what is....

[Jhhnn]

Would you settle for no assault weapons if we had like let's say 75% civilian ownership of revolvers? Is that a fair tradeoff for you, being as you support the second amendment and all?

Meaningless fantasy scenario.

 

[momeNt]

Meaningless fantasy scenario.

Oh, i thought you actually wanted an AWB. Glad to know you actually support the 2A.

 

[mdram]

Why do Republican politicians value campaign contributions from the NRA over the lives of their own children?

do they?
please do explain

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, i thought you actually wanted an AWB. Glad to know you actually support the 2A.

Nah. Everybody needs military firepower to keep the hippies off the lawn & the commies out of the living room. For Freedom, of course.

 

[feralkid]

Wet towel and your hinder have an appointment, op.

Also:

 

[fskimospy]

do they?
please do explain

For the average citizen having a gun in your home increases the likelihood of your child's death.

 

[jackstar7]

all semi autos?

btw gun ownership is not the problem. people are the problem

Because people own guns.

End common gun ownership among the populace and remove them from most cops, and we can get back to having a civilization here.

 

[mdram]

Because people own guns.

End common gun ownership among the populace and remove them from most cops, and we can get back to having a civilization here.

that is a new one. disarm the police

i do believe that the gov should follow the same laws it citizens follow.
but i wouldn't go as far as to disarm the police.

 

[vi edit]

I don't advocate semi-auto bans at all. That too me (as a well documented fascist liberal) is a line too far. I argue more on the lines of overall capacity, modifications that alter rate of fire, and the general "style" of the weapon. That's the subjective part. When people think of "assault rifles" they think of the looks of the weapon. That to me is certainly part of the puzzle. There's an appeal to empowerment that the tactical/assault style makes to people that is part of the problem combined with their efficiency in delivering accurate shots.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't advocate semi-auto bans at all. That too me (as a well documented fascist liberal) is a line too far. I argue more on the lines of overall capacity, modifications that alter rate of fire, and the general "style" of the weapon. That's the subjective part. When people think of "assault rifles" they think of the looks of the weapon. That to me is certainly part of the puzzle. There's an appeal to empowerment that the tactical/assault style makes to people that is part of the problem combined with their efficiency in delivering accurate shots.

But semiautomatics are what kill the overwhelming majority of people. How do we solve the gun violence problem without addressing that?

 

[mdram]

I don't advocate semi-auto bans at all. That too me (as a well documented fascist liberal) is a line too far. I argue more on the lines of overall capacity, modifications that alter rate of fire, and the general "style" of the weapon. That's the subjective part. When people think of "assault rifles" they think of the looks of the weapon. That to me is certainly part of the puzzle. There's an appeal to empowerment that the tactical/assault style makes to people that is part of the problem combined with their efficiency in delivering accurate shots.

and the subjective part is the issue.
i have seen it mentioned here that a "A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm without being burned (except a slide that encloses the barrel)"
creates an assault weapon. but isnt that the same as stock?(manlicher stocks even encircled the barrel as well as other)

 

[jackstar7]

that is a new one. disarm the police

i do believe that the gov should follow the same laws it citizens follow.
but i wouldn't go as far as to disarm the police.

Get on board, because this is what's going to happen. Common citizens won't have guns and neither will common cops.

Imagine how that will change how we treat police and how police must treat us.

Less to be afraid of, so less reason to need guns.

 

[vi edit]

But semiautomatics are what kill the overwhelming majority of people. How do we solve the gun violence problem without addressing that?

Because semi-auto is only one piece of many in a very complicated puzzle. I'm under zero illusion that banning semi-autos is the silver bullet in solving gun violence. It's not. There are so many shapes and forms of gun violence that we have compartmentalize specific types (domestic, vs mass shooting, vs gang, ect) and then look at the all of the factors involved in each of those and start tearing them down and addressing.

 

[vi edit]

and the subjective part is the issue.
i have seen it mentioned here that a "A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm without being burned (except a slide that encloses the barrel)"
creates an assault weapon. but isnt that the same as stock?(manlicher stocks even encircled the barrel as well as other)

The argument is a lot like trying to define "what is a sports car". Hence the difficulty in coming to a conclusion. We all have opinions with some overlap but ultimately it's a judgement call based upon some objective and subjective elements.

 

[mdram]

Because semi-auto is only one piece of many in a very complicated puzzle. I'm under zero illusion that banning semi-autos is the silver bullet in solving gun violence. It's not. There are so many shapes and forms of gun violence that we have compartmentalize specific types (domestic, vs mass shooting, vs gang, ect) and then look at the all of the factors involved in each of those and start tearing them down and addressing.

interesting perspective.
I would attribute much of to the decline of the American family.
children are not taught the same respect for others as they once were.
too many are being raised by other children and not the parents.

its easy to see in any public setting. and it has a snowball affect

 

[fskimospy]

interesting perspective.
I would attribute much of to the decline of the American family.
children are not taught the same respect for others as they once were.
too many are being raised by other children and not the parents.

its easy to see in any public setting. and it has a snowball affect

Then why is the gun violence rate a fraction of what it once was? Does that indicate that families are better now than they were before?

 

[fskimospy]

Because semi-auto is only one piece of many in a very complicated puzzle. I'm under zero illusion that banning semi-autos is the silver bullet in solving gun violence. It's not. There are so many shapes and forms of gun violence that we have compartmentalize specific types (domestic, vs mass shooting, vs gang, ect) and then look at the all of the factors involved in each of those and start tearing them down and addressing.

I'm not sure why the puzzle is really all that complicated. I agree that our bans should go significantly beyond semi-automatics, but basically anything we can do to reduce the number of guns in people's possession makes things better. That's what the research indicates anyway.

 

[mdram]

I'm not sure why the puzzle is really all that complicated. I agree that our bans should go significantly beyond semi-automatics, but basically anything we can do to reduce the number of guns in people's possession makes things better. That's what the research indicates anyway.

what about the people that use guns for self defense? it does happen

 

[Meghan54]

One of these was around when the Constitution was written. One of these is considered an "assault weapon." Care to guess which? From what I'm able to glean, no one can tell the difference between these.....at least from some perspectives in this and other threads.

 

[mdram]

One of these was around when the Constitution was written. One of these is considered an "assault weapon." Care to guess which? From what I'm able to glean, no one can tell the difference between these.....at least from some perspectives in this and other threads.

when the Constitution was written the general populace and the military had the same arms. heck private people even owned cannons/battleships/ect.
we are already restricted by that standard

 

[fskimospy]

what about the people that use guns for self defense? it does happen

Guns are used far more frequently to commit crimes than to stop them. In addition, research indicates that a lot of things people claim are gun uses for 'self defense' are actually crimes in and of themselves.

Increased gun ownership is associated with increased criminal activity, increased homicide rates, and increased suicide rates. What exactly are these guns useful for?

 

[vi edit]

interesting perspective.
I would attribute much of to the decline of the American family.
children are not taught the same respect for others as they once were.
too many are being raised by other children and not the parents.

its easy to see in any public setting. and it has a snowball affect

Which part? Domestic abuse (or killing your spouse either in defense or rage) has been around since the dawn of time and carries with it the violence. It has nothing to do with the decline of family values. That's existed forever.

When it comes to mass shootings, I won't agree at all. I think it comes down to how we have handled the "bully culture". 50-30 years if you had a problem with someone else you went out to the playground and beat the hell out of each other. Then you moved on. You got into scuffles and settled your differences with fists. That rage and energy was dealt with in (mostly) non-lethal ways. Then we started doing zero tolerance and kids that retaliated were suspended. They were victimized twice. Once for the bully and again for the reaction. That lead to them building up that hatred and it festered. Eventually they snap and it comes across in the ways we have seen. Combine that with mob mentality and shaming online and parents that put too much time into work or their own social habits they are oblivious to the signals and are dumbstruck when it happens.

Contrast that to a country like England that has very high "violence" but very low "deaths". They are much more like the "old" days where you have a physical dispute and settle it that way instead of whipping out a gun to settle your differences. We are so litigious as a society and so in capable of handling confrontation that we settle things with lethal means (guns).

I'm not saying that beating the hell out of each other is the answer, but we need to step back and really look at where we are and how we got here.

 

[mdram]

Guns are used far more frequently to commit crimes than to stop them. In addition, research indicates that a lot of things people claim are gun uses for 'self defense' are actually crimes in and of themselves.

Increased gun ownership is associated with increased criminal activity, increased homicide rates, and increased suicide rates. What exactly are these guns useful for?

i could care less about suicides. if someone wants to kill themselves they will find away. i have no sympathy for them.

so your ok with people losing their life due to inability to defend themselves.

 

[mdram]

Which part? Domestic abuse (or killing your spouse either in defense or rage) has been around since the dawn of time and carries with it the violence. It has nothing to do with the decline of family values. That's existed forever.

When it comes to mass shootings, I won't agree at all. I think it comes down to how we have handled the "bully culture". 50-30 years if you had a problem with someone else you went out to the playground and beat the hell out of each other. Then you moved on. You got into scuffles and settled your differences with fists. That rage and energy was dealt with in (mostly) non-lethal ways. Then we started doing zero tolerance and kids that retaliated were suspended. They were victimized twice. Once for the bully and again for the reaction. That lead to them building up that hatred and it festered. Eventually they snap and it comes across in the ways we have seen. Combine that with mob mentality and shaming online and parents that put too much time into work or their own social habits they are oblivious to the signals and are dumbstruck when it happens.

Contrast that to a country like England that has very high "violence" but very low "deaths". They are much more like the "old" days where you have a physical dispute and settle it that way instead of whipping out a gun to settle your differences. We are so litigious as a society and so in capable of handling confrontation that we settle things with lethal means (guns).

I'm not saying that beating the hell out of each other is the answer, but we need to step back and really look at where we are and how we got here.

i can see what your saying, and it has some teeth to it.
throw in "everyone gets a trophy" "everyone is special" "no score keeping"
ect ect

people dont develop the thick skins they used too.
i think that has some bearing on how people seem to 'snap' more

"Combine that with mob mentality and shaming online and parents that put too much time into work or their own social habits they are oblivious to the signals and are dumbstruck when it happens."
this is kinda what i hwas getting at with the decline of the family.

 

[fskimospy]

i could care less about suicides. if someone wants to kill themselves they will find away. i have no sympathy for them.

Factually inaccurate. If I never heard the myth of ‘those who want to commit suicide will find a way’ again it would be too soon.

The large majority of those who attempt suicide never do so again. It’s a moment of unique distress. This means the method they use to attempt suicide is extremely important. Guns are among the most effective means, so fewer guns means more living children, parents, and the like. I’m sorry to hear you have so little regard for people in acute distress. I doubt you would be so cavalier about suicide if you had lost someone close to you from it.

so your ok with people losing their life due to inability to defend themselves.

Did you not read what I wrote before? A gun in the home INCREASES your likelihood of death by homicide. For every person who dies due to not having a gun there are MORE who die from that gun having been there.

If your goal is personal safety gun ownership is a net negative. Are you okay with more people dying just so you can falsely believe your gun makes you safer?