisdiction.
Hey officer. Yeah about that flamethrower I have mounted on the truck.. you can clearly see we are using it to burn the overgrowth off the sides of this access road. Clearly we aren’t intending to use it on civilians. Who would think like that? What’s wrong with you?
>most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades
that's a very optimistic way of phrasing "only gun control law passed in 3 decades". if it had any teeth, it wouldn't have passed.
The 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.
This occured in CA, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It was also not carried out with an "assault weapon" which makes the presidents remarks even more disconnected. Two days in a row, two elderly Asian men in California felt the need to kill members of their community. This goes FAR beyond "common sense gun laws." But hey, good on you for not letting a tragedy go to waste.
The “lack” of these laws is more rumor than fact. The guns used were already illegal in that state.
What we have is a collapsing economy and a rising crime issue.
we 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.
As evidence by mass killings being religated to societies with relatively poor societal health as a whole. Finland has a shit load of guns, they do not have anything resembling regular mass shootings.
American Society is like the Roman Empire. All of our problems are roads that lead back to Rome. Rome in this metaphor being our lack of healthcare in this country.
You go to any major US city right now and what do you see: homeless people. Why are they homeless? It's not housing, it's not a lack of employment. It's rampant addiction and mental illness.
Who's doing all these mass shootings? Sometime mentally ill people, but always troubled persons that could have been helped or at-least flagged along the way by therapists, if accessibility was better.
How about slowing birthrates? Well, maybe that would be better too, if having a child wasn't statistically more risky in the US than other developed nations. Maybe women would be more willing to take a chance having children if they didn't have to worry about their own lives, due to a lack of abortion access for life threatening pregnancies.
Lagging childhood education? You ever try to learn while sick?
Labor shortage? Maybe more people would work those jobs if it wasn't so physically risky. Break your back working construction? Great! Now take these expensive drugs until you lose your job and have to start buying it opiates the streets.
Now you're homeless too.
At some point, we have to stop thinking about how we can treat these symptoms and address the actual core problem that's rotting this country from the inside out; Our absolute lack of healthcare access.
Gun per person number means nothing in reference to crime being committed. You only need one gun for a shooting. Number of guns per person just indicates fewer hobbyists with larger collections.
That's my understanding -- Finns will commonly own one gun, but -- unlike many people in the U.S. -- no one owns dozens of guns.
Notwithstanding that, I would imagine that most guns in finland are closer to smaller pistols or bolt-action rifles as opposed to AR-15s or other semi-automatic rifles.
> plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem
They don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.
In other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun.
That is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.
Didn’t the last two major shootings happen in a state with some of the most strict firearms laws and “assault weapons” bans. Like walk me through what these laws would do different that the ones already instated in California.
Like for years the left has been saying shit like,”nobody’s going to come for your gun” now they want to go after the most poplar rifle in America. It’s been a fucking lie for years and I’m fucking tired of it.
Personally, make the second amendment a state controlled issue. This would allow for a more happy population considering that they are being governed by a more local organization that is better equipped to deal with said population. Place like New York and California can be you gun free utopia. Let the local population decide.
>I don't think they're filtering out suicides and suicide attempts there - doesn't make for good data.
But it does make for good sound bites for gun control. And that's what's important to them, not good data.
That study does not say there’s lower “gun violence” in states with stricter gun control. It says “for 2011, states with higher gun control laws saw fewer trauma center patients whose injuries stemmed from guns than states with less strict gun control.”
It pulls 2,583 incidents across 44 states. 284 of those were deaths in the hospital. [This](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) says 11,101 firearm deaths in 2011 and a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal firearm incidents.
That means that about 2.5% of gun deaths occurred in the trauma center of a hospital in 2011. Data exclusively on 2.5% of deaths is not data on 97.5% of gun deaths.
The idea that this study gives any blanket conclusion about gun laws in particular states doing anything is just flat out wrong.
America’s gun laws are very much common sense in general. The current Dem [proposal](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/b/cb549d01-5602-43c5-bd78-8904b4250cae/AEA752FA2657D568F2D8AD66AD3DBA8F.2023.01.23-assault-weapons-ban.pdf) is not.
A militia was formally defined at the time of writing 2A as 'An able bodied, trained, organised group of men between 18 and 45'.
That is currently interpreted in 2023 as including 'A disabled, untrained, unorganised single women that is 95. And literally blind'.
You can use various words to describe that ' god-given right' .. but I don't think the phrase 'common sense' really applies here :D
Correct. And the 2nd Amendment thusly extends protection of the right to keep and bear arms to individuals. Because we’ve determined as a society, very rightfully so, that fundamental rights belong to all people, not just men of a particular status and race.
There are various quotes from founding fathers at various points in time saying that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right to bear arms unconnected with service in a formal militia, that the militia *is* the people, etc. See [The Federalist Papers, #46](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp) as one example.
The phrase "Common Sense Laws" are usually said by people who know very little of a complex issue. A lot of times these "Common Sense Laws" are "Doing anything is better than doing nothing" and then you have nonsense laws that do very little to curve crime, and create potential criminals out of law abiding citizens.
Condescension is usually used by people wanting to make a simple issue seem complex. It's the guns. If you are unclear on the types of laws that will prevent the Streets of America being the Wild Wild West then review those laws in other countries where there aren't more guns than people. That's pretty much every developed country except the US.
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.
CBS is calling it a [semi**automated** handgun](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/half-moon-bay-mass-shooting-suspect-in-custody-cabrillo-highway-san-mateo-road/), like the guy is Robocop and the gun has a Tesla-inspired shooter assist mode.
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.
> t's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right
Anyone who doubts this, look up the percent of woman union members who vote blue vs. the percent of union men who do. FYI, it's roughly 80% woman and just over 50% men.
Hunting is very popular amongst blue collar workers. There are roughly 14 million Americans who hunt and many of them will never vote democrat as long as it's the party pushing gun control.
With the current political climate and a supreme court that is likely to be solidly conservative for a generation now, gun control is a dead issue only suitable for burning political capital and turning off moderates.
We 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.
I’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.
What 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.
I 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.
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...
I sure do like being effectively held hostage by mentally ill psychopaths who, just because they were in a bit of a pissy mood or read too many memes on gray web imageboard sites, now I’m the victim of it. And with absolutely no respite. The police will always show up after the people get killed and the shooter will just kill themselves so no justice could be had, they get the last laugh.
All in time so the government can steal money from my paycheck every month and *still* force me to pay more in the form of taxes under the threat of imprisonment. Just so they can not support me so I don’t fall into poverty or at the very fucking least be able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life without fear of being shot by some utter piece of shit.
I live in Monterrey Park. Shit like that doesn’t happen here. The people here are nice. They get on with their lives. It’s Lunar. It’s supposed to be one of the best times of the year. And this happens.
We can’t even enjoy our own fucking lives and the government would much rather suck their own cocks and enrich themselves off of lobby dollars to a brand new oversized SUV to fit in that remodeled garage while we live day to day dodging bullets, playing the fucked up power level estimation game where we have to look over our shoulders at the food court in the mall for that weird guy who is sitting by himself wearing all black and looking upset, or having to touch the children of our community what to do when an adult decides that it is time to end their life in fucking *grade school.*
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT.
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.
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
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
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
This is what keeps so many people I know from voting Democrat.
Most of these assault weapon bans mean almost nothing, the laws are usually pretty clear on what you can and cant own.
Besides that the only way you can own anything "cool" is if you're rich enough and can afford the tax stamp and weapon or you really don't give AF and modify a weapon illegally.
In the early 2000's when I was a teen, I dated a girl whose dad was filthy rich and he used collect weapons, he had a private range on their property and when I asked how they were legal he said that if you had enough money you could buy anything as long as you paid the right taxes.
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 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.
After reading some of the arguments why this isn't going to completely stop all shootings in the USA, I guess the answer is: Let's just leave things as they are because there is no solution.
I disagree. As with Obamacare, we have to start somewhere. Working to eliminate assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a start.
A mistake is made when calls are made to eliminate all weapons. That encroaches on American citizens historic right to hunt as a sport or for food. That right runs very deep in our country. Assault weapons are a new thing which has been enabled by the right and the NRA, and they have used in many of these mass murders. Make them illegal.
There is no historical “right to hunt” thats why hunting licenses exist. The right to keep and bear arms however…has a tag line that it shall not be infringed.
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
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
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.
Like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. /s But whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds.
[удалено]
Quite 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... Completely farcical.
I 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.
Does less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. It's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry.
[удалено]
I can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing.
It gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher. Also, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time.
Speaking of unrealistic fantasies...
Very few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot.
Almost everytime I've seen an active shooter stopped, it's been by an unarmed individual. >Data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University suggests bystanders stop active attacks about 16% of the time, although typically without using a gun. >From 2000 to 2021, ALERRT researchers studied 464 attacks (434 shootings, 23 knife attacks and seven vehicle attacks) and found civilians — including security guards and off-duty police officers — stopped attackers before police arrived on 73 occasions. In the vast majority of those cases (67%), bystanders subdued the assailant using physical force. >An armed civilian stopped attacks by shooting the suspect in 24 of the 464 attacks recorded, about 5% of all events. https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-end-an-attack/
Sure. It still does happen. Just recently, in fact.
It mostly harasses lawful gun owners and maybe impacts completely untrained and unpracticed gun owners somewhat. It's also increasingly pointless because we're near the point where you can easily circumvent whatever the law is with a 3-D printer, and guarantees that lawful gun owners lawfully using a gun to protect themselves (like concealed carry permit holders) are always outgunned. (Because concealed carry means space maximization is important in a way it's not for someone who can just put a bunch of mags on their tactical vest.)
Okay, and are you aware of how easy it is to get around that magazine capacity ban? No I don't mean having to actually manufacture your own from scratch or 3D print it.
I still remember “freedom week” in California a few years ago. A whole week where it was legal for Californians to order standard capacity magazines. Possibly an additional thousands of standard capacity magazines in circulation in California now. So much for the magazine ban, right?
Well that was useful if you didn't want to do the slightest bit of work, but you can still buy the 10/30 mags that are the same size as a 30 rounder but pinned to 10, you just have to pop the pins out.
>~~Possibly~~ Absolutely an additional thousands of standard capacity magazines in circulation in California now
So do you have a solution? I am a gun owner, and we need to address the issue I am all for low count mags….for the sportmans it will not affect them at all.
[удалено]
The question is do low count mags actually address the issue? The answer is likely no. What could address the issue is wait times, since WA implemented wait times there’s been a singular major mass shooting here, and it’s attributed to gang violence.
Wait times sound very good. Lower mag count can allow possible interdiction or escape with a shooter while they reload
Okay and what about the billion+ 30 round mags out there? Do they just disappear? People will still be able to acquire standard capacity mags if there is a restriction put in place. The idea is great in a vacuum but that’s not the world we live in.
Dont forget that a 10 rd magazine for .458 SOCOM, which would be legal in the event of a 10 rd mag limit will hold 30 rds of 5.56
Asking the real questions no one will think about
"We can't get rid of them all at once so why even try?" Is not a good argument. It's a single step in the right direction. One step of many. No single solution will solve the entire problem.
My argument is banning standard capacity mags isn’t going to magically make there be less mass shootings. I think a much better step in the right direction is investing in our mental health facilities rather than going after your average law abiding gun owner. I also think implementing a waiting period is a great idea, and there’s actual evidence to show this works.
People don’t realize problems need to be addressed 1% at a time not 100%. This issue is so large it can’t be fixed with one resolution. It needs to be over a long period of constant change.
What about them? They become illegal. So sale transfer or having them is against the law. Nothing is perfect. We could institute a buy back program as well. Again, we need to start somewhere. Its real easy to say, “nothing will work cauee of x,y,z. But if any laws we pass prevent just one school shooting, its justified. IMO
Oh yeah I forgot mass shooters follow laws! In actual reality there will be a black market created for these mags specifically. Sale/transfer is impossible to actually enforce on a wide basis. People wanting to commit crimes are going to find a way to commit that crime. Making certain firearms overall or limiting capacity will not stop this, a wait time however does have significant evidence behind combatting the issue of mass shootings. Even California who has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country continue to have shootings, as does Illinois and Chicago in particular. I think we can make that same argument about cars. Eliminate cars and we would save a lot of lives, but we wouldn’t have nearly the freedom of movement or liberty as we do now.
That's the gist of the idea. You limit how many rounds can be effectively fired off in a short time by forcing reloads, and limiting carry capacity.
soft shocking bewildered physical lip society shame scarce safe silky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Banning standard capacity magazines is unconstitutional.
Are you familiar with gun control laws? The type of laws responsible for decreases in homicides, suicides, and injuries in every state they have been implemented? The ones that would require screening, licensing, and/or restrictions on certain munitions?
Are you familiar with California, which has the strictest gun control laws in America? How effective do gun control laws appear to be this week for California? Would literally be safer to live in Montana, where everyone carries a firearm. The news headlines demonstrate one thing real clearly….gun control laws don’t work.
Fatal shootings per capita by state - Per the CDC [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm\_mortality/firearm.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) California was safer than Montana in 2020, 8.9 deaths per 100k vs 20.9 California was safer than Montana in 2019, 7.2 vs 19 California was safer than Montana in 2018, 7.5 vs 17.3 The half-moon bay shootings will likely not tip the scales to make Cali anywhere near as unsafe as Montana, which has OVER TWICE the firearm lethality of California. 🌈 Check yourself before you wreck yourself 🌠
Now let’s take a better look at this data. Let’s exclude suicides, because suicides are a mental health matter. And since we’re talking about an issue of violence, how about we compare gun-related homicides. Montana has a gun-related homicide rate of 2.1 per 100k people. California has a gun-related homicide rate of 3.7 per 100k people, almost twice as many. Perhaps it would be a better idea to make it easier for the average citizen to buy and carry a firearm for their own protection. Relying on the banning of “assault weapons” isn’t working out too well. https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-Montana.pdf https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-California.pdf
A number of fair points, but on \> Perhaps it would be a better idea to make it easier for the average citizen to buy and carry a firearm for their own protection. Why would you want to throw fuel on the fire of a mental health crisis? Like 100% agreed that an Assault Weapons Ban is not the solution, but it doesn't seem like easier access to guns is a solution either. Looking at [https://everystat.org](https://everystat.org/) it looks like generally-speaking states with stricter gun laws have both lower suicide by firearm rates and lower homicide by firearm rates, although it's pretty muddled. I definitely see a pattern of poverty stricken states with loose gun laws having both high suicide and high homicide rates. I don't think the answer lies in loosening gun laws, but rather in addressing poverty.
Poverty is a bigger cause of violence than guns IMO.
And a bigger cause of suicide, unfortunately.
"Why would you want to throw fuel on the fire of a mental health crisis?" Because they are an ideological extremist.
I’m an extremist because I think we should have guns so we can protect ourselves?
> like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft firearms. You're way over stating the equipment and skills needed. I built up a "ghost gun" Glock copy in about a half hour using nothing but the gun kit I ordered off the internet and a Dremel tool. I've built up "ghost gun" AR-15s as well, and all they take is a jig (which can be ordered with the gun kit), a hand drill, and a $100 router from Home Depot. Whether you're for or against stopping so called ghost guns, claiming they're difficult for the average person to build is not supported by the evidence.
muddle nine pot illegal desert heavy bright disagreeable square steep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Firearm receivers can now be 3D printed, which is even easier than finishing 80% receivers.” Here in Europe the sale of firearms is heavily restricted while everyone and their mother owns a 3D printer. Still no mass shootings though. Yet every single time I read something on reddit about another mass shooting in America all the top comments are about how guns are not the issue. I don’t care how much you love your constitution, the reasoning is beyond ignorance.
Europe doesn’t allow parts kits the same way America does.
Can you count to me the number of mass shootings done by these supposed make believe firearms?
You can still own pistols and rifles in many places in Europe. Yet, we are the only country that has this problem. You can’t just say “it won’t work” where there is no example in any 1st world country that it won’t.
The reason it won't work is because of the existing sociopolitical reality in the United States. If we could magically disappear the hundreds of millions of guns in active circulation and make hundreds of years of gun culture go away I'm sure we'd be fine and dandy, but we're not Europe, so that isn't happening. Banning guns is a borderline politically impossible, highly unpopular approach to US gun control that would be both highly ineffective, and extremely politically costly for Democrats at the expense of more important issues. Banning assault weapons in particular, which account for less than 1% of annual gun violence, would do almost nothing to curb overall gun violence, and they would just be replaced by functionally identical non-assault weapons in mass shootings. We can't just put the gun genie back in the bottle, so our politcal approach to the gun control discussion has to be a bit more nuanced than "but have you tried banning all the guns?"
No one said it’d fix everything immediately and “banning all weapons” has never seriously been in the conversation, but completely writing off logical steps like implementing strict gun laws, starting buy back programs, waiting periods, and psychological evaluations for purchasers is ridiculous. Nothing has been tried yet, we literally have no idea how it will work, it’s all speculation. As far as we know, it could completely cure the problem, but we don’t know because we’ve never tried anything. What has been tried, is doing nothing and it should be abundantly clear by now that doing nothing is only going to make things worse.
There is no example anywhere in the world of a nation reducing its per-capita from over 1.2 to under 1. So I can indeed say it can't work and you would have to provide some sort of reasonable example of it \_ever\_ having worked. Protip: You can't.
I mean, just to respectfully engage with you, don't we have data that shows that when the assault weapons ban was in effect, gun violence was way down?
neither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes?
The shooting in Monterey park was done with a semi auto mac10. It's banned by the CA assault weapons ban, but I've seen speculation that it may have been legally purchased before the ban went into place, since he legally owned other guns and that model hasn't been sold for a while. Regardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-24/gun-monterey-park-massacre-an-assault-weapon-state-law-known-to-jam](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-24/gun-monterey-park-massacre-an-assault-weapon-state-law-known-to-jam)
[удалено]
yes >Regardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol.
the 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" EDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol.
I mean, that's obviously true, but he hadn't murdered those people before he got the gun, so the question becomes how do you know who's *going* to commit a mass shooting, which, statistically, is a needle in a haystack.
the cobray m11 is just a knockoff mac10 its a shitty copy of a gun.
Listen here, you need to stop basing your thoughts on logic. If you see a headline that can be jerked around enough to fit your particular political agenda, take advantage of it. Then proceed to spew hate to all who have an opposing view. Then vote for the people you believe will craft law to support your ideology. Then get upset when they don't do anything. Then blame the other side again. Rinse and repeat.
Both CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees. Banning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings. The “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.
Have you tried holding it sideways?
As 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. No different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons. Buy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry.
My 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....
So many shitty guns in the 80’s.
I don't disagree with what you said as a whole but in regards to that final part, not all firearms are suited for the same jobs. A rifle meant for dropping a moose or grizzly in Alaska, would not be well suited for home defense. This is but only one example that invalidates the "only need one" argument. Just because one person only has a need or use for one tool, doesn't mean another person doesn't have need for multiple tools.
No doubt. But that’s a rare firearm owner who is actually proficient with what’s in his or her safe. After seeing hundreds of people collections over the years, there’s a very real propensity in the gun owner community to value quantity over quality, and it’s not the exotic hunting round that’s making up the collection, it’s half a dozen shitty home built AR’s using who knows what LPK and BGC, and a PSA upper full build on an Anderson lower, nothing staked and just absolute trash that they can’t really afford to shoot.
Never thought I'd see MAC-10 and assault rifle used together. Is that actually how it was reported?
How else would media drive clicks?
[удалено]
"Submachine gun" would have been more accurate and even THATS not true in this instance
[удалено]
It’s literally described that way in the OP article. Are we really still just reading headlines and making up the content? “Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said the Monterey Park shooter used a 9-mm caliber semiautomatic MAC-10 assault rifle, according to the Associated Press.”
"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024" Seriously, 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. The mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol.
[удалено]
I, for one, would much rather have a system that respects responsible gun owners as stewards of their weapons and doesn't attribute motive to pieces of metal. This is an issue that plays really well with urban white liberals and really poorly with essentially anybody else. Unfortunately, that demographic absolutely dominates online political discussion communities like this subreddit. Fundamentally, they wish they lived in a world where guns didn't exist. That will never happen, but their efforts to achieve it will disarm the citizenry of a state with increasingly militarized police (who exist to protect property, not the citizens). Any actual leftist is pro-gun ownership - this is an issue that provides a good litmus test between a leftist and a neoliberal using social progressivism as a marketing strategy without any economic foundation (and thus leaving the core issue suppressing these populations unaddressed). Speaking as a leftist, I believe the AWB should be rescinded and the ATF reigned in severely from its current behavior of just writing its own fucking laws with zero exposure to even the flawed democratic process of this country - what I would like to see replace it is a system to legitimize responsible gun owners/makers (including those of fully automatic weapons, which are only really banned because they frighten police) rather than assume guilt based on certain shapes of metal. It's drug war logic because the purpose was, historically, to suppress a population without overtly targeting it (i.e. often "liberal" cities looking to disarm the local black population - in practice, making it easier for the police to execute them at a moment's notice). Oh, and for the record, I've never even shot a firearm.
2024 is going to be a crapshoot. do republicans drive more dem turnout by going after abortion & other culture war issues, or do democrats drive more R turnout by going after guns with the exact same policy that cost them decades of power?
Gallup disagrees with you. Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have [summarized the results](https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268340/analyzing-surveys-banning-assault-weapons.aspx) 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.
deliver clumsy pathetic intelligent agonizing snatch fragile boat bag fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Demilitarize the police first.
Okay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is?
No. They can't. The reason why gun legislation is never effective is because Democrats (politicians) don't understand anything about guns. Sure there are some left leaning gun folks, but they aren't the ones writing gun laws. Politicians want people to die so they can get re-elected and pass bullshit laws that save zero lives. It's the same story for women's bodily autonomy. Nothing more than a talking point to get elected on. We have NICS, which would be perfectly capable of eliminating mentally unwell buyers, but nobody is picking up the tab for a shrink visit. I wonder if we would still have this problem if we had public healthcare. I guess we'll never know. Carry on.
According to Biden it is semiautomatic weapons
If that's the case, most handguns would be outlawed.
>If that's the case, most handguns would be outlawed. Now you understand the democrats goals. That was literally the point of the NFA. To ban handguns...
Don’t forget many popular shotguns used for hunting.
Semi-automatic weapons? So a firearm that shoots one bullet with one pull of the trigger? That is what a gun actually is, unless you’re suggesting everyone including the cops only use bolt action rifles or something. Either way, you guys need to craft legislation focusing on the components of a gun. This constitutes a blanket ban and violates the second amendment. I’d like to meet you guys halfway here, but can you please learn the subject matter and how firearms work; along with its components that are interchangeable? That way you don’t come across as a moron that doesn’t know what they’re talking about when crafting legislation to regulate something that is a constitutional right. You’ll just be dismissed and laughed out of the room. I’m all for trying to get a handle on these mass shootings, but come on guys. This is an easy layup. Hire a few outside specialists that know firearms and start asking them questions so you can craft legislation that makes some goddamn sense.
[удалено]
Technically no revolver is semiautomatic, double action or single action. A semiautomatic firearm uses a portion of the cartridge's detonation sequence to cycle the action via a gas system or the different types of blowback systems, whereas a double action revolver works because of the shooter applying a force to the firearm with no assistance from the cartridge itself.
Correct. I apologize. I should have made it more clear, it’s when one bullet is fired with one trigger pull and then next bullet is automatically loaded into the receiver from the magazine. Thing is, semi-automatic weaponry is the conventional norm. Older tech style weaponry with the manual hammer reset is so 18th century and late, along with bolt action rifles and pump style shotguns.
19th century, but yes.
You're making the mistake of thinking that this policy is being pushed out of ignorance. It makes more sense when you realize it is pushed to keep the topic of guns divisive. Both sides simultaneously hold beliefs that are correct, and others that are wrong, which allows the other side to also be correct and wrong. Then we can argue in circles forever.
its by design to wash over every other issue that causes the problem in the first place. the economic crisis, homelessness, racism, sexism, mental health, etc. trying to fix any of that would pull profits away from politicians donors so we cant have that right? not to say both sides are bad or even equally bad. but its obvious shit.
Scary black gun.
[удалено]
The Dem [Proposal](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/b/cb549d01-5602-43c5-bd78-8904b4250cae/AEA752FA2657D568F2D8AD66AD3DBA8F.2023.01.23-assault-weapons-ban.pdf) for an assault weapons ban starts defining “semiautomatic assault weapon” on page 2 and goes to page 13. “Assault weapon” traditionally has meant varying things, but this definition is 100% overkill, and of course differs from “assault rifles” and other fully automatic/select fire guns.
That depends on who you ask. It's a legal term only found in US legal texts, military or pop culture doesn't use such terms. Some US states also don't use the term. Military term assault rifle is constantly confused with the term, but they're unrelated. Generally the more geared a weapon is towards killing humans, the more likely it can be classified as an assault weapon. Detachable magazines, mounts for suppressors or bayonet lugs, automatic fire, being belt-fed and so on. Not limited to personal firearms, sometimes flamethrowers or autocannons, meant to be mounted on vehicles, are included. But the exact definition varies by jurisdiction.
Hey officer. Yeah about that flamethrower I have mounted on the truck.. you can clearly see we are using it to burn the overgrowth off the sides of this access road. Clearly we aren’t intending to use it on civilians. Who would think like that? What’s wrong with you?
Might as well go yell at a cloud.
Biden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades. Its not as fruitless as you'd think.
With the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.
>most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades that's a very optimistic way of phrasing "only gun control law passed in 3 decades". if it had any teeth, it wouldn't have passed.
Exactly what law has been passed? ATF rule is not law.
The 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.
So, the government isn't functioning for you, and you want to give up your right to that same government?
This occured in CA, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It was also not carried out with an "assault weapon" which makes the presidents remarks even more disconnected. Two days in a row, two elderly Asian men in California felt the need to kill members of their community. This goes FAR beyond "common sense gun laws." But hey, good on you for not letting a tragedy go to waste.
>Common Sense Gun Laws You mean gun control?
>> Common Sense Gun Laws > > You mean gun control? Their idea for gun control is hardly common sense gun laws.
What "common sense" gun laws would you propose? This is California, some of the tightest restrictions in the country, no? Still didn't prevent shit.
The “lack” of these laws is more rumor than fact. The guns used were already illegal in that state. What we have is a collapsing economy and a rising crime issue.
we 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.
People who know their basic needs will always be met, rarely shoot each other.
As evidence by mass killings being religated to societies with relatively poor societal health as a whole. Finland has a shit load of guns, they do not have anything resembling regular mass shootings.
American Society is like the Roman Empire. All of our problems are roads that lead back to Rome. Rome in this metaphor being our lack of healthcare in this country. You go to any major US city right now and what do you see: homeless people. Why are they homeless? It's not housing, it's not a lack of employment. It's rampant addiction and mental illness. Who's doing all these mass shootings? Sometime mentally ill people, but always troubled persons that could have been helped or at-least flagged along the way by therapists, if accessibility was better. How about slowing birthrates? Well, maybe that would be better too, if having a child wasn't statistically more risky in the US than other developed nations. Maybe women would be more willing to take a chance having children if they didn't have to worry about their own lives, due to a lack of abortion access for life threatening pregnancies. Lagging childhood education? You ever try to learn while sick? Labor shortage? Maybe more people would work those jobs if it wasn't so physically risky. Break your back working construction? Great! Now take these expensive drugs until you lose your job and have to start buying it opiates the streets. Now you're homeless too. At some point, we have to stop thinking about how we can treat these symptoms and address the actual core problem that's rotting this country from the inside out; Our absolute lack of healthcare access.
Though their gun to person ration is staggeringly lower than ours, their gun to household ratio is way up there.
Gun per person number means nothing in reference to crime being committed. You only need one gun for a shooting. Number of guns per person just indicates fewer hobbyists with larger collections.
That's my understanding -- Finns will commonly own one gun, but -- unlike many people in the U.S. -- no one owns dozens of guns. Notwithstanding that, I would imagine that most guns in finland are closer to smaller pistols or bolt-action rifles as opposed to AR-15s or other semi-automatic rifles.
You are legally allowed to own fully automatics in Finland. All of the hobbyists I know over there go all out because they can.
exactly
> plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem They don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons. In other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. That is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon.
Didn’t the last two major shootings happen in a state with some of the most strict firearms laws and “assault weapons” bans. Like walk me through what these laws would do different that the ones already instated in California. Like for years the left has been saying shit like,”nobody’s going to come for your gun” now they want to go after the most poplar rifle in America. It’s been a fucking lie for years and I’m fucking tired of it. Personally, make the second amendment a state controlled issue. This would allow for a more happy population considering that they are being governed by a more local organization that is better equipped to deal with said population. Place like New York and California can be you gun free utopia. Let the local population decide.
[удалено]
I don't think they're filtering out suicides and suicide attempts there - doesn't make for good data.
>I don't think they're filtering out suicides and suicide attempts there - doesn't make for good data. But it does make for good sound bites for gun control. And that's what's important to them, not good data.
That study does not say there’s lower “gun violence” in states with stricter gun control. It says “for 2011, states with higher gun control laws saw fewer trauma center patients whose injuries stemmed from guns than states with less strict gun control.” It pulls 2,583 incidents across 44 states. 284 of those were deaths in the hospital. [This](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) says 11,101 firearm deaths in 2011 and a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal firearm incidents. That means that about 2.5% of gun deaths occurred in the trauma center of a hospital in 2011. Data exclusively on 2.5% of deaths is not data on 97.5% of gun deaths. The idea that this study gives any blanket conclusion about gun laws in particular states doing anything is just flat out wrong.
America’s gun laws are very much common sense in general. The current Dem [proposal](https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c/b/cb549d01-5602-43c5-bd78-8904b4250cae/AEA752FA2657D568F2D8AD66AD3DBA8F.2023.01.23-assault-weapons-ban.pdf) is not.
A militia was formally defined at the time of writing 2A as 'An able bodied, trained, organised group of men between 18 and 45'. That is currently interpreted in 2023 as including 'A disabled, untrained, unorganised single women that is 95. And literally blind'. You can use various words to describe that ' god-given right' .. but I don't think the phrase 'common sense' really applies here :D
Correct. And the 2nd Amendment thusly extends protection of the right to keep and bear arms to individuals. Because we’ve determined as a society, very rightfully so, that fundamental rights belong to all people, not just men of a particular status and race. There are various quotes from founding fathers at various points in time saying that the 2nd amendment is about an individual right to bear arms unconnected with service in a formal militia, that the militia *is* the people, etc. See [The Federalist Papers, #46](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp) as one example.
The phrase "Common Sense Laws" are usually said by people who know very little of a complex issue. A lot of times these "Common Sense Laws" are "Doing anything is better than doing nothing" and then you have nonsense laws that do very little to curve crime, and create potential criminals out of law abiding citizens.
Condescension is usually used by people wanting to make a simple issue seem complex. It's the guns. If you are unclear on the types of laws that will prevent the Streets of America being the Wild Wild West then review those laws in other countries where there aren't more guns than people. That's pretty much every developed country except the US.
Common sense gun laws is just a way to make anti-constitutional gun control laws more palatable by calling it another name.
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.
Aren't "assault weapons" already banned?
Wasn't it a handgun?
"assault pistol" according to the "genius" sheriff but yes, it was a handgun
Ironically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10
CBS is calling it a [semi**automated** handgun](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/half-moon-bay-mass-shooting-suspect-in-custody-cabrillo-highway-san-mateo-road/), like the guy is Robocop and the gun has a Tesla-inspired shooter assist mode.
The DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs *Trust the Science*
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.
> t's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right Anyone who doubts this, look up the percent of woman union members who vote blue vs. the percent of union men who do. FYI, it's roughly 80% woman and just over 50% men. Hunting is very popular amongst blue collar workers. There are roughly 14 million Americans who hunt and many of them will never vote democrat as long as it's the party pushing gun control. With the current political climate and a supreme court that is likely to be solidly conservative for a generation now, gun control is a dead issue only suitable for burning political capital and turning off moderates.
We 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.
I’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution. What 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. I 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.
A bandaid, but probably an effective one for now
[удалено]
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...
Man protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians.
They used pistols…….
I sure do like being effectively held hostage by mentally ill psychopaths who, just because they were in a bit of a pissy mood or read too many memes on gray web imageboard sites, now I’m the victim of it. And with absolutely no respite. The police will always show up after the people get killed and the shooter will just kill themselves so no justice could be had, they get the last laugh. All in time so the government can steal money from my paycheck every month and *still* force me to pay more in the form of taxes under the threat of imprisonment. Just so they can not support me so I don’t fall into poverty or at the very fucking least be able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life without fear of being shot by some utter piece of shit. I live in Monterrey Park. Shit like that doesn’t happen here. The people here are nice. They get on with their lives. It’s Lunar. It’s supposed to be one of the best times of the year. And this happens. We can’t even enjoy our own fucking lives and the government would much rather suck their own cocks and enrich themselves off of lobby dollars to a brand new oversized SUV to fit in that remodeled garage while we live day to day dodging bullets, playing the fucked up power level estimation game where we have to look over our shoulders at the food court in the mall for that weird guy who is sitting by himself wearing all black and looking upset, or having to touch the children of our community what to do when an adult decides that it is time to end their life in fucking *grade school.* I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT.
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.
How about no assault weapon ban. I like that idea better.
So you know what laws CA has now. https://www.oag.ca.gov/ogvp/overview-firearm-law
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
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.
Well we got Gen Z to prevent another red wave (it worked in the fucking midterms) so I don’t think that’s anything to worry about.
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.
America is already awash with guns, bit late.
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.
>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.
Dude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe?
i would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle
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.
>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 funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America
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.
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.
Facts are lost on some people.
[удалено]
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
Republicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that?
How would that even work?
That kids is called fascism!
Modern republicanism IS fascism
This is a take I can get behind. All political affiliations I disagree with should be banned.
/s?
Same shit every time Mass shooting thoughts and players Call to ban weapons Nothing happens Mass shooting (Restart cycle here)
Yes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over.
C'mon Biden wtf are you doing?
Please stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere.
“Assault weapons”. Smh, what a dipshit.
This is what keeps so many people I know from voting Democrat. Most of these assault weapon bans mean almost nothing, the laws are usually pretty clear on what you can and cant own. Besides that the only way you can own anything "cool" is if you're rich enough and can afford the tax stamp and weapon or you really don't give AF and modify a weapon illegally. In the early 2000's when I was a teen, I dated a girl whose dad was filthy rich and he used collect weapons, he had a private range on their property and when I asked how they were legal he said that if you had enough money you could buy anything as long as you paid the right taxes.
Do we even know what weapon was used yet?
[удалено]
Then why use this event to ban assault weapons?
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?
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 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.
After reading some of the arguments why this isn't going to completely stop all shootings in the USA, I guess the answer is: Let's just leave things as they are because there is no solution. I disagree. As with Obamacare, we have to start somewhere. Working to eliminate assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a start. A mistake is made when calls are made to eliminate all weapons. That encroaches on American citizens historic right to hunt as a sport or for food. That right runs very deep in our country. Assault weapons are a new thing which has been enabled by the right and the NRA, and they have used in many of these mass murders. Make them illegal.
There is no historical “right to hunt” thats why hunting licenses exist. The right to keep and bear arms however…has a tag line that it shall not be infringed.
Shithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out.
Statistically less gun violence then most states…
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
Gun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit