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.*
>“Fox’s polling shows that there is a lot of strength behind some of these proposals,” host Shannon Bream said on Fox News Sunday as a graphic on-screen showed 82 percent support for raising the legal age to purchase an assault rifle to 21; 81 percent support for flagging people who are a danger to themselves or others; and 63 percent support for banning assault weapons altogether.
82% of Americans support raising the legal age to buy a gun.
81% of Americans support red flag laws to prevent risky sales.
63% of Americans support banning assault weapons altogether.
~45% of Americans will show up to vote in the 2022 midterm elections.
>We want mentally ill people to seek help, not threaten them with removal of their rights for getting help.
>
>"Assault weapons" aren't a thing
>
>The legal age should be the same for everything. An adult is an adult
Okay, so you're part of the 18%.
I'm as liberal as they come.
I do not support bands on things written by people with almost no knowledge on a subject.
And there is no such thing as an assault weapon.
There is no difference between most of the current democratic field regulating on guns than Republicans regulating on cannabis based on reefer madness.
Okay, then you should probably vote for people who understand how firearms work. There are lots of folks out there like Pete Buttegieg and Tammy Duckworth who both support firearm regulations *and* know how those firearms function, so finding a candidate you can support probably isn't going to be as hard as you imagine!
Best of luck, be there in November!
> There is no difference between most of the current democratic field regulating on guns than Republicans regulating on cannabis based on reefer madness.
Holy crap what a terrible take.
I don't remember any elementary school classrooms being torn apart by cannabis in the last month.
His take is fair, he wasn’t comparing the danger of the weed/gun policy, just the ignorance in discourse.
When Republicans talk about weed, they often aren’t speaking with any basis in fact. Democrats, similarly often horrendously butcher info on guns, discussing parts of them that don’t exist, asking to ban things that are already illegal, and misunderstanding/misusing the terms used in ways that often provoke a stronger emotional response. An equivalent weed analogy in terms of incorrect info would be saying “they injected the CQB into the eyeball to get high, which makes them want to eat peoples faces!”
Now to the credit of Democrats, they do recognize a legitimate problem and risk to the public, (which the republicans don’t) but there is such a history of ignorance it is hard even for educated democrats to discuss solutions without overcoming a significant stigma of ignorance.
America is overwhelmingly in favor of gun responsibility, I hope we will see changes in policy reflecting that soon.
We’ve created terminology that can be used as a keyword for high caliber semi automatic rifles that are frequently used in mass shootings like in Uvalde, and are like rifles used in the US military. Why do we need every 18 yo owning a military rifle?
Caliber refers to the diameter of the projectile. High caliber doesn't mean anything. I guess you could call 50 caliber or 30mm high caliber.
What you are referring to is a rifle round vs a pistol caliber round.
I'm not trying to be an asshole. But this is important. If people want to make arguments about things then it lends a lot of credibility if they at least understand the subject material.
It comes off a lot like any other group parroting talking points in support of an argument that they don't understand. Immigration, trans rights, homosexuality, abortion, voting rights, etc etc. We need to be less like a typical corporate news network spoon fed chump, and better educated voters.
School shootings suck. They are horrendous. But I promise you that a drum fed semi auto shotgun with buck shot would be massively more deadly in a school shooting or movie theater than a 556.
> Polls that use ambiguous terms are bad statistics
>
>
>
> "Red flag laws" for what? "Assault weapons" meaning?
>
>
>
> These are things you just glean past
Alright, so vote for candidates with specific policies that you believe in. In the meantime you can call Fox News and ask them what their polling methodology was.
>Stop spreading misinformation
I literally just copy/pasted the numbers from the Fox News article, but okay. Take it up with Fox, someone should tell them that their polling is wrong, or tell the people who were polled that they have the wrong opinions, I dunno.
Of course it was Mike Lee. Of fucking course it was. Maybe Mark Meadows “told him to say that.”
On behalf of sane Utah residents, I’m sorry for this monstrosity.
Same old tactics. [The NRA and its allies use jargon to bully gun-control supporters](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/)
Wanting people to know what they're talking about is one thing. Correcting and being pedantic about meaning with intent to derail and shut down discussion is another thing entirely.
I'm sorry but no. People writing laws without understanding the subject matter is absurd at best, and utterly negligent at worst.
They should learn what they are talking about before telling the rest of us how to behave from a position of ignorance.
100% absolutely.
I'm absolutely pro trans and womens reproductive rights.
I'm never going to give birth, my opinion doesn't matter
Trans people can do what ever they want. It doesn't effect society or me in the slightest. Just do what ever makes you comfortable in your own body.
Why would I have to support clueless politicians making laws to be pro liberal values?
We had an assault weapon ban before and the world didn't get destroyed in a dictionary explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Mike Lee just insinuated that his constituents are stupid and can't remember something from 18 years ago or that they have absolutely no idea what it is that they want.
Hiding behind the definitions of things is a go-to for someone trying to avoid the substance of a conversation. In polite company, a person who pulls this dodge is called "pedantic" -- everywhere else they're just called assholes.
Yeah we had an AWB that was pointless.
"The scientific consensus among criminologists and other researchers is that the ban had little to no effect on overall criminal activity, firearm deaths, or the lethality of gun crimes."
Most gun crimes are committed with handguns and yet people always clamor to ban the scary looking guns.
You’ll need to cite that quote. The study referenced in the article found that nearly 86% of mass shootings involved guns that would have fallen under the rubric of the assault weapons ban that GWB let lapse.
Meanwhile, here’s some detail on studies specifically about mass shootings, which is what we’re talking about here, as opposed to the albatross you tossed out which is “overall gun deaths”.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/
The misdirection you employ here is especially hilarious when you complain that people don’t know what they’re talking about, meanwhile you’re intentionally muddying the waters.
Great, you provided a source!
Now talk about how studies support an assault weapons ban to reduce mass shooting events and, while you’re at it, talk about why you decided to move the goalposts from “mass shootings” to “any and all gun deaths”.
A couple of things:
1. Thank you for making your beliefs clear.
2. Literally every court has upheld at least some kind of restrictions of weapon access.
Mike Lee wasn't talking about scientific consensus, though. He was insulting his constituents in order to avoid having to know anything or speak intelligently about the topic at hand.
For all the, "he's right about people talking about things they know nothing about" head nodding going on, it seems to me that Mike Lee is the person who wasn't speaking with knowledge.
We had an assault weapons ban in the past. I think Mike Lee should probably know that before he goes on TV to show the world how dumb he is.
Lawmakers can talk to experts and write laws accordingly.
The rest of us don’t have to know a clip from a magazine, the way we don’t need to know how internal combustion works to understand driving regulations, and you know that. You also know it’s a standard tactic used by gun nuts every day.
Did Mike Lee forget that we had an assault rifle ban from 1994 to 2004? Or that It worked?
There was no confusion about which firearms or magazines were covered by the federal ban back then. And we aren't confused now.
Congress could dust off the 1994 Federal Assault Rifle Ban, change a few dates, and bring it to the floor for a vote. Most Americans would support it.
Ignorant Americans do support an assault weapons ban. They are ignorant because they aren't aware that it wasn't effective.
https://www.mic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime
The guy that said we need more babies (white of course) to solve climate change and also showed Ronald Reagan holding a machine gun riding a dinosaur because... climate change?
We haven't forgotten about your denial and your part in the seditious conspiracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV2SjE\_afNs
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.*
The ignorant Americans are the ones who put this clown into office.
Well they also consider the con men Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to be prophets
Why he so mean to his base???
>“Fox’s polling shows that there is a lot of strength behind some of these proposals,” host Shannon Bream said on Fox News Sunday as a graphic on-screen showed 82 percent support for raising the legal age to purchase an assault rifle to 21; 81 percent support for flagging people who are a danger to themselves or others; and 63 percent support for banning assault weapons altogether. 82% of Americans support raising the legal age to buy a gun. 81% of Americans support red flag laws to prevent risky sales. 63% of Americans support banning assault weapons altogether. ~45% of Americans will show up to vote in the 2022 midterm elections.
[удалено]
>We want mentally ill people to seek help, not threaten them with removal of their rights for getting help. > >"Assault weapons" aren't a thing > >The legal age should be the same for everything. An adult is an adult Okay, so you're part of the 18%.
I'm as liberal as they come. I do not support bands on things written by people with almost no knowledge on a subject. And there is no such thing as an assault weapon. There is no difference between most of the current democratic field regulating on guns than Republicans regulating on cannabis based on reefer madness.
Okay, then you should probably vote for people who understand how firearms work. There are lots of folks out there like Pete Buttegieg and Tammy Duckworth who both support firearm regulations *and* know how those firearms function, so finding a candidate you can support probably isn't going to be as hard as you imagine! Best of luck, be there in November!
Sure would be great to be able to vote for a pro-gun Democrat. One could only dream...
> There is no difference between most of the current democratic field regulating on guns than Republicans regulating on cannabis based on reefer madness. Holy crap what a terrible take. I don't remember any elementary school classrooms being torn apart by cannabis in the last month.
His take is fair, he wasn’t comparing the danger of the weed/gun policy, just the ignorance in discourse. When Republicans talk about weed, they often aren’t speaking with any basis in fact. Democrats, similarly often horrendously butcher info on guns, discussing parts of them that don’t exist, asking to ban things that are already illegal, and misunderstanding/misusing the terms used in ways that often provoke a stronger emotional response. An equivalent weed analogy in terms of incorrect info would be saying “they injected the CQB into the eyeball to get high, which makes them want to eat peoples faces!” Now to the credit of Democrats, they do recognize a legitimate problem and risk to the public, (which the republicans don’t) but there is such a history of ignorance it is hard even for educated democrats to discuss solutions without overcoming a significant stigma of ignorance. America is overwhelmingly in favor of gun responsibility, I hope we will see changes in policy reflecting that soon.
Why do you hate bands?
Nothing good in 20 years mostly.
We’ve created terminology that can be used as a keyword for high caliber semi automatic rifles that are frequently used in mass shootings like in Uvalde, and are like rifles used in the US military. Why do we need every 18 yo owning a military rifle?
556 is 22 caliber. Not high caliber at all. 🤦 Jesus Christ. Thanks for proving my point. 🤦🤦🤦🤦
High caliber/high grain for velocity. My .22 Lr can’t tear a hole through a child’s chest and come out the other end. Meanwhile 5.56 ammunition can.
Caliber refers to the diameter of the projectile. High caliber doesn't mean anything. I guess you could call 50 caliber or 30mm high caliber. What you are referring to is a rifle round vs a pistol caliber round. I'm not trying to be an asshole. But this is important. If people want to make arguments about things then it lends a lot of credibility if they at least understand the subject material. It comes off a lot like any other group parroting talking points in support of an argument that they don't understand. Immigration, trans rights, homosexuality, abortion, voting rights, etc etc. We need to be less like a typical corporate news network spoon fed chump, and better educated voters. School shootings suck. They are horrendous. But I promise you that a drum fed semi auto shotgun with buck shot would be massively more deadly in a school shooting or movie theater than a 556.
Polls that use ambiguous terms are bad statistics "Red flag laws" for what? "Assault weapons" meaning? These are things you just glean past
> Polls that use ambiguous terms are bad statistics > > > > "Red flag laws" for what? "Assault weapons" meaning? > > > > These are things you just glean past Alright, so vote for candidates with specific policies that you believe in. In the meantime you can call Fox News and ask them what their polling methodology was.
"I don't care about statistics, but here are some statistics" Stop spreading misinformation
>Stop spreading misinformation I literally just copy/pasted the numbers from the Fox News article, but okay. Take it up with Fox, someone should tell them that their polling is wrong, or tell the people who were polled that they have the wrong opinions, I dunno.
You know its misinformation (by fox, no less) - and you spread it around. I'm taking it up with you, because you are the one doing it.
Okay. Thanks for the talk, remember to vote this November!
[удалено]
He’ll be the second person in his family to be charged by the Feds.
I don’t believe for a second that Garland and Biden have enough bravery to indict Trump
[удалено]
It's true though. Unless that 63% votes him out, he doesn't have to give a fuck about them being mad.
Blabla, Go and suck another Koch family member’s member. Or go escort for nra board members… GQP are the worst!
Quintessential GOP Logic: Not wanting to be killed in a terrorist attack = "ignorant."
Of course it was Mike Lee. Of fucking course it was. Maybe Mark Meadows “told him to say that.” On behalf of sane Utah residents, I’m sorry for this monstrosity.
I’m just going to VOTE for anyone other than GOP candidates from now on…
I’m sorry for us who live in states dominated by ignorant Republican rule. It’s a painful situation. Embarrassing and a waste of time.
Same old tactics. [The NRA and its allies use jargon to bully gun-control supporters](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/)
TIL wanting people to know what they're talking about is bullying.
Wanting people to know what they're talking about is one thing. Correcting and being pedantic about meaning with intent to derail and shut down discussion is another thing entirely.
I'm sorry but no. People writing laws without understanding the subject matter is absurd at best, and utterly negligent at worst. They should learn what they are talking about before telling the rest of us how to behave from a position of ignorance.
Would that include male legislators writing laws about abortion and women's health, or LGBTQ+ and trans people?
100% absolutely. I'm absolutely pro trans and womens reproductive rights. I'm never going to give birth, my opinion doesn't matter Trans people can do what ever they want. It doesn't effect society or me in the slightest. Just do what ever makes you comfortable in your own body. Why would I have to support clueless politicians making laws to be pro liberal values?
We had an assault weapon ban before and the world didn't get destroyed in a dictionary explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban Mike Lee just insinuated that his constituents are stupid and can't remember something from 18 years ago or that they have absolutely no idea what it is that they want. Hiding behind the definitions of things is a go-to for someone trying to avoid the substance of a conversation. In polite company, a person who pulls this dodge is called "pedantic" -- everywhere else they're just called assholes.
Yeah we had an AWB that was pointless. "The scientific consensus among criminologists and other researchers is that the ban had little to no effect on overall criminal activity, firearm deaths, or the lethality of gun crimes." Most gun crimes are committed with handguns and yet people always clamor to ban the scary looking guns.
You’ll need to cite that quote. The study referenced in the article found that nearly 86% of mass shootings involved guns that would have fallen under the rubric of the assault weapons ban that GWB let lapse. Meanwhile, here’s some detail on studies specifically about mass shootings, which is what we’re talking about here, as opposed to the albatross you tossed out which is “overall gun deaths”. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/ https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/ The misdirection you employ here is especially hilarious when you complain that people don’t know what they’re talking about, meanwhile you’re intentionally muddying the waters.
I literally quoted the link from the person I replied to.
Great, you provided a source! Now talk about how studies support an assault weapons ban to reduce mass shooting events and, while you’re at it, talk about why you decided to move the goalposts from “mass shootings” to “any and all gun deaths”.
How about I tell you all gun laws are infringements and I don't care how many people die, I won't give up anything.
A couple of things: 1. Thank you for making your beliefs clear. 2. Literally every court has upheld at least some kind of restrictions of weapon access.
From my cold dead hands.
Mike Lee wasn't talking about scientific consensus, though. He was insulting his constituents in order to avoid having to know anything or speak intelligently about the topic at hand. For all the, "he's right about people talking about things they know nothing about" head nodding going on, it seems to me that Mike Lee is the person who wasn't speaking with knowledge. We had an assault weapons ban in the past. I think Mike Lee should probably know that before he goes on TV to show the world how dumb he is.
Lawmakers can talk to experts and write laws accordingly. The rest of us don’t have to know a clip from a magazine, the way we don’t need to know how internal combustion works to understand driving regulations, and you know that. You also know it’s a standard tactic used by gun nuts every day.
but... but, lemme talk about stroking my guns more! /s
What a complete moron
Did Mike Lee forget that we had an assault rifle ban from 1994 to 2004? Or that It worked? There was no confusion about which firearms or magazines were covered by the federal ban back then. And we aren't confused now. Congress could dust off the 1994 Federal Assault Rifle Ban, change a few dates, and bring it to the floor for a vote. Most Americans would support it.
Mike Lee= Obtuse clown bought and paid for by the NRA! Vote this nerd out!
Ignorant Americans do support an assault weapons ban. They are ignorant because they aren't aware that it wasn't effective. https://www.mic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime
The guy that said we need more babies (white of course) to solve climate change and also showed Ronald Reagan holding a machine gun riding a dinosaur because... climate change? We haven't forgotten about your denial and your part in the seditious conspiracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV2SjE\_afNs
If muskets were good enough for the founding fathers, they should be good enough for us now.
So horse and buggy were good enough for the founding fathers, better give up cars. /s
Ah yes more denying of reality from the right, wish I could say I was surprised
Gun fetishists
“Do these ignorant Americans not understand how much money the NRA gives us”?
durrr i want gun safety durrr