8 ms·

Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far low

Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.

loceng 4y ago
Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
- SigmundA 4y ago
  This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
  - loceng 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        The “well regulated” means “proficient, properly equipped, well trained, functioning as expected” or similar. You have to assess that phrase in the context of 18th century English. It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. > Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
        SigmundA 4y ago
        >It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. So it doesn't mean background checks or proper record keeping? The meaning of the word has not changed since the 18th century and certainly doesn't mean no rules whatsoever. >But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form. So no nuclear arms or chemical / biological arms correct? The right to bear one is infringed. Machine guns only if made before 1986, no new machine guns due to FOPA. So extremely limited supply and high cost along with the 3-12 month wait is due to more extensive background checks along with a high tax. The right to bear one is infringed. Missile launchers are approved and taxed not only for the launcher but each round and you also must get a federal explosives permit for the rounds. The right to bear one is infringed. State are also allowed to regulate them even more so, kind of like state level assault weapons bans and handgun laws? The right to bear one is infringed. If you are ok with that kind of heavy regulation then doing that for semi-auto assault rifles or hand guns should not be an issue correct? That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide. my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things. Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be easy to pass the amendment if the overwhelming majority agree. The fact you can't buy a nuke isn't some gotcha on legitimacy of restrictions. Clearly nukes should be legal until the constitution is amended to exclude classes of arms and the hughes amendment for post-86 machine guns is blatantly unconstitutional.
    - d0mine 4y ago
      I'll bite: Turkey — true (Armenian genocide). USSR — false (genocide against who? there were famines (btw in US too). all people suffered). Though I know that the opposite is claimed by propaganda (at least, Obama failed to recognize Armenian genocide, and anything bad is easily believed without questions about USSR).
akomtu 4y ago
If reincarnation exists, I hope that such people who are busy restricting others freedoms get all assembled together on a big island where they all get to live a very long life restricting each other to the ground, and when their nation makes Orwell blush, they get to live another 1500 years, enjoying each others company in a zero-freedom society, until they finally learn that it's not their f-ing business messing with others freedoms. Edit. In this type of society, your freedoms are being gutted constantly for arbitrary reasons: one of your neighbors complains he's feeling unsafe around firearms so police comes and takes them all; another neighbor complains about cars making him feel uneasy, so you have to ride a bicycle; then a random passer-by complains about you using harsh words, so a court puts a non-removable collar on your neck monitoring your speech; then some worried activist complains about food and from now on you can get only approved food from the food-police. But you aren't wasting time: you complain about your neighbor's green lawn, then force him to live in a tent, restrict his water consumption for climate-concerns, make him reduce the size of his pets and so on. I'd argue the downward path of restrictions has no bottom.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  It must feel liberating to view the world in such black and white terms
- preseinger 4y ago
  The only place on earth where gun ownership is considered a freedom rather than a threat to civil society is America.
  - babypuncher 4y ago
    At best, gun ownership should be viewed as a regulated privilege not unlike driving on public roads. Everyone who drives has to be licensed to do so. There are different licenses controlling the use of larger vehicles on public roads. There are safety requirements vehicles must meet in order to be street legal. Every vehicle has a unique registration number tied to the owner. All of these regulations have made driving considerably safer today than it was 80 years ago.
tekknik 4y ago
> Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm. Now, explain why you think an AR-15 is so dangerous? Tell me why you’re so focused on that gun when it’s both not the major gun used in mass shootings[1], and when more homicides are committed with pistols[2]. I know quite a lot about guns, and I can explain the obsession. AR-15’s are hopped up 22’s. Literally. They take a 55-ish grain bullet and stack a lot of powder behind it. For reference the “not at all dangerous” 22 rimfire the government wants everybody to move to has a 40-ish grain bullet. What this means is low recoil, with good power. Coupled with relatively cheap ammo, you can sport shoot, compete and defend your farm with a single gun. Further, the AR platform is highly modifiable. I can swap uppers and change the caliber entirely. I can have an upper used for sport shooting, and a different one for hunting. 1: https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107 https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-l... 2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?id=78689504 https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?...
- jknutson 4y ago
  Not the GP but I read that sentence as an anecdote using the AR-15 as a well-known example of a common firearm that is seen by most non-gun-owners to be on the upper end of the scale between .22cal and RPG/50-cal machine gun in terms of power and/or risk of abuse. That is to say that I do not believe that the GP was actively making a point against the AR-15, just that they were using it as an example anecdotally to lace their statement with a touch of irony or euphemism.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    I’ve just explained why, using your spectrum, it’s on the lower end. I completely understand that guns are difficult to understand for non gun owners, they simply don't do any research. Couple that with the amount of research required to be knowledgeable takes weeks or even months for even the most competent of us. But imagine what you sound like to someone who is knowledgeable. It’s like someone challenging a PhD on knowledge. You should know what you’re talking about and if you don’t keep your mouth shut. If you want actual visual proof that the AR-15 is on the lower end of the spectrum then watch this video, timestamped at multiple different locations: AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=9m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=9m53s M14 (bigger than AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=10m41s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=10m41s Lever Action (still more power than an AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m25s 12 gauge shotgun (and still, more destructive power than an AR-15. Also comes recommended by President Biden!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m53s In fact, the AR is so underpowered in today's world it's being replaced by the military (this gun has 2x the power of an AR-15): https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/us-army-selects-sig-sauer-next-generation-squad-weapons-system https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/us-army-selects-sig-sauer-next...
seanw444 4y ago
Yes it would be. I've come to understand that if you are well-versed on history, you'll come to the conclusion that taking civilian access to arms is a slippery slope that absolutely should not be tried again. I'd rather history not repeat itself once more.

loceng 4y ago

Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY

SigmundA 4y ago
This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
- loceng 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      The “well regulated” means “proficient, properly equipped, well trained, functioning as expected” or similar. You have to assess that phrase in the context of 18th century English. It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. > Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        >It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. So it doesn't mean background checks or proper record keeping? The meaning of the word has not changed since the 18th century and certainly doesn't mean no rules whatsoever. >But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form. So no nuclear arms or chemical / biological arms correct? The right to bear one is infringed. Machine guns only if made before 1986, no new machine guns due to FOPA. So extremely limited supply and high cost along with the 3-12 month wait is due to more extensive background checks along with a high tax. The right to bear one is infringed. Missile launchers are approved and taxed not only for the launcher but each round and you also must get a federal explosives permit for the rounds. The right to bear one is infringed. State are also allowed to regulate them even more so, kind of like state level assault weapons bans and handgun laws? The right to bear one is infringed. If you are ok with that kind of heavy regulation then doing that for semi-auto assault rifles or hand guns should not be an issue correct? That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
        notch656a 4y ago
        >That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide. my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things. Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be easy to pass the amendment if the overwhelming majority agree. The fact you can't buy a nuke isn't some gotcha on legitimacy of restrictions. Clearly nukes should be legal until the constitution is amended to exclude classes of arms and the hughes amendment for post-86 machine guns is blatantly unconstitutional.
  - d0mine 4y ago
    I'll bite: Turkey — true (Armenian genocide). USSR — false (genocide against who? there were famines (btw in US too). all people suffered). Though I know that the opposite is claimed by propaganda (at least, Obama failed to recognize Armenian genocide, and anything bad is easily believed without questions about USSR).

akomtu 4y ago

If reincarnation exists, I hope that such people who are busy restricting others freedoms get all assembled together on a big island where they all get to live a very long life restricting each other to the ground, and when their nation makes Orwell blush, they get to live another 1500 years, enjoying each others company in a zero-freedom society, until they finally learn that it's not their f-ing business messing with others freedoms. Edit. In this type of society, your freedoms are being gutted constantly for arbitrary reasons: one of your neighbors complains he's feeling unsafe around firearms so police comes and takes them all; another neighbor complains about cars making him feel uneasy, so you have to ride a bicycle; then a random passer-by complains about you using harsh words, so a court puts a non-removable collar on your neck monitoring your speech; then some worried activist complains about food and from now on you can get only approved food from the food-police. But you aren't wasting time: you complain about your neighbor's green lawn, then force him to live in a tent, restrict his water consumption for climate-concerns, make him reduce the size of his pets and so on. I'd argue the downward path of restrictions has no bottom.

babypuncher 4y ago
It must feel liberating to view the world in such black and white terms
preseinger 4y ago
The only place on earth where gun ownership is considered a freedom rather than a threat to civil society is America.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  At best, gun ownership should be viewed as a regulated privilege not unlike driving on public roads. Everyone who drives has to be licensed to do so. There are different licenses controlling the use of larger vehicles on public roads. There are safety requirements vehicles must meet in order to be street legal. Every vehicle has a unique registration number tied to the owner. All of these regulations have made driving considerably safer today than it was 80 years ago.

tekknik 4y ago

> Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm. Now, explain why you think an AR-15 is so dangerous? Tell me why you’re so focused on that gun when it’s both not the major gun used in mass shootings[1], and when more homicides are committed with pistols[2]. I know quite a lot about guns, and I can explain the obsession. AR-15’s are hopped up 22’s. Literally. They take a 55-ish grain bullet and stack a lot of powder behind it. For reference the “not at all dangerous” 22 rimfire the government wants everybody to move to has a 40-ish grain bullet. What this means is low recoil, with good power. Coupled with relatively cheap ammo, you can sport shoot, compete and defend your farm with a single gun. Further, the AR platform is highly modifiable. I can swap uppers and change the caliber entirely. I can have an upper used for sport shooting, and a different one for hunting. 1: https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107 https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-l... 2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?id=78689504 https://abcnews.go.com/US/type-gun-us-homicides-ar-15/story?...

jknutson 4y ago
Not the GP but I read that sentence as an anecdote using the AR-15 as a well-known example of a common firearm that is seen by most non-gun-owners to be on the upper end of the scale between .22cal and RPG/50-cal machine gun in terms of power and/or risk of abuse. That is to say that I do not believe that the GP was actively making a point against the AR-15, just that they were using it as an example anecdotally to lace their statement with a touch of irony or euphemism.
- tekknik 4y ago
  I’ve just explained why, using your spectrum, it’s on the lower end. I completely understand that guns are difficult to understand for non gun owners, they simply don't do any research. Couple that with the amount of research required to be knowledgeable takes weeks or even months for even the most competent of us. But imagine what you sound like to someone who is knowledgeable. It’s like someone challenging a PhD on knowledge. You should know what you’re talking about and if you don’t keep your mouth shut. If you want actual visual proof that the AR-15 is on the lower end of the spectrum then watch this video, timestamped at multiple different locations: AR-15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=9m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=9m53s M14 (bigger than AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=10m41s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=10m41s Lever Action (still more power than an AR-15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m25s 12 gauge shotgun (and still, more destructive power than an AR-15. Also comes recommended by President Biden!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m53s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5QNTnMO5xU&t=11m53s In fact, the AR is so underpowered in today's world it's being replaced by the military (this gun has 2x the power of an AR-15): https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/us-army-selects-sig-sauer-next-generation-squad-weapons-system https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/us-army-selects-sig-sauer-next...

seanw444 4y ago

Yes it would be. I've come to understand that if you are well-versed on history, you'll come to the conclusion that taking civilian access to arms is a slippery slope that absolutely should not be tried again. I'd rather history not repeat itself once more.