4 ms·

Alright, I'll bite. Certain "tools" enable for mass killings, and killing is certainly the only thing they are designed for. Criminals and people with mental

Alright, I'll bite. Certain "tools" enable for mass killings, and killing is certainly the only thing they are designed for. Criminals and people with mental issues may get their hands on an AR-15, but it would definitely be harder for them to do so if they are not available to the general public. And we could do both. We could take care of people with mental illnesses, while not allowing them to carry semi-automatic rifles.

hatware 4y ago
> but it would definitely be harder for them to do so You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. It would definitely be _harder_ for them. The latest school shooter bought a rifle from an officially sanctioned store. Others just went to gun conventions and bought them from other individuals. > How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? I'll explain it by the fact that shootings are extremely rare, and mass shootings are almost unheard of. > If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution. This is akin to saying that if a medical treatment doesn't have a 100% efficacy, it shouldn't be considered. Well, it is just not how it works.
OminousWeapons 4y ago
Honestly I don't think we even need to go that far; police should just use the laws that they already have at their disposal. Look at this shooting in Highland Park, here we have a guy who was known to police to be a danger to society to the point where his weapons were stripped in the past. How the hell does this guy pass a background check? Did no one do basic due diligence? Did no one use OSINT to find this guy's social media pages where he was advocating for violence? It seems like the vast majority of shootings feature people who were historically very problematic and yet they were able to pass bg checks. Why is this happening?
jaywalk 4y ago
The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns. There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store. I would say that the ability to spray bullets in front of several people, makes them deadlier. The Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have happened if it weren't for it.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means, but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means... It means that, evidently, one could shoot more people with a semi-automatic rifle than with a handgun. > ... but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. It's irrelevant only if you think that gun violence has a larger impact than gun killings. In my original comment, I argued about gun killings.
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the vast majority of gun killings are done with handguns. Yes, you can point to certain events (like Las Vegas) that would only be possible with a rifle, but it still doesn't change the numbers.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  To many of the commenters that have almost certainly never fired a firearm, or maybe even held or seen one, it's the mere scariness of them--the boogeyman in their minds implanted by a corrupt media and political machine--that determines their danger.
newaccount2021 4y ago
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. No amount of qualification, justification, or rationalizing will change that. Criminals are already criminal; they will get ahold of whatever they need to commit crimes. There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. I completely agree that states need better care for the mentally ill. The current trend of affirmative treatment, both medical and psychological, is extremely damaging to patients and society. Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.
- manuelabeledo 4y ago
  > Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. > There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard. > Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong. Right, so there be more rules, then.
  - hatware 4y ago
    > Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      > It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not. > At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego. > A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns? There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.

hatware 4y ago

> but it would definitely be harder for them to do so You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. It would definitely be _harder_ for them. The latest school shooter bought a rifle from an officially sanctioned store. Others just went to gun conventions and bought them from other individuals. > How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? I'll explain it by the fact that shootings are extremely rare, and mass shootings are almost unheard of. > If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution. This is akin to saying that if a medical treatment doesn't have a 100% efficacy, it shouldn't be considered. Well, it is just not how it works.

OminousWeapons 4y ago

Honestly I don't think we even need to go that far; police should just use the laws that they already have at their disposal. Look at this shooting in Highland Park, here we have a guy who was known to police to be a danger to society to the point where his weapons were stripped in the past. How the hell does this guy pass a background check? Did no one do basic due diligence? Did no one use OSINT to find this guy's social media pages where he was advocating for violence? It seems like the vast majority of shootings feature people who were historically very problematic and yet they were able to pass bg checks. Why is this happening?

jaywalk 4y ago

The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns. There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store. I would say that the ability to spray bullets in front of several people, makes them deadlier. The Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have happened if it weren't for it.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means, but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means... It means that, evidently, one could shoot more people with a semi-automatic rifle than with a handgun. > ... but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. It's irrelevant only if you think that gun violence has a larger impact than gun killings. In my original comment, I argued about gun killings.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the vast majority of gun killings are done with handguns. Yes, you can point to certain events (like Las Vegas) that would only be possible with a rifle, but it still doesn't change the numbers.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
To many of the commenters that have almost certainly never fired a firearm, or maybe even held or seen one, it's the mere scariness of them--the boogeyman in their minds implanted by a corrupt media and political machine--that determines their danger.

newaccount2021 4y ago

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. No amount of qualification, justification, or rationalizing will change that. Criminals are already criminal; they will get ahold of whatever they need to commit crimes. There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. I completely agree that states need better care for the mentally ill. The current trend of affirmative treatment, both medical and psychological, is extremely damaging to patients and society. Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
> Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. > There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States. There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard. > Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong. Right, so there be more rules, then.
- hatware 4y ago
  > Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off. It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    > It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand? So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not. > At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego. > A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns? There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.