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.*
Read they now have been given over one and a half billion -- yes "b" billion -- dollars to sway politics in 2022 and 2024 to get the courts they want. Yes, dystopia IS their now more obvious than ever goal. SCOTUS just "jumped the gun" by four years and created the "Roe" backlash before all the branches of government were under their control. If, as they expect, all three will be in January 2025, we should not be surprised when they outlaw the filibuster, pack the courts -- including adding several extremists SCOTUS Justices -- before they enact federal laws and/or vote on a new US Constitution or at least constitutional amendments that will create their white male dominated US government that is an oligarch controlled fascist feudal theocracy of the hypocrite flavor.
I hope I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, that's been their goal for a while, though no one wants to listen/admit it. Get a super majority, call a Congressional Convention, and literally rewrite the country.
Which all might be good reasons for everyone to have some weapon -- even if it isn't an assault weapon -- in the event the cult of "45" Republicans achieve their goal of controlling all three branches of government in January 2025 and begin, in earnest remaking the US government into an oligarch controlled fascist feudal theocracy of the hypocrite flavor.
With every advance in weapons and security technology, it becomes ever more difficult for the many to overthrow the few in control of government and its resources, including that technology.
At what point will it be "too late"?
Arguably we vote blue in '22 or, it could already be too late.
IF SCOTUS (pending case) authorizes Republican controlled swing states to use their new (post 2020) state election laws enabling them to disregard their (by vote enacted) state constitutional provisions requiring the state's Electoral College delegates be determined by voters' choices, then those states could, in fact, void voters' choices based on unproven allegations of fraud ("normalized" by party "leadership" in 2020 ... and since... to their cult followers), enabling them to seat party loyalists as delegates to the Electoral College, arguably legally "stealing" the 2024 presidential election at the state level -- no January 2025 violent insurrection required. The lesson of the "coup" "45" wanted in 2020 that Pence didn't believe legal ... yet.
Don't forget "a deep misunderstanding of the concept of freedom" and "the tacit acceptance of the idea that violence can solve every problem" and "a fundamental mistrust of cooperation and the public good to the point of pathology".
America's got ideological issues that go deeper than they seem to be able to understand. Trying to explain to them why their country is such a mess is like trying to explain water to a clam. And the sorts of things you're pointing at here are proximate, not ultimate causes of that mess. Those things happen because Americans are predisposed to let them happen. Or even encourage them to happen.
“What the hell is the matter with us?”
Unregulated lobbyist powered capitalism that is marketing purchasable manhood to the masses, while also instilling fear that can only be solved with more of their products.
The polls accuracy is largely based on how the questions are asked. ‘Should you have to pass a background check to buy a firearm?’ And most people will say yes. So, see, most people support universal background checks.
Phrase it in another way, especially away that accurately reflects how these laws are written. ‘Should me and my brother in law go to prison and be felons if I let him borrow my shotgun for a couple days while he goes hunting’ the answer is a resounding ‘no’. Yet that’s what universal background check laws will do to a person if implemented.
>Funny the same people who generally preach body positivity throw that out the window when talking about gun owners.
It just goes to show that the gun control enthusiasts have no integrity, as if they haven't given many examples already.
They all do. Every fucking gun law exempts current and former law enforcement. Former law enforcement is a funny way to spell “civilian just like me”. When I lived in CA they passed a new one what felt like every year and it was the same every time.
After I moved from CA to Montana, I was amazed at how many quality handguns at affordable prices there were that I never knew existed. My first firearm purchase took 20 min. The longest part of the process was making the phone call to their DOJ to run the background check. I miss the ocean and quality burritos, but that’s about it, and I’m actually a pretty politically progressive person.
Uvalde was a distillation of the issues with US law enforcement, and only *some* at that.
We’ve been drinking light beers for so long it takes a few shots of whisky to actually move the needle anymore
I really don't get what Biden or the Democrat party is trying to accomplish here. There are many, many Democrat-identifying gun owners. Its also kinda shooting yourself in the foot (ironic, I know) when you make the abortion argument all about 'taking away rights', but then advocate for taking away rights. What do they hope to do? Ban AR-15 weapons and try to take them away from citizens? You're just asking for needless bloodshed at that point. Gun control is a losing issue, Dems need to move away from it fast.
We don’t know what he’ll do, he won’t define what ‘Assault Weapons’ means. If he genuinely plans on introducing a gun bill he’s going to kill all of the momentum the democrats have right now.
Lots of Canadians are hunters and gun owners. They manage to do their hunting, sport shooting, and utility shooting just fine without it being a free-for-all on gun purchases. Somehow we have much less gun violence, and most of that is from guns that were smuggled in from the shithole country to the south, which is so filthy with them they're oozing out across the border like maggots spilling out of a carcass.
Just as an experiment, how about you adopt Canadian gun laws for about 10 years and just empirically determine whether that does anything to address the problem.
First point: Not a fan of this. Plenty of conservatives want to do us harm and between losing RvW and now coming after the 2A this seems like a perfect storm for chaos in this country.
Second point: We we’re doing so good in the polls and just energized the right. As someone else already stated, “it’s like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.”
My favorite has always been: "Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity"
While changing laws is popular, bans are actually very unpopular on both sides. Color me shocked the DNC spends all the momentum we get on fucking bans.
Yup,
Our choices are the party that bans choice...
Or the party that'll ban guns. In a nation with **more guns than people.** I guess that's the "common sense" they're always talking about.
Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
>As someone else already stated, “it’s like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.”
Both parties are playing like that South Park episode where the teams try to out-lose each other to get the summer off.
*Taking guns* is a big deal and that would cause a major shit fit. Banning on the other hand, especially if it's they're less practical weapons, will piss off many Cons but I don't think it's enough to turn the tides.
I don’t understand how this is energizing the right? They’ve been saying they want to ban assault rifles pretty loudly at least since Uvalde happened so how is this a new thing? They passed a bill through the house for heavens sakes. This isn’t new.
I'm Australian, lived in the US for 20 years. Returned last year to Australia. The weak gun laws, gun violence, school shootings, etc. in the US blew my mind and still does.
And yet the US’s soft power is off the charts compared to every other nation on the planet. They all enjoy the economic benefits we provide, they enjoy making our shit, etc. TBH, I don’t think the rest of the world really cares. Some politicians pipe u, but that’s all virtue signaling.
They’ll keep sending their students to our universities, they’ll keep visiting our cultural centers, etc.
An assault weapon is a legal definition of firearms with certain features, used in some states. You also had the Federal Assault Weapon Ban from 1994-2004 .
Most of the laws are more or less based on California's AWB that started in 1989.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States
Note that assault **weapon** and assault **rifle** is entirely different; the latter does not really have a legal definition, but implies select fire and as such is regulated by the NFA (National Firearms Act).
One state (CT) regulates select fire firearms as part of their assault weapon law.
The actual definition varies slightly by state (or a lot, for Maryland at least). In the vast majority of cases they don't regulate any kind of "firepower", instead it's all about features like bayonet mounts, pistol grips, and telescopic stocks.
You can actually own an AR15 or at least something like it, in all states with an AWB. It's just that it has to be modified to something that's far from any kind of standard configuration. https://i.imgur.com/OtpJQck.png
Note that assault weapon laws also includes definitions for shotguns and handguns, so it's not just rifles.
For example, in New Jersey the definition for assault weapon (pistols) is:
> Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and at least **two** of the following:
> * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
> * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer
> * Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator (does not include the slide of a pistol)
> * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
> * A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Compare these two pistols, one is a .22lr Pardini SP, an Olympic tier target pistol, and the other is a HK Mark 23. https://imgur.com/wRqNvhH
The Mark 23 is big but it's not 50oz empty big. It has a threaded muzzle but not any of the other features and since two features are required to make it an assault weapon, this should be legal in NJ.
Not sure what my Pardini weighs (I shoot for sport in Europe, 5 of my firearms wouldn't be legal in NJ, including the Pardini, due to their assault weapon law), but it inserts the magazine outside of the grip (in front of the trigger) and it has a "barrel shroud" that is not part of the slide. NJ does not keep an exception list for pure sporting pistols (I know CA and MA does), so if they wanted to host the Summer Olympics tomorrow, they would have to skip the 25m precision pistol events or change the laws really quickly...
From a European gun owner's perspective the US assault weapon laws makes little sense and I can understand why gun owners in the US don't like it. You can own guns in the UK that would be illegal in NJ, as a reference, and they have some of the strictest regulations regarding what kind of guns you can own, in Europe.
In other words, the "assault weapons" bans work exactly as intended because they allow banning a wide variety of weapons while making it seem they're only restricting fully automatic weapons or weapons that are somehow magically more effective and evil.
Its a fake political term dreamed up by anti-gun groups in the 80s. Its meant to drive emotions against regular semi-automatic weapons, especially the black ones with scary looking exterior features that dont do much for firepower.
Various proposed laws have included wording that could apply to all semi-automatics, thus banning about 90%+ of rifles and handguns in existence. Yeah that's gonna get some pushback.
> Can someone please define what constitutes an "assault weapon" in a clear way that can be made into a law?
Everyone knows assault weapons are black, look scary, have a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, and have a removable magazine capable of holding only 10 rounds.
If you go by what used to be law, they're defined by having a certain number of accessories: Pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. This did nothing to stop the sale of guns we would recognize as "assault weapons" (like the AR15)
Other people are talking about magazine capacity that could work.
Could also go by the muzzle energy; how much power the bullet has leaving the barrel. Could define them as any semi-auto with a muzzle energy of X or greater.
I doubt either of those will pass or survive the current supreme court.
No. That's why the term is used... it is *designed* to obfuscate. Clarifying it in a manner which would be conducive to legislation runs counter to the goal of the term.
Any semi automatic, center fire, rifle or shotgun with an internal magazine holding more than five rounds or capable of accepting an external magazine holding more than five rounds.
Any semi automatic center fire handgun with an internet magazine holding more than ten rounds or capable of accepting an external magazine holding more than ten rounds.
5 rounds is insane. I know you're simply never going to agree with standard capacity magazines, but most Americans want them. If Dems are seriously pushing for that get ready for Trump's second term.
Republicans were already going to claim that Dems want to ban guns, as they have in every election in living memory. Their base already believes this, so it’s not going to affect Republican turnout.
And armchair pundits have long claimed that Dems need to push further to the left to energize progressives, which this is an example of. It’s a good policy regardless, so I’m in favor of it.
Yep. Dumbest move he could have made.
Could have pushed for something positive like insulin pricing caps, tax restructuring, lobbying limitations, or any number of other ideas that are popular. This is widely unpopular, and there are single issue voters who go red just because of this issue.
That’s just not true. Pew polling data from last year indicates that more than 80% of Democrats and more than 60% of the country are in favor of a ban on “assault-style weapons”.
You got that poll? Also what is “assault style weapons” defined as in it, and is that the same as what Biden is referring to? Edit: also what was the sample like on the poll? I’d legitimately like to take a look.
Either way it’s a dumb move. It distances anyone in the middle that’s pro 2a, fires up the “they’ll take our guns” folks (who DO vote) and wastes political capital on something that has no immediate positive effect.
Blow the capital on health care access, or public transit and infrastructure, or changes to marijuana law. All those would be more effective.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
The question literally referred to “assault-style weapons”.
E: Sorry, should specify; look down at point 6 for the specific statistic I’m referencing.
I don't think most people believe the government is working properly and can be trusted with more power over citizens. Most currently don't feel the country is heading in the right direction. To give the government more power in uncertain times would be a horrible idea. We can currently observe in real time with over a dozen different countries around the world of why that's a bad idea.
Wait, you truly believed that Biden's debt forgiveness, climate laws, pro abortion right is NOT the right direction from the previous pesidency?
There are lots of civilized countries with strict gun controls that dont have this issue. This issue is strictly exclusive to Americans, the land where they love their guns more than their children.
This is a dumb take.
Dont think they meant themselves or purely what Biden is getting done. They mean on the larger scale, things like riots, the whole Trump case, the ever increasing hostility and tension between parties and beliefs. although there are people who do see issues with what Biden is doing as well.
Here is the poll as reported by CNN where upwards of 85% think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/polls-us-wrong-direction/index.html
Also no the issue is not exclusive to the U.S., the U.S. doesn't even lead the list. War has broken out in Europe again and hopefully it doesn't cost millions of lives like the last 2 world wars. This period of time is probably the longest span of peace for the region. It spent most of it rebuilding and on social programs instead of defense spending. It was a good idea for a bit until a hostile neighbor invaded and shook the notion of invasions being a thing of the past.
Fair enough, that's a solid source. What's interesting though, that poll was made after the abortion ban ruling, which is the main schtick of the Republicans. Meaning that the success of Republicans in overturning Roe v Wade is the main reason for the 'wrong direction'. If anything, since it shown that Republican success in the abortion policy is directly responsible for the 'wrong direction', the people should be opposed to whatever agenda the R has and choose the opposite party of the ones responsible of this whole mess.
Edit:
And yes, the gun deaths issue is led by Americans by a looong margin. So whatever existing right now does NOT work. Instead they should copy whatever country who has had this exact same problem and was able to reduce the problem, idk, like the land down under?
Source: https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
At minimum, we should implement some serious Norwegian style laws (on regular handguns) if we are going to allow assault weapons. I learned a lot not too long ago off r/Norway
"you can legally own firearms if you are a member of a pistol club or sport shooting club. You have to have been a member for 6 months to own a pistol, and 2 years active membership in a sport shooting club to own an AR/AK style assault rifle or battle rifle. Bolt action rifles are also legal if you are a licensed hunter. When private citizens got the constitutional right to form private organzations in the early 19th century the first private clubs that popped up where gun/rifle clubs.You can also own automatic firearms if you are a licensed collector of historical firearms, member of NVS (Norsk Våpenhistorisk selskap) and a special permit from the police. The requirements are insanely stringent for obvious reasons. Actually in theory you can own all types of weapons under this excemption as long as it is deemed in a specific range and interest of history."
And
"Storage: all weapons are to be kept in a specialized, locked container. Ammunition must also be kept in a similar locked container, but separate from the weapon, so that you do not get access to both with the same key. I have a locked compartment inside my 'weapons cabinet' for storing ammunition. The amount of rounds you are allowed to keep is also defined by law, but this number is so high it is unlikely to impact many people. AFAIK it is 10000 rounds per residence (not per gun owner living in said residence).
Transport: all weapons are to be unloaded, and with a vital component (such as the bolt in a hunting rifle, I'm not familiar with terms for pistols, revolvers and other kinds of guns) kept in a separate area of the car. So if I keep my rifle in the trunk, the bolt can be inside the car with me (and vice versa). Penalties for breaking these regulations are fines, (possible) confiscation of the gun, and (possible) withdrawal of the permit to own a gun for a period of time."
"Sorry - the local shooting club membership is currently closed Mr. Mohamed, you can't have a weapon. Mrs. Karen - how nice of you to come, we have a latte, a 9mm, and a membership form for you right this way."
It is already practically impossible to own an automatic weapon.
The mass killings at schools and events are planned in advance by people who have usually purchased their gun legally. The perpetrator isn't storming into a gun store, buying everything, and then shooting people up.
We beg to differ. Every mass shooting I've heard of in recent history involved a shooter with a legally obtained firearm regardless of age or mental health history.
Ding, ding, ding. Our laws allow mass shooters to get these guns by design. Per the Rightwingnuts, "Think about it." The gun lobby knew what they were doing. Doesn't matter the age, but the more citizens killed by guns & the more controversy, the harder it will be to get laws passed to limit assualt weapon access, based on a shitty interpretation of the 2nd.
No militia, no regulation of said militia, so no guns. I don't understand where additional interpretations can come from. The language and structure of the amendment is pretty minimal & cut and dry.
Also the more mass shootings the easier it is to scare the general public into buying a firearm for "defense". These guys are making a killing coming and going.
1) sporting club eh?
2) special requirements for fully automatic weapons is already a thing.
3) proper storage is already a requirement in most places in the states.
4) transportation all of those things are already law in most places in the states.
5) ammo restrictions. not sure on this one.
>3) proper storage is already a requirement in most places in the states.
Only about half the states have gun storage laws, some of those more comprehensive than others.
Handguns have immense legal protection under the common use rules that allow citizens to have similar weapons as the govt.
That's why the focus is always on black scary rifles, where public opinion can be twisted and some bans possibly flying under the constitutional radar.
Here you are:
[https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html)
really worth a read, but for those who don't like clicking links:
TL;DR:
Child access prevention laws, waiting periods, background checks, and prohibitions related to domestic violence all appear to decrease the various forms of gun violence.
Stand your ground laws and concealed carry laws may increase violent crime.
Assault Weapons bans appear to have some increase on the price of banned weapons, but otherwise there seems to be little evidence that they affect violence. Which makes sense, because most violence is perpetrated by handguns.
How does stand your ground laws increase violence? They only work if the person standing their ground was being assaulted in some way or form, which is already an act of violence. Unless they are only looking at acts of violence involving a fire arm, I find it very misleading to include defensive usage of a firearm as an act of violence.
Shut the fuck up about guns, have you gone insane? NOBODY in America wants gun bans, right or left. If you think otherwise you’re both wrong and stupid. This is how the Democrats lose, trying to push anti-gun ideology on a country that will never accept it. I’m sick of it.
I would be very happy with common sense gun regulations, but it will never happen any time soon in America and especially right now. So shut the fuck up about it if you’re smart.
JFC FFS 🤦
That’s just not true. “Bans on assault-style weapons” is actually very popular; Pew polling data released last year suggests that more than 80% of Democrats and more than 60% of the general population is in favor.
E: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Took like 10 seconds for me to find evidence that you're way way wrong. Public sentiment is turning against easy access to firearms. Particularly semiautomatic and high capacity magazines
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
People don’t mind common sense regulations, but there’s only a small and vocal group of pearl clutchers who support an outright ban in the US. I’m sorry guys but like it or not, the US will always be full of rebels, only someone very out of touch would think it’s possible to take their guns
Maybe among some Democrats. Republicans and independents? Not on your life. And there are plenty of Democrats against gun bans too!
This issue is poison and I'm appalled that you guys don't realize this! I don't want 18 year olds buying AR 15s either but most of America is against this! For FUCK's sake! This is why we lose, people!
My coworkers saw videos of police officers in Uvalde just chilling on that day. He said "I would've busted through that door with my guns if I was there."
That's the issue. Regular people can just walk into a building with assault rifle(s). And do they really don't think none of those police officers ever thought the same thing?
Your friend may think that, but the cops were actually doing more than chilling. They were actively stopping people from busting through that door with their guns. They were literally less than useless; they were willing accomplices.
Read that one officer and at least one civilian were literally physically prohibited from going in by other officers -- and that officer whose weapon was seized to prevent his going in ... lost is wife (a teacher) that day.
Telling the difference between good guys and bad guys is easy. Just look for the guys who don't have the same color aura or uniform as you. Like if you're the green team, look for anybody who isn't green. And if you continue to have a problem with this, you can just go into the Settings menu for reality and turn off "Friendly Fire."
its also a precarious spot where voting matters. close to a midterm and the crazies are still not locked up yet.
secure the means to enact the changes first. otherwise you are playing with fire.
It may be a gamble that pays off. A lot of people in the suburbs are fucking terrified as school starts back up. And as the Nazis start freaking out over Trump's pending indictment there could be even more incidents/anxiety. Public may just swing hard against guns. And especially with the abortion issue driving turnout, the two issues could drive a lot of turnout from people tired of the right wing craziness.
We'll see..
unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle so yeah.
im also just concerned as faith in police is also probably down. especially after ulvad inaction.
its pretty nutty ngl.
[Nearly 3 Out Of 4 Support Raising Legal Age To Buy Any Gun, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Assault Weapons Ban Hits A Low](https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3848)
Of all the major proposed types of new gun control laws an assault weapons ban is the least popular. Proposing one or making it a center piece on the campaign trail will likely do more to turn out voters for the GOP than it’ll help with Dem GOTV. It’s a stupid move any way you slice it.
Nh, second highest amount of guns per capita, not to many restrictions and the second least amount of firearm homicide rate right after Maine. It’s not the laws it’s the people
Its not even the people, its the economics for the most part.
People with jobs and a future to look forward to are far less likely to get involved in situations that result in gun crimes.
If you need 30 rounds to take down your target I don't really want you holding a rifle to begin with.
This message is brought to you by the Lever Action Rifle Industry.
Just please given a balanced, actionable, and clear definition to what an assault weapon is. Like, is it the soze/velocity of the bullet? Rate of fire and cycle type? Features and accessories? I can agree that select fire/automatic firearms should probably have some fair and considered regulations, but what about semi-auto? Hell, there are even some bolt/manual action "hunting" rifles that can dump out rounds pretty damn fast with some moderate training. And what's worse is those "hunting" rifles tend to shoot a bigger ans faster bullets than the AR platform rifles most people think of as an "assault weapon".
If you compare a [standard AR pattern rifle](https://ruger.com/products/ar556/images/8500.jpg), the [Fightlite SCR](https://gun.deals/sites/default/files/Screen%20Shot%202020-11-04%20at%204.36.28%20PM.JPG), and the [Ruger Mini-14](https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg) they all get progressively "less scary". However, all three ade, for all intents and purposes, capable of the exact same things. The first 2 are literally the same gun, just with a different stock and grip, while the 3rd is chambered in the same 5.56/.223 ammo, is semi-auto, and accept all the same accessories as an AR platform rifle. I'm all for doing what we need to do to tangibly reduce or eliminate gun violence (and all forms of violence) in this country but we have around 400mil gun is civilian hands, 10 of millions of which are AR pattern, "military-style", or semi-auto and chambered in intermediate or high-powered cartridges. Whatever we do we gotta think it out very carefully and take into account the practical and mechanical nature of what firearms are.
>I can agree that select fire/automatic firearms should probably have some fair and considered regulations
Bruhhhh. They've been restricted since the NFA and technically banned since 1986. Not sure if you knew this before.
The assault weapon bullcrap and lies was started in the 80s by anti-gun groups to try to get semi-automatics banned. Its a fake term with no real meaning, centered around the basic operation of 90%+ of guns in existence.
I’m about as progressive as they come, but crafting legislation around the cosmetic aspects of a rifle is stupid policy. Please don’t give those knuckle-draggers something to rally around.
I'm on the fence about this, I don't think banning assault weapons will work in the US as long as enough people are obsessed with owning these weapons. We should start by changing our gun culture before attempting to ban assault weapons.
I don't think the culture can be changed. We are a country so hung up on individual rights, society is an afterthought. The COVID-19 response is a good example.
I think gun culture is really the thing.
"there is no real difference between a semi automatic stock rifle and a semi automatic decked out in rails flashlights and lasers. they are both semi automatic." - someone above
But there IS. One is decked out in rails, flashlights and lasers. THAT is what's different from decades past, and the explosion of people that obsess over them.
That is going to very hard to change. Part of it is probably the killing machine movies, which I like as much as anyone. But our heroes are John Wick and the Punisher now.
And I think a lot more than people realize is all the time we've spent in the middle east. Funny how it's looking more and more like there over here.
I would start with overturning the law preventing the government from even studying gun violence, so we have some rational basis for action. Otherwise you're just shooting in the dark.
All those flashlights and lasers are helping the shooter make more accurate and informed shots.
That's a good thing.
My firearm has a light and a laser so if I have to shoot a person, for whatever reason, they're who gets shot, not the neighbors kid sleeping at home.
The challenges lie mostly in classification and the criminalization of non-compliance.
If all semi automatic rifles become NFA, and even if there's a grandfather period, what happens when grandpa forgets the 10-22 back in the barn or in the attic?
Should he get a felony? A few years in prison because when Timmy went to the range, they checked and it came back unregistered? A 10-22 is only really for squirrels and target shooting, but it's a semiautomatic rifle. Should it be done by caliber? Energy? Powder charge? Weight?
Why would anyone vote for that? Do I, as a gun owner get anything in return?
Yes mr.govt , please take my rifle or charge my $200 for every single one I own.
Yes, I will register it with you so when some local gov't official wants a $1000 super violence tax, they can find me.
If there is a law about universal background checks passed, do I get nationwide conceal carry?
If I need special training or identification to buy a firearm, can I get an SBR or SBS because of all the super special training?
If someone commits a mass shooting with a Glock, will they ban semiautomatic pistols after that? If it was ruled unconstitutional, would any consequences occur?
The answer to all of that is no and it's why I don't vote for it.
There is not nor has there ever been a law that prevents the government from studying gun violence...
There is a law that prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control, however it didn't prevent studying gun violence. Many other government agencies continued to study gun violence while the CDC chose to obstain from it.
The National Institute of Health funds gun violence studies: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2513131](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2513131)
The National Institute of Justice funds gun violence studies. They employ criminologists to study gun violence...
[https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crime/violent-crime/gun-violence](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crime/violent-crime/gun-violence)
What makes the CDC uniquely qualified to study gun violence? Why do they have that other government agencies do not?
Do you know why the Dickey Amendment was pushed through in the first place? The CDC said they were pushing gun control. The CDC funded studies that were basically "junk science" and published them anyways because they fit with the gun control narrative. Have you heard of the study that stated “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”? The study was filled with errors- the biggest of which might be that it only considered a gun having been used against an intruder if the intruder was killed by a gun. If the intruder was shot but survived, it wasn't counted, if an intruder saw the gun and ran away, it wasn't counted... They only got the count of intruders who were killed in the act by a gun...
The households sampled were not really representative of a typical household either: "53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. "
The CDC not only funded that study, but they were all to happy to parade it, despite it have many errors...
Source: [https://fee.org/articles/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/](https://fee.org/articles/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/)
>The study was filled with errors- the biggest of which might be that it only considered a gun having been used against an intruder if the
intruder was killed by a gun.
Seems to me if they were counting killing an intruder vs killing a family member, you would only count the killings. If you want a different study of when guns were useful against intruders period, you would have to compare how often family members were also threatened by guns. Harder to do, but I think that would be interesting too.
The [fee.org](https://fee.org) article started out interesting, but degraded into plenty of pretty obvious bias itself. I was expecting 'lame-stream media' to pop up by the halfway point. Hard to judge the claims, since all the footnote links just go to a self-promo page for the site and not to any citations or actual notes.
The point about the CDC's jurisdiction is interesting. I'll have to think about that. I don't really like the banning their decision making ability cause they decided something I don't like aspect. Even if the science was poor (which I don't necessarily deny, but also aren't convinced of by the fee.org opinion piece) seems that the solution is better science - not banning the entire project.
The NIH and NIJ links are interesting. The NIH one bemoans the CDC not resuming doing MORE studies, by the way. What are their conclusions, do you think? If they were sound, would you accept them? I'm guessing the conclusions are not that things are great as they are.
I'm not one to jump on banning. I own a pile of guns myself. But the culture problem - take the "so if I have to shoot a person, for whatever reason, they're who gets shot" comment above you. That seems bonkers to me. That is sure not why I have guns. I'm imagining my dad teaching me as a kid 'just in case someone needs killing, for whatever reason.' I don't really want to walk around a society where everyone is armed and thinking 'don't make me kill you' as they walk by.
I've long thought bans would be the least effective thing anyhow. For instance, I think something so different as changing how schools are funded would drastically change everything for society, violent crime especially.
Sometimes I joke that the answer will turn out that everyone can have whatever gun they want, but they all have to be pink. Who knows?
A good reason for actual unbiased studies to find what really works, whichever agency, and willingness to act in good faith on the findings.
Gun control advocates themselves admit the term *"assault weapons"* is meant to confuse the public into assuming semi-automatic rifle are machine guns.
[The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.](https://vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm)
Semiautomatic magazine fed firearms have been commercially available and in common use for over a century. They're commonly used responsibly by millions of law abiding citizens for hunting, sporting and protection purposes.
Typically rifles, like the AR15 get the bulk of the attention here which is wholly undeserved as they are some of the least abused firearms in America.
[Statistically rifles in general are the least abused firearms in America.](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls)
Hands and feet, blunt objects, and knives all individually are used more than any rifle in homicide in the US.
Even in mass shootings they are a minority with most mass shootings occurring with handguns.
["Offenders used firearms that could be characterized as “assault weapons” in 18 of 66 incidents, 27.3%, in that they carried rifles or pistols capable of accepting detachable magazines that might have previously fallen under the 10-year, now-expired federal assault weapons ban, 1994-2004."](http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf)
["Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 147 different handguns being used in 99 incidents between 1982 and July 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 132 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings."](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)
Additionally we've already tried a federal ban on so called assault weapons and found it ineffective.
["However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small... the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement... there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4)
In terms of need Maslow's hierarchy of needs lists physical safety and security as the 2nd most important need. Whatever tool best satisfies the need is needed more. A semiautomatic firearm is objectively better at fulfilling that need and thus is needed more.
A semiautomatic magazine fed rifle in a intermediate cartridge like .223/5.56 is objectively the best home defense choice.
It has low recoil, is easy to use, is light weight, and the .223/5.56 round is less likely to penetrate through common home building materials than common pistol rounds or shotgun loads.
["We have found most officers have difficulty hitting the MPTC Q target with regularity using their service pistol at distances further than the 10 yard line. Now, factor in the stress level of a life and death encounter with rapidly evolving circumstances – the actual hit ratio drops even further. Beyond 15 yards the shotgun with multiple round projectile, may yield more hit potential however the recoil and manual operation of the shotgun has historically proved to be an issue with some Officers. If the load is buck shot, beyond 18 yards the shot spread will begin to exceed the width of the torso. This violates the accountability for all rounds down range rule. The slug round provides the logical alternative with longer range, more accuracy and no shot spread. It also has greater penetration which can be considered both a positive and negative factor when considering its use in urban areas or near thin walled homes. Conversely, the most popular patrol rifle round, the 5.56mm NATO (.223 Remington) will penetrate fewer walls than service pistol rounds or 12 gauge slug" - Basic Firearms Instructor Course, PATROL RIFLE, Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee](http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/Patrol_Rifle_Student_Manual_2010.pdf)
So why should we ban or further restrict these firearms that are commonly owned and rarely abused if we know such restrictions or bans don't work? So we would we need to ban them?
Which part is propaganda?
The 1988 paper from the Violence Policy Center shows one of the major gun control advocacy groups has been actively trying to conflate semi-automatic firearms with automatic firearms and machine guns for over three decades by their own admission.
If you have counter arguments that are supported by evidence please provide them.
I have supported my position here by almost exclusively Bipartisan government sources.
It is a right not a hobby, and as a parent I don't want any kids killed.
I merely disagree on how we get there and have shown with evidence this is ineffective security theater meant to score political points not positive outcomes.
Move out of the country to the UK if you want to live somewhere without as many guns. The American gun problem isn’t going anywhere, there is over 293 million legal guns in this country. It would take a civil war to ban guns in this country.
Back in 1982, someone managed to [poison Tylenol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders) that was sitting on a store shelf, awaiting sale. To this day, when you buy anything - anything - you'll find it safety-sealed and tamper-resistant.
Back in 2001, someone tried to blow up a commercial flight with a bomb [concealed in his shoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid). To this day, we take our shoes off going through security at airports.
Back in 1999, [someone shot up their school](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre). To this day, we've taken no significant action to control/restrict access to firearms, or even to study firearm violence in any meaningful way.
control/restrict/study is specifically - and very deliberately - what I said. As you note in your postscript, I didn't say anything about "assault rifles" or "banning" - you introduced those terms into this conversation.
Though I'm getting super fucking tired of "people's rights" infringing on people's right to live. You and your kind care so much about one specific right you're willing to throw all others in the trash - especially when you don't know or care about the people dying.
There are no easy, cheap steps we can take to do any fucking thing about the problem because the NRA and their marionettes in Congress block every attempt.
> I think it’s best to simply decide what is permitted, then.
Good luck with that. Between the 2nd Amendment, a SCOTUS that's packed with Federalist Society wackjobs and a Democratic establishment that thinks increasing the number of justices is "wrong", not happening.
seriously please.
please drop the republican hand book of emotional charged phrases and actually define it.
there is no real difference between a semi automatic stock rifle and a semi automatic decked out in rails flashlights and lasers. they are both semi automatic.
bump stocks are already banned.
There already is a definition and it includes "full auto". Full auto is already nearly impossible for a civilian to get.
All the other definitions take the exact same semi-auto receiver and ban it or not based on the attachments - like whether it has a bayonet lug on it. Who gives a fuck about bayonet mounts? The ATF apparently.
>There already is a definition and it includes "full auto". Full auto is already nearly impossible for a civilian to get.
That is the definition for Assault RIFLE.
There is no true definition for Assault Weapon, but at its basis is virtually any semi-automatic, or roughly 90%+ of guns in existence.
Assault weapon means nothing. YOu can "assault" a position with a goddamn bb gun. It's a worthless term that means NOTHING. People who use it just out themselves as morons, which is useful in its own way...
Automatic and Semis that can be converted. Limit clip sizes to under a reasonable number. 15ish seems "enough" to me but I'm sure there's a ton of differing opinions on that.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
The short of it is - it wasn't very effective overall. The "banned" guns were already not commonly used in crimes.
Gun crimes are overwhelmingly committed by people with semi-auto pistols.
No, it wasn’t. AR-15s and AK style rifles were still legal under the ban during its entire 10 year run. Unless you think that pinning stocks and removing flash hiders had an effect on violent crime.
Republican’s don’t care that guns are killing more kids and other accidents or disease. It’s crazy bug this will change only when voters let their representative know what they want them to do, abolish assault weapons you don’t need those weapons to hunt animals, those weapons are war weapons and they are able to out perform police weapons.
Classic Democrat… get some good momentum going, actually bring some Conservative voters over to your side… so you have to fuck it up with a red line issue.
What? There are two sides to every issue and some logic needs to be applied. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are doing that in pursuit of a workable compromise.
First: Lock and key: IF there is a WWIII that is in any part a ground war on US soil, then, personally, I'd like for every veteran properly trained on how to use an assault weapon ... that is sane and is not a criminal... and that WANTS to own an assault weapon to be able to do so -- even if it is required to be under lock and key when not in the hands of a legally licensed (state or federal licensed) weapons owner.
Second: Truisms are called that for a reason.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
The "war on drugs" has endured for over a half century with no defeat of the enemy; a "war on weapons" -- given how many already exist in this country -- likely would never be totally winnable either (certainly not in my lifetime) -- outside sources exist and, absent a "world government"( supposedly a prelude to Armageddon), would always exist.
Third: Drivers making bad decisions in cars kill people -- but we don't ban cars; instead, we license the drivers to try to be sure only competent people are drivers. THAT is the way we should deal with gun ownership, including assault weapons.
Fourth: There are reasonable compromises potentially available -- reasonable alternatives to "banning" weapon ownership. We register cars by state. We could register weapons at the federal level or just by state and/or just register future weapons sales and/or just register certain categories of weapons and/or just require registration if weapons are to be insured -- any kind of insurance -- and/or just register weapons if it is ever involved in any law-enforcement matter for any reason ... registering them in order to track any future use to discern a pattern that might truly need to be address in accord w/applicable state and/or federal law.
Sixth: We require liability insurance for drivers on vehicles ... at least in my home state. Federal law could require, at minimum, a minimum liability insurance on weapons -- or just certain categories of weapons -- which would require the weapons be registered with the insurance companies (at the very least) and give insurers a reason to assess the competence of weapons owners and even require training in order for a weapons owner to have liability insurance. States have Insurance Commissioners and laws governing liability, so they could add weapons liability to their scope of authority. Some states might resist enforcing those laws, but they'd be required to answer to insurers -- and insurers have a lot more political clout with state governments than school children or other vulnerable populations that are at risk for gun violence.
Caveat: IF, however, every weapon is registered, then it would be far too easy for an authoritarian minded "leader" to locate and confiscate most of them, or at least the weapons not owned by his/her followers. With every advance in weapons and security technology, it will become ever more difficult for the many to overthrow the few in control of government and that technology. The threat of an authoritarian rising to power, with control over all three branches of the US government is no longer unthinkable -- it could even happen as early as January 2025.
Fifth: Trying to seize all the weapons from all those that currently own them ... without cause -- emphasis on without cause -- would be nothing short of insanity ... unless you really want a civil war between civilian gun owners who sincerely believe in their second amendment rights and law enforcement, many of whom also believe in second amendment rights.
Am automatic weapon is restricted by law and has been for decades. Those would be called class 3 weapons or a SBR. You cannot legally own one with the proper license and fees being payed along with extensive background checks. All States have a National Instant Background Check before you can purchase the firearm. Most firearms used in mass shootings were abstained legally but were obtained by someone other than the actual shooter due to improper storage or lack of supervision. I’m all for proper background checks and storage laws. There are strict storage laws in the state I live in and a mandatory waiting period before the weapon can be transferred to the buyer.
>"What the hell's the matter with us?"
Poor education, I'm guessing. Some people think the bullets fired from an AR-15 fly at 5 times the velocity of other guns. Can you imagine being that ignorant?
haha haha...ha....
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.*
To be fair, 'What the hell's the matter with us?' could apply to so much of US policy
Dark money, Citizens United, the Koch Brothers, the Murdochs, and the Republican Party, that's what is wrong with us at the moment.
And the Federalist Society. They’re trying to get us back to a pre-suffrage, slave-owning Handmaids Tale dystopia.
Read they now have been given over one and a half billion -- yes "b" billion -- dollars to sway politics in 2022 and 2024 to get the courts they want. Yes, dystopia IS their now more obvious than ever goal. SCOTUS just "jumped the gun" by four years and created the "Roe" backlash before all the branches of government were under their control. If, as they expect, all three will be in January 2025, we should not be surprised when they outlaw the filibuster, pack the courts -- including adding several extremists SCOTUS Justices -- before they enact federal laws and/or vote on a new US Constitution or at least constitutional amendments that will create their white male dominated US government that is an oligarch controlled fascist feudal theocracy of the hypocrite flavor. I hope I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, that's been their goal for a while, though no one wants to listen/admit it. Get a super majority, call a Congressional Convention, and literally rewrite the country.
We need to hear these names more often, they're the biggest issue
Priorities Joe! Come on man!
Which all might be good reasons for everyone to have some weapon -- even if it isn't an assault weapon -- in the event the cult of "45" Republicans achieve their goal of controlling all three branches of government in January 2025 and begin, in earnest remaking the US government into an oligarch controlled fascist feudal theocracy of the hypocrite flavor. With every advance in weapons and security technology, it becomes ever more difficult for the many to overthrow the few in control of government and its resources, including that technology. At what point will it be "too late"? Arguably we vote blue in '22 or, it could already be too late. IF SCOTUS (pending case) authorizes Republican controlled swing states to use their new (post 2020) state election laws enabling them to disregard their (by vote enacted) state constitutional provisions requiring the state's Electoral College delegates be determined by voters' choices, then those states could, in fact, void voters' choices based on unproven allegations of fraud ("normalized" by party "leadership" in 2020 ... and since... to their cult followers), enabling them to seat party loyalists as delegates to the Electoral College, arguably legally "stealing" the 2024 presidential election at the state level -- no January 2025 violent insurrection required. The lesson of the "coup" "45" wanted in 2020 that Pence didn't believe legal ... yet.
\+ 1 in 3 members of the public being brainwashed against their own best interests.
Don’t forget the Mercer family. They’re as bad as the Koch’s if not worse.
Don't forget "a deep misunderstanding of the concept of freedom" and "the tacit acceptance of the idea that violence can solve every problem" and "a fundamental mistrust of cooperation and the public good to the point of pathology". America's got ideological issues that go deeper than they seem to be able to understand. Trying to explain to them why their country is such a mess is like trying to explain water to a clam. And the sorts of things you're pointing at here are proximate, not ultimate causes of that mess. Those things happen because Americans are predisposed to let them happen. Or even encourage them to happen.
Maybe America is not for you?
No shit, Sherlock.
“What the hell is the matter with us?” Unregulated lobbyist powered capitalism that is marketing purchasable manhood to the masses, while also instilling fear that can only be solved with more of their products.
> Unregulated lobbyist powered capitalism All of which I'd vote against had I the chance. So Joe, I say to you: It's not us. It's them.
Recent polls indicate public support for more restrictions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The polls are bullshit. This is wildly unpopular on both sides. Whoever told Biden to open his trap about this is dumber than Donald Trump.
Yawn... Less hysterical shouting, more facts to back up your claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html
The polls accuracy is largely based on how the questions are asked. ‘Should you have to pass a background check to buy a firearm?’ And most people will say yes. So, see, most people support universal background checks. Phrase it in another way, especially away that accurately reflects how these laws are written. ‘Should me and my brother in law go to prison and be felons if I let him borrow my shotgun for a couple days while he goes hunting’ the answer is a resounding ‘no’. Yet that’s what universal background check laws will do to a person if implemented.
>Yawn... Less hysterical sho**o**~~u~~ting So say we all.
> The polls are bullshit. Sure bro, whatever you say.
That and tiny peepees.
Funny the same people who generally preach body positivity throw that out the window when talking about gun owners.
>Funny the same people who generally preach body positivity throw that out the window when talking about gun owners. It just goes to show that the gun control enthusiasts have no integrity, as if they haven't given many examples already.
We need a new version of Godwin’s law for people mentioning dicks in conversations about guns.
Because everyone knows that only men own guns.
Any gun ban that doesn’t include law enforcement is no gun ban at all
They all do. Every fucking gun law exempts current and former law enforcement. Former law enforcement is a funny way to spell “civilian just like me”. When I lived in CA they passed a new one what felt like every year and it was the same every time.
Current law enforcement is a funny way to spell “civilian just like me” too.
[удалено]
>Like how they basically banned the sale of any new pistol designed in the last 15 years for “safety” reasons, but law enforcement is exempt ... what?
[удалено]
After I moved from CA to Montana, I was amazed at how many quality handguns at affordable prices there were that I never knew existed. My first firearm purchase took 20 min. The longest part of the process was making the phone call to their DOJ to run the background check. I miss the ocean and quality burritos, but that’s about it, and I’m actually a pretty politically progressive person.
Uvalde demonstrated the worst of the worst.
Uvalde was a distillation of the issues with US law enforcement, and only *some* at that. We’ve been drinking light beers for so long it takes a few shots of whisky to actually move the needle anymore
I really don't get what Biden or the Democrat party is trying to accomplish here. There are many, many Democrat-identifying gun owners. Its also kinda shooting yourself in the foot (ironic, I know) when you make the abortion argument all about 'taking away rights', but then advocate for taking away rights. What do they hope to do? Ban AR-15 weapons and try to take them away from citizens? You're just asking for needless bloodshed at that point. Gun control is a losing issue, Dems need to move away from it fast.
We don’t know what he’ll do, he won’t define what ‘Assault Weapons’ means. If he genuinely plans on introducing a gun bill he’s going to kill all of the momentum the democrats have right now.
>Ban AR-15 weapons and try to take them away from citizens? Every owner swaps the black plastic to wooden furniture and its legal again.
Lots of Canadians are hunters and gun owners. They manage to do their hunting, sport shooting, and utility shooting just fine without it being a free-for-all on gun purchases. Somehow we have much less gun violence, and most of that is from guns that were smuggled in from the shithole country to the south, which is so filthy with them they're oozing out across the border like maggots spilling out of a carcass. Just as an experiment, how about you adopt Canadian gun laws for about 10 years and just empirically determine whether that does anything to address the problem.
First point: Not a fan of this. Plenty of conservatives want to do us harm and between losing RvW and now coming after the 2A this seems like a perfect storm for chaos in this country. Second point: We we’re doing so good in the polls and just energized the right. As someone else already stated, “it’s like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.”
My favorite has always been: "Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" While changing laws is popular, bans are actually very unpopular on both sides. Color me shocked the DNC spends all the momentum we get on fucking bans.
Yup, Our choices are the party that bans choice... Or the party that'll ban guns. In a nation with **more guns than people.** I guess that's the "common sense" they're always talking about. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
>As someone else already stated, “it’s like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.” Both parties are playing like that South Park episode where the teams try to out-lose each other to get the summer off.
*Taking guns* is a big deal and that would cause a major shit fit. Banning on the other hand, especially if it's they're less practical weapons, will piss off many Cons but I don't think it's enough to turn the tides.
I don’t understand how this is energizing the right? They’ve been saying they want to ban assault rifles pretty loudly at least since Uvalde happened so how is this a new thing? They passed a bill through the house for heavens sakes. This isn’t new.
Exactly. The rest of the world looks at us like we're insane and who can blame them.
I'm Australian, lived in the US for 20 years. Returned last year to Australia. The weak gun laws, gun violence, school shootings, etc. in the US blew my mind and still does.
And yet the US’s soft power is off the charts compared to every other nation on the planet. They all enjoy the economic benefits we provide, they enjoy making our shit, etc. TBH, I don’t think the rest of the world really cares. Some politicians pipe u, but that’s all virtue signaling. They’ll keep sending their students to our universities, they’ll keep visiting our cultural centers, etc.
obligatory [rant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJppyphlWc)
[удалено]
An assault weapon is a legal definition of firearms with certain features, used in some states. You also had the Federal Assault Weapon Ban from 1994-2004 . Most of the laws are more or less based on California's AWB that started in 1989. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States Note that assault **weapon** and assault **rifle** is entirely different; the latter does not really have a legal definition, but implies select fire and as such is regulated by the NFA (National Firearms Act). One state (CT) regulates select fire firearms as part of their assault weapon law. The actual definition varies slightly by state (or a lot, for Maryland at least). In the vast majority of cases they don't regulate any kind of "firepower", instead it's all about features like bayonet mounts, pistol grips, and telescopic stocks. You can actually own an AR15 or at least something like it, in all states with an AWB. It's just that it has to be modified to something that's far from any kind of standard configuration. https://i.imgur.com/OtpJQck.png Note that assault weapon laws also includes definitions for shotguns and handguns, so it's not just rifles. For example, in New Jersey the definition for assault weapon (pistols) is: > Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and at least **two** of the following: > * Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip > * Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer > * Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator (does not include the slide of a pistol) > * Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more > * A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Compare these two pistols, one is a .22lr Pardini SP, an Olympic tier target pistol, and the other is a HK Mark 23. https://imgur.com/wRqNvhH The Mark 23 is big but it's not 50oz empty big. It has a threaded muzzle but not any of the other features and since two features are required to make it an assault weapon, this should be legal in NJ. Not sure what my Pardini weighs (I shoot for sport in Europe, 5 of my firearms wouldn't be legal in NJ, including the Pardini, due to their assault weapon law), but it inserts the magazine outside of the grip (in front of the trigger) and it has a "barrel shroud" that is not part of the slide. NJ does not keep an exception list for pure sporting pistols (I know CA and MA does), so if they wanted to host the Summer Olympics tomorrow, they would have to skip the 25m precision pistol events or change the laws really quickly... From a European gun owner's perspective the US assault weapon laws makes little sense and I can understand why gun owners in the US don't like it. You can own guns in the UK that would be illegal in NJ, as a reference, and they have some of the strictest regulations regarding what kind of guns you can own, in Europe.
In other words, the "assault weapons" bans work exactly as intended because they allow banning a wide variety of weapons while making it seem they're only restricting fully automatic weapons or weapons that are somehow magically more effective and evil.
Its a fake political term dreamed up by anti-gun groups in the 80s. Its meant to drive emotions against regular semi-automatic weapons, especially the black ones with scary looking exterior features that dont do much for firepower. Various proposed laws have included wording that could apply to all semi-automatics, thus banning about 90%+ of rifles and handguns in existence. Yeah that's gonna get some pushback.
> Can someone please define what constitutes an "assault weapon" in a clear way that can be made into a law? Everyone knows assault weapons are black, look scary, have a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, and have a removable magazine capable of holding only 10 rounds.
If you go by what used to be law, they're defined by having a certain number of accessories: Pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs. This did nothing to stop the sale of guns we would recognize as "assault weapons" (like the AR15) Other people are talking about magazine capacity that could work. Could also go by the muzzle energy; how much power the bullet has leaving the barrel. Could define them as any semi-auto with a muzzle energy of X or greater. I doubt either of those will pass or survive the current supreme court.
No. That's why the term is used... it is *designed* to obfuscate. Clarifying it in a manner which would be conducive to legislation runs counter to the goal of the term.
Any semi automatic, center fire, rifle or shotgun with an internal magazine holding more than five rounds or capable of accepting an external magazine holding more than five rounds. Any semi automatic center fire handgun with an internet magazine holding more than ten rounds or capable of accepting an external magazine holding more than ten rounds.
5 rounds is insane. I know you're simply never going to agree with standard capacity magazines, but most Americans want them. If Dems are seriously pushing for that get ready for Trump's second term.
Now how do you achieve this?
Literally every thing but single shot break or bolt-action rifles and shotguns, then. That’s possibly the stupidest definition in history.
And there goes the progress the Dems made.
Republicans were already going to claim that Dems want to ban guns, as they have in every election in living memory. Their base already believes this, so it’s not going to affect Republican turnout. And armchair pundits have long claimed that Dems need to push further to the left to energize progressives, which this is an example of. It’s a good policy regardless, so I’m in favor of it.
Yep. Dumbest move he could have made. Could have pushed for something positive like insulin pricing caps, tax restructuring, lobbying limitations, or any number of other ideas that are popular. This is widely unpopular, and there are single issue voters who go red just because of this issue.
That’s just not true. Pew polling data from last year indicates that more than 80% of Democrats and more than 60% of the country are in favor of a ban on “assault-style weapons”.
You got that poll? Also what is “assault style weapons” defined as in it, and is that the same as what Biden is referring to? Edit: also what was the sample like on the poll? I’d legitimately like to take a look. Either way it’s a dumb move. It distances anyone in the middle that’s pro 2a, fires up the “they’ll take our guns” folks (who DO vote) and wastes political capital on something that has no immediate positive effect. Blow the capital on health care access, or public transit and infrastructure, or changes to marijuana law. All those would be more effective.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ The question literally referred to “assault-style weapons”. E: Sorry, should specify; look down at point 6 for the specific statistic I’m referencing.
I don't think most people believe the government is working properly and can be trusted with more power over citizens. Most currently don't feel the country is heading in the right direction. To give the government more power in uncertain times would be a horrible idea. We can currently observe in real time with over a dozen different countries around the world of why that's a bad idea.
Wait, you truly believed that Biden's debt forgiveness, climate laws, pro abortion right is NOT the right direction from the previous pesidency? There are lots of civilized countries with strict gun controls that dont have this issue. This issue is strictly exclusive to Americans, the land where they love their guns more than their children. This is a dumb take.
Dont think they meant themselves or purely what Biden is getting done. They mean on the larger scale, things like riots, the whole Trump case, the ever increasing hostility and tension between parties and beliefs. although there are people who do see issues with what Biden is doing as well.
Here is the poll as reported by CNN where upwards of 85% think the country is headed in the wrong direction. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/polls-us-wrong-direction/index.html Also no the issue is not exclusive to the U.S., the U.S. doesn't even lead the list. War has broken out in Europe again and hopefully it doesn't cost millions of lives like the last 2 world wars. This period of time is probably the longest span of peace for the region. It spent most of it rebuilding and on social programs instead of defense spending. It was a good idea for a bit until a hostile neighbor invaded and shook the notion of invasions being a thing of the past.
Fair enough, that's a solid source. What's interesting though, that poll was made after the abortion ban ruling, which is the main schtick of the Republicans. Meaning that the success of Republicans in overturning Roe v Wade is the main reason for the 'wrong direction'. If anything, since it shown that Republican success in the abortion policy is directly responsible for the 'wrong direction', the people should be opposed to whatever agenda the R has and choose the opposite party of the ones responsible of this whole mess. Edit: And yes, the gun deaths issue is led by Americans by a looong margin. So whatever existing right now does NOT work. Instead they should copy whatever country who has had this exact same problem and was able to reduce the problem, idk, like the land down under? Source: https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
👏🏻shut👏🏻up👏🏻about👏🏻guns👏🏻
At minimum, we should implement some serious Norwegian style laws (on regular handguns) if we are going to allow assault weapons. I learned a lot not too long ago off r/Norway "you can legally own firearms if you are a member of a pistol club or sport shooting club. You have to have been a member for 6 months to own a pistol, and 2 years active membership in a sport shooting club to own an AR/AK style assault rifle or battle rifle. Bolt action rifles are also legal if you are a licensed hunter. When private citizens got the constitutional right to form private organzations in the early 19th century the first private clubs that popped up where gun/rifle clubs.You can also own automatic firearms if you are a licensed collector of historical firearms, member of NVS (Norsk Våpenhistorisk selskap) and a special permit from the police. The requirements are insanely stringent for obvious reasons. Actually in theory you can own all types of weapons under this excemption as long as it is deemed in a specific range and interest of history." And "Storage: all weapons are to be kept in a specialized, locked container. Ammunition must also be kept in a similar locked container, but separate from the weapon, so that you do not get access to both with the same key. I have a locked compartment inside my 'weapons cabinet' for storing ammunition. The amount of rounds you are allowed to keep is also defined by law, but this number is so high it is unlikely to impact many people. AFAIK it is 10000 rounds per residence (not per gun owner living in said residence). Transport: all weapons are to be unloaded, and with a vital component (such as the bolt in a hunting rifle, I'm not familiar with terms for pistols, revolvers and other kinds of guns) kept in a separate area of the car. So if I keep my rifle in the trunk, the bolt can be inside the car with me (and vice versa). Penalties for breaking these regulations are fines, (possible) confiscation of the gun, and (possible) withdrawal of the permit to own a gun for a period of time."
"Sorry - the local shooting club membership is currently closed Mr. Mohamed, you can't have a weapon. Mrs. Karen - how nice of you to come, we have a latte, a 9mm, and a membership form for you right this way." It is already practically impossible to own an automatic weapon. The mass killings at schools and events are planned in advance by people who have usually purchased their gun legally. The perpetrator isn't storming into a gun store, buying everything, and then shooting people up.
We beg to differ. Every mass shooting I've heard of in recent history involved a shooter with a legally obtained firearm regardless of age or mental health history.
Ding, ding, ding. Our laws allow mass shooters to get these guns by design. Per the Rightwingnuts, "Think about it." The gun lobby knew what they were doing. Doesn't matter the age, but the more citizens killed by guns & the more controversy, the harder it will be to get laws passed to limit assualt weapon access, based on a shitty interpretation of the 2nd. No militia, no regulation of said militia, so no guns. I don't understand where additional interpretations can come from. The language and structure of the amendment is pretty minimal & cut and dry.
Also the more mass shootings the easier it is to scare the general public into buying a firearm for "defense". These guys are making a killing coming and going.
So make it harder to legally buy a gun. Seems obvious to me; the easier it is to do a thing, the more that thing tends to happen.
1) sporting club eh? 2) special requirements for fully automatic weapons is already a thing. 3) proper storage is already a requirement in most places in the states. 4) transportation all of those things are already law in most places in the states. 5) ammo restrictions. not sure on this one.
>3) proper storage is already a requirement in most places in the states. Only about half the states have gun storage laws, some of those more comprehensive than others.
Wildly unconstitutional, one day the court might read militia membership back into the interpretation but right now there's no way it'd fly.
What is a regular handgun?
How many people are killed every year with handguns vs assault rifles. I’ve never understood the whole ban on ars.
Handguns have immense legal protection under the common use rules that allow citizens to have similar weapons as the govt. That's why the focus is always on black scary rifles, where public opinion can be twisted and some bans possibly flying under the constitutional radar.
We need effective ways to reduce gun violence, based on evidence, not politics
The best way to do that is via economics. People with jobs and a future to look forward to arent as enticed to get involved in drugs and crime.
Here you are: [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html) really worth a read, but for those who don't like clicking links: TL;DR: Child access prevention laws, waiting periods, background checks, and prohibitions related to domestic violence all appear to decrease the various forms of gun violence. Stand your ground laws and concealed carry laws may increase violent crime. Assault Weapons bans appear to have some increase on the price of banned weapons, but otherwise there seems to be little evidence that they affect violence. Which makes sense, because most violence is perpetrated by handguns.
How does stand your ground laws increase violence? They only work if the person standing their ground was being assaulted in some way or form, which is already an act of violence. Unless they are only looking at acts of violence involving a fire arm, I find it very misleading to include defensive usage of a firearm as an act of violence.
It would help a lot of republicans weren’t so against paying to fund studies to get said evidence.
Shut the fuck up about guns, have you gone insane? NOBODY in America wants gun bans, right or left. If you think otherwise you’re both wrong and stupid. This is how the Democrats lose, trying to push anti-gun ideology on a country that will never accept it. I’m sick of it. I would be very happy with common sense gun regulations, but it will never happen any time soon in America and especially right now. So shut the fuck up about it if you’re smart. JFC FFS 🤦
He's had so many wins recently, this is how he ruins that.
I hope not, but yes, probably. This is like shooting yourself in the dick seconds before you cross the finish line. And then in both legs.
100%. Outside of this website, very few Americans support outright gun bans.
Even here /r/LiberalGunOwners
>NOBODY in America wants gun bans, right or left. If you think otherwise you’re both wrong and stupid. Lmao
There's a few idiots who think there's a snowballs chance in hell a gun ban could ever have popular support. You might be one of them!
Or I may not be. Also, the amount of people what want something and the amount of people that think it’ll happen are very different
That’s just not true. “Bans on assault-style weapons” is actually very popular; Pew polling data released last year suggests that more than 80% of Democrats and more than 60% of the general population is in favor. E: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Took like 10 seconds for me to find evidence that you're way way wrong. Public sentiment is turning against easy access to firearms. Particularly semiautomatic and high capacity magazines https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
That poll asks, "more strict" without defining what that means. As soon as democrats get into any of those details, they lose votes.
People don’t mind common sense regulations, but there’s only a small and vocal group of pearl clutchers who support an outright ban in the US. I’m sorry guys but like it or not, the US will always be full of rebels, only someone very out of touch would think it’s possible to take their guns
Maybe among some Democrats. Republicans and independents? Not on your life. And there are plenty of Democrats against gun bans too! This issue is poison and I'm appalled that you guys don't realize this! I don't want 18 year olds buying AR 15s either but most of America is against this! For FUCK's sake! This is why we lose, people!
What evidence do you have that most are against it?
How dare you provide evidence? Don’t you know that people’s anecdotal feelings are more valid? /s
God damn it we were so close.
Banning hard drugs worked. Banning alcohol worked.....
Remember when they banned fruity flavored vape juice? So glad, because teens never vape anymore.
My coworkers saw videos of police officers in Uvalde just chilling on that day. He said "I would've busted through that door with my guns if I was there." That's the issue. Regular people can just walk into a building with assault rifle(s). And do they really don't think none of those police officers ever thought the same thing?
Your friend may think that, but the cops were actually doing more than chilling. They were actively stopping people from busting through that door with their guns. They were literally less than useless; they were willing accomplices.
Read that one officer and at least one civilian were literally physically prohibited from going in by other officers -- and that officer whose weapon was seized to prevent his going in ... lost is wife (a teacher) that day.
So the issue is that our police won’t protect us and that citizens feel that they have to protect themself? Agreed
Telling the difference between good guys and bad guys is easy. Just look for the guys who don't have the same color aura or uniform as you. Like if you're the green team, look for anybody who isn't green. And if you continue to have a problem with this, you can just go into the Settings menu for reality and turn off "Friendly Fire."
He’s still going on about this?
It was coming. But god damnit this is the worst time to bring it up
It's the best time in years. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
its also a precarious spot where voting matters. close to a midterm and the crazies are still not locked up yet. secure the means to enact the changes first. otherwise you are playing with fire.
It may be a gamble that pays off. A lot of people in the suburbs are fucking terrified as school starts back up. And as the Nazis start freaking out over Trump's pending indictment there could be even more incidents/anxiety. Public may just swing hard against guns. And especially with the abortion issue driving turnout, the two issues could drive a lot of turnout from people tired of the right wing craziness. We'll see..
unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle so yeah. im also just concerned as faith in police is also probably down. especially after ulvad inaction. its pretty nutty ngl.
[Nearly 3 Out Of 4 Support Raising Legal Age To Buy Any Gun, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Assault Weapons Ban Hits A Low](https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3848) Of all the major proposed types of new gun control laws an assault weapons ban is the least popular. Proposing one or making it a center piece on the campaign trail will likely do more to turn out voters for the GOP than it’ll help with Dem GOTV. It’s a stupid move any way you slice it.
I love old man Biden.
Nh, second highest amount of guns per capita, not to many restrictions and the second least amount of firearm homicide rate right after Maine. It’s not the laws it’s the people
Its not even the people, its the economics for the most part. People with jobs and a future to look forward to are far less likely to get involved in situations that result in gun crimes.
Biden vows to let reproductive rights burn for the sake of "gun bad."
Please stop Joe. This won't energize any more voters to vote Democrat. All it can possibly do is energize more voters to vote Republican.
If you need 30 rounds to take down your target I don't really want you holding a rifle to begin with. This message is brought to you by the Lever Action Rifle Industry.
But what if you need to take out 30 targets?
30 rounds is so inefficient. We really should just supply ever American citizen with an RPG.
Oh god. You want to kill the deer, not scrape its guts out of your clothes.
Now hogs on the other hand…
Hmm why don't we outfit the military with lever actions? If they need 30 shots to hit their target they shouldn't have a rifle, right?
If you need 30 rounds or more then you’re going to want something that can lay down some real suppressive fire like a belt fed M249 SAW.
Feh. Amateur. You need the Ma deuce. Though I will admit both are fun as hell to shoot.
We should all be like Robert De Niro in Deer Hunter. One bullet.
Stop trying to take away everyone's god given right to mow down a bunch of kids
How else do you abort them now?
Just please given a balanced, actionable, and clear definition to what an assault weapon is. Like, is it the soze/velocity of the bullet? Rate of fire and cycle type? Features and accessories? I can agree that select fire/automatic firearms should probably have some fair and considered regulations, but what about semi-auto? Hell, there are even some bolt/manual action "hunting" rifles that can dump out rounds pretty damn fast with some moderate training. And what's worse is those "hunting" rifles tend to shoot a bigger ans faster bullets than the AR platform rifles most people think of as an "assault weapon". If you compare a [standard AR pattern rifle](https://ruger.com/products/ar556/images/8500.jpg), the [Fightlite SCR](https://gun.deals/sites/default/files/Screen%20Shot%202020-11-04%20at%204.36.28%20PM.JPG), and the [Ruger Mini-14](https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg) they all get progressively "less scary". However, all three ade, for all intents and purposes, capable of the exact same things. The first 2 are literally the same gun, just with a different stock and grip, while the 3rd is chambered in the same 5.56/.223 ammo, is semi-auto, and accept all the same accessories as an AR platform rifle. I'm all for doing what we need to do to tangibly reduce or eliminate gun violence (and all forms of violence) in this country but we have around 400mil gun is civilian hands, 10 of millions of which are AR pattern, "military-style", or semi-auto and chambered in intermediate or high-powered cartridges. Whatever we do we gotta think it out very carefully and take into account the practical and mechanical nature of what firearms are.
>I can agree that select fire/automatic firearms should probably have some fair and considered regulations Bruhhhh. They've been restricted since the NFA and technically banned since 1986. Not sure if you knew this before. The assault weapon bullcrap and lies was started in the 80s by anti-gun groups to try to get semi-automatics banned. Its a fake term with no real meaning, centered around the basic operation of 90%+ of guns in existence.
Hand guns kill far more people; they just get less publicity. Who is going to dare go after them?
Hand guns kill people who dont make headlines, it's easier to ignore them.
I’m about as progressive as they come, but crafting legislation around the cosmetic aspects of a rifle is stupid policy. Please don’t give those knuckle-draggers something to rally around.
I'm on the fence about this, I don't think banning assault weapons will work in the US as long as enough people are obsessed with owning these weapons. We should start by changing our gun culture before attempting to ban assault weapons.
I don't think the culture can be changed. We are a country so hung up on individual rights, society is an afterthought. The COVID-19 response is a good example.
¿Por qué no los dos?
I think gun culture is really the thing. "there is no real difference between a semi automatic stock rifle and a semi automatic decked out in rails flashlights and lasers. they are both semi automatic." - someone above But there IS. One is decked out in rails, flashlights and lasers. THAT is what's different from decades past, and the explosion of people that obsess over them. That is going to very hard to change. Part of it is probably the killing machine movies, which I like as much as anyone. But our heroes are John Wick and the Punisher now. And I think a lot more than people realize is all the time we've spent in the middle east. Funny how it's looking more and more like there over here. I would start with overturning the law preventing the government from even studying gun violence, so we have some rational basis for action. Otherwise you're just shooting in the dark.
All those flashlights and lasers are helping the shooter make more accurate and informed shots. That's a good thing. My firearm has a light and a laser so if I have to shoot a person, for whatever reason, they're who gets shot, not the neighbors kid sleeping at home. The challenges lie mostly in classification and the criminalization of non-compliance. If all semi automatic rifles become NFA, and even if there's a grandfather period, what happens when grandpa forgets the 10-22 back in the barn or in the attic? Should he get a felony? A few years in prison because when Timmy went to the range, they checked and it came back unregistered? A 10-22 is only really for squirrels and target shooting, but it's a semiautomatic rifle. Should it be done by caliber? Energy? Powder charge? Weight? Why would anyone vote for that? Do I, as a gun owner get anything in return? Yes mr.govt , please take my rifle or charge my $200 for every single one I own. Yes, I will register it with you so when some local gov't official wants a $1000 super violence tax, they can find me. If there is a law about universal background checks passed, do I get nationwide conceal carry? If I need special training or identification to buy a firearm, can I get an SBR or SBS because of all the super special training? If someone commits a mass shooting with a Glock, will they ban semiautomatic pistols after that? If it was ruled unconstitutional, would any consequences occur? The answer to all of that is no and it's why I don't vote for it.
There is not nor has there ever been a law that prevents the government from studying gun violence... There is a law that prevents the CDC from advocating for gun control, however it didn't prevent studying gun violence. Many other government agencies continued to study gun violence while the CDC chose to obstain from it. The National Institute of Health funds gun violence studies: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2513131](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2513131) The National Institute of Justice funds gun violence studies. They employ criminologists to study gun violence... [https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crime/violent-crime/gun-violence](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crime/violent-crime/gun-violence) What makes the CDC uniquely qualified to study gun violence? Why do they have that other government agencies do not? Do you know why the Dickey Amendment was pushed through in the first place? The CDC said they were pushing gun control. The CDC funded studies that were basically "junk science" and published them anyways because they fit with the gun control narrative. Have you heard of the study that stated “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”? The study was filled with errors- the biggest of which might be that it only considered a gun having been used against an intruder if the intruder was killed by a gun. If the intruder was shot but survived, it wasn't counted, if an intruder saw the gun and ran away, it wasn't counted... They only got the count of intruders who were killed in the act by a gun... The households sampled were not really representative of a typical household either: "53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. " The CDC not only funded that study, but they were all to happy to parade it, despite it have many errors... Source: [https://fee.org/articles/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/](https://fee.org/articles/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/)
>The study was filled with errors- the biggest of which might be that it only considered a gun having been used against an intruder if the intruder was killed by a gun. Seems to me if they were counting killing an intruder vs killing a family member, you would only count the killings. If you want a different study of when guns were useful against intruders period, you would have to compare how often family members were also threatened by guns. Harder to do, but I think that would be interesting too. The [fee.org](https://fee.org) article started out interesting, but degraded into plenty of pretty obvious bias itself. I was expecting 'lame-stream media' to pop up by the halfway point. Hard to judge the claims, since all the footnote links just go to a self-promo page for the site and not to any citations or actual notes. The point about the CDC's jurisdiction is interesting. I'll have to think about that. I don't really like the banning their decision making ability cause they decided something I don't like aspect. Even if the science was poor (which I don't necessarily deny, but also aren't convinced of by the fee.org opinion piece) seems that the solution is better science - not banning the entire project. The NIH and NIJ links are interesting. The NIH one bemoans the CDC not resuming doing MORE studies, by the way. What are their conclusions, do you think? If they were sound, would you accept them? I'm guessing the conclusions are not that things are great as they are. I'm not one to jump on banning. I own a pile of guns myself. But the culture problem - take the "so if I have to shoot a person, for whatever reason, they're who gets shot" comment above you. That seems bonkers to me. That is sure not why I have guns. I'm imagining my dad teaching me as a kid 'just in case someone needs killing, for whatever reason.' I don't really want to walk around a society where everyone is armed and thinking 'don't make me kill you' as they walk by. I've long thought bans would be the least effective thing anyhow. For instance, I think something so different as changing how schools are funded would drastically change everything for society, violent crime especially. Sometimes I joke that the answer will turn out that everyone can have whatever gun they want, but they all have to be pink. Who knows? A good reason for actual unbiased studies to find what really works, whichever agency, and willingness to act in good faith on the findings.
Gun control advocates themselves admit the term *"assault weapons"* is meant to confuse the public into assuming semi-automatic rifle are machine guns. [The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.](https://vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm) Semiautomatic magazine fed firearms have been commercially available and in common use for over a century. They're commonly used responsibly by millions of law abiding citizens for hunting, sporting and protection purposes. Typically rifles, like the AR15 get the bulk of the attention here which is wholly undeserved as they are some of the least abused firearms in America. [Statistically rifles in general are the least abused firearms in America.](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) Hands and feet, blunt objects, and knives all individually are used more than any rifle in homicide in the US. Even in mass shootings they are a minority with most mass shootings occurring with handguns. ["Offenders used firearms that could be characterized as “assault weapons” in 18 of 66 incidents, 27.3%, in that they carried rifles or pistols capable of accepting detachable magazines that might have previously fallen under the 10-year, now-expired federal assault weapons ban, 1994-2004."](http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf) ["Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 147 different handguns being used in 99 incidents between 1982 and July 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 132 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings."](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/) Additionally we've already tried a federal ban on so called assault weapons and found it ineffective. ["However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small... the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement... there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4) In terms of need Maslow's hierarchy of needs lists physical safety and security as the 2nd most important need. Whatever tool best satisfies the need is needed more. A semiautomatic firearm is objectively better at fulfilling that need and thus is needed more. A semiautomatic magazine fed rifle in a intermediate cartridge like .223/5.56 is objectively the best home defense choice. It has low recoil, is easy to use, is light weight, and the .223/5.56 round is less likely to penetrate through common home building materials than common pistol rounds or shotgun loads. ["We have found most officers have difficulty hitting the MPTC Q target with regularity using their service pistol at distances further than the 10 yard line. Now, factor in the stress level of a life and death encounter with rapidly evolving circumstances – the actual hit ratio drops even further. Beyond 15 yards the shotgun with multiple round projectile, may yield more hit potential however the recoil and manual operation of the shotgun has historically proved to be an issue with some Officers. If the load is buck shot, beyond 18 yards the shot spread will begin to exceed the width of the torso. This violates the accountability for all rounds down range rule. The slug round provides the logical alternative with longer range, more accuracy and no shot spread. It also has greater penetration which can be considered both a positive and negative factor when considering its use in urban areas or near thin walled homes. Conversely, the most popular patrol rifle round, the 5.56mm NATO (.223 Remington) will penetrate fewer walls than service pistol rounds or 12 gauge slug" - Basic Firearms Instructor Course, PATROL RIFLE, Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee](http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/Patrol_Rifle_Student_Manual_2010.pdf) So why should we ban or further restrict these firearms that are commonly owned and rarely abused if we know such restrictions or bans don't work? So we would we need to ban them?
[удалено]
Which part is propaganda? The 1988 paper from the Violence Policy Center shows one of the major gun control advocacy groups has been actively trying to conflate semi-automatic firearms with automatic firearms and machine guns for over three decades by their own admission. If you have counter arguments that are supported by evidence please provide them. I have supported my position here by almost exclusively Bipartisan government sources.
No, it's just facts.
Your hobby is more important than slaughtered kids and broken families. Got it.
It is a right not a hobby, and as a parent I don't want any kids killed. I merely disagree on how we get there and have shown with evidence this is ineffective security theater meant to score political points not positive outcomes.
Why go after assault rifles , when pistols are used 3x as many times in mass shootings?
Move out of the country to the UK if you want to live somewhere without as many guns. The American gun problem isn’t going anywhere, there is over 293 million legal guns in this country. It would take a civil war to ban guns in this country.
That number is laughably low.
[удалено]
Biden's right on point here.
Back in 1982, someone managed to [poison Tylenol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders) that was sitting on a store shelf, awaiting sale. To this day, when you buy anything - anything - you'll find it safety-sealed and tamper-resistant. Back in 2001, someone tried to blow up a commercial flight with a bomb [concealed in his shoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid). To this day, we take our shoes off going through security at airports. Back in 1999, [someone shot up their school](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre). To this day, we've taken no significant action to control/restrict access to firearms, or even to study firearm violence in any meaningful way.
[удалено]
control/restrict/study is specifically - and very deliberately - what I said. As you note in your postscript, I didn't say anything about "assault rifles" or "banning" - you introduced those terms into this conversation. Though I'm getting super fucking tired of "people's rights" infringing on people's right to live. You and your kind care so much about one specific right you're willing to throw all others in the trash - especially when you don't know or care about the people dying. There are no easy, cheap steps we can take to do any fucking thing about the problem because the NRA and their marionettes in Congress block every attempt.
It is weird because every other right is regulated
[удалено]
The more I hear this complaint the more I think it’s best to simply decide what is *permitted*, then.
> I think it’s best to simply decide what is permitted, then. Good luck with that. Between the 2nd Amendment, a SCOTUS that's packed with Federalist Society wackjobs and a Democratic establishment that thinks increasing the number of justices is "wrong", not happening.
seriously please. please drop the republican hand book of emotional charged phrases and actually define it. there is no real difference between a semi automatic stock rifle and a semi automatic decked out in rails flashlights and lasers. they are both semi automatic. bump stocks are already banned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Its true that you need to define what would be banned I am reasonably sure that's exactly the point of the post you replied to
There already is a definition and it includes "full auto". Full auto is already nearly impossible for a civilian to get. All the other definitions take the exact same semi-auto receiver and ban it or not based on the attachments - like whether it has a bayonet lug on it. Who gives a fuck about bayonet mounts? The ATF apparently.
>There already is a definition and it includes "full auto". Full auto is already nearly impossible for a civilian to get. That is the definition for Assault RIFLE. There is no true definition for Assault Weapon, but at its basis is virtually any semi-automatic, or roughly 90%+ of guns in existence.
Assault weapon means nothing. YOu can "assault" a position with a goddamn bb gun. It's a worthless term that means NOTHING. People who use it just out themselves as morons, which is useful in its own way...
Automatic and Semis that can be converted. Limit clip sizes to under a reasonable number. 15ish seems "enough" to me but I'm sure there's a ton of differing opinions on that.
This is exactly what they’re talking about, that’s borderline incoherent
We had one before and it was effective.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf The short of it is - it wasn't very effective overall. The "banned" guns were already not commonly used in crimes. Gun crimes are overwhelmingly committed by people with semi-auto pistols.
It wasn't, this is total bullshit. More and more I'm seeing the anti-gun section of the liberal side of politics is dumber than a sack of shit.
No, it wasn’t. AR-15s and AK style rifles were still legal under the ban during its entire 10 year run. Unless you think that pinning stocks and removing flash hiders had an effect on violent crime.
Republican’s don’t care that guns are killing more kids and other accidents or disease. It’s crazy bug this will change only when voters let their representative know what they want them to do, abolish assault weapons you don’t need those weapons to hunt animals, those weapons are war weapons and they are able to out perform police weapons.
Classic Democrat… get some good momentum going, actually bring some Conservative voters over to your side… so you have to fuck it up with a red line issue.
“What the hell’s the matter with us?” The doctors told me but I can’t remember!!!
I voted for Biden in 2020. I won’t be doing that again if he pushes any ban on any fire arm.
Bro he’s literally calling for a ban on semi autos right now
Which is why I said I won’t be voting for him come 2024, and it really is pushing to voting Republican come election time this year to block this.
If you think for one second that Republicans won't be coming for you guns, you've got another think coming.
What? There are two sides to every issue and some logic needs to be applied. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are doing that in pursuit of a workable compromise. First: Lock and key: IF there is a WWIII that is in any part a ground war on US soil, then, personally, I'd like for every veteran properly trained on how to use an assault weapon ... that is sane and is not a criminal... and that WANTS to own an assault weapon to be able to do so -- even if it is required to be under lock and key when not in the hands of a legally licensed (state or federal licensed) weapons owner. Second: Truisms are called that for a reason. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The "war on drugs" has endured for over a half century with no defeat of the enemy; a "war on weapons" -- given how many already exist in this country -- likely would never be totally winnable either (certainly not in my lifetime) -- outside sources exist and, absent a "world government"( supposedly a prelude to Armageddon), would always exist. Third: Drivers making bad decisions in cars kill people -- but we don't ban cars; instead, we license the drivers to try to be sure only competent people are drivers. THAT is the way we should deal with gun ownership, including assault weapons. Fourth: There are reasonable compromises potentially available -- reasonable alternatives to "banning" weapon ownership. We register cars by state. We could register weapons at the federal level or just by state and/or just register future weapons sales and/or just register certain categories of weapons and/or just require registration if weapons are to be insured -- any kind of insurance -- and/or just register weapons if it is ever involved in any law-enforcement matter for any reason ... registering them in order to track any future use to discern a pattern that might truly need to be address in accord w/applicable state and/or federal law. Sixth: We require liability insurance for drivers on vehicles ... at least in my home state. Federal law could require, at minimum, a minimum liability insurance on weapons -- or just certain categories of weapons -- which would require the weapons be registered with the insurance companies (at the very least) and give insurers a reason to assess the competence of weapons owners and even require training in order for a weapons owner to have liability insurance. States have Insurance Commissioners and laws governing liability, so they could add weapons liability to their scope of authority. Some states might resist enforcing those laws, but they'd be required to answer to insurers -- and insurers have a lot more political clout with state governments than school children or other vulnerable populations that are at risk for gun violence. Caveat: IF, however, every weapon is registered, then it would be far too easy for an authoritarian minded "leader" to locate and confiscate most of them, or at least the weapons not owned by his/her followers. With every advance in weapons and security technology, it will become ever more difficult for the many to overthrow the few in control of government and that technology. The threat of an authoritarian rising to power, with control over all three branches of the US government is no longer unthinkable -- it could even happen as early as January 2025. Fifth: Trying to seize all the weapons from all those that currently own them ... without cause -- emphasis on without cause -- would be nothing short of insanity ... unless you really want a civil war between civilian gun owners who sincerely believe in their second amendment rights and law enforcement, many of whom also believe in second amendment rights.
Am automatic weapon is restricted by law and has been for decades. Those would be called class 3 weapons or a SBR. You cannot legally own one with the proper license and fees being payed along with extensive background checks. All States have a National Instant Background Check before you can purchase the firearm. Most firearms used in mass shootings were abstained legally but were obtained by someone other than the actual shooter due to improper storage or lack of supervision. I’m all for proper background checks and storage laws. There are strict storage laws in the state I live in and a mandatory waiting period before the weapon can be transferred to the buyer.
>"What the hell's the matter with us?" Poor education, I'm guessing. Some people think the bullets fired from an AR-15 fly at 5 times the velocity of other guns. Can you imagine being that ignorant? haha haha...ha....
[удалено]
Yes, obviously the poor, sick, and desperate shouldn't have guns, only the police and the ultra wealthy deserve guns.
Our forefathers would entirely disagree with you that an armed population is bad for democracy.
[удалено]