4 ms·

>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another

>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction. It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there. The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.

rbanffy 2y ago
> any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons. As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals. As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school. It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I don't accept that the government can be trusted to keep me safe, but you do. That is the fundamental difference. Guns used to be everywhere in the US, including in schools, and nobody was overly concerned about crazies with guns attacking schools. The reason is, anyone going crazy with a gun would be shot dead by any self-respecting person rather quickly. Our kids are more likely to die from any number of freak accidents than school shootings. If schools kept a few armed guards or even armed teachers and had secure fences and doors, the chances of someone doing a mass shooting there would be near zero. We have gun free zones that render everyone but criminals completely defenseless. It's a shame that people do not understand or appreciate the many benefits of being armed. The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security. Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance. So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > they face mass stabbings instead It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people. Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people. You're wrong about this. A knife does not need to be reloaded and many knife wounds can be more deadly than gunshot wounds. A person with a knife can stab random people in the back and run off, probably indefinitely. If they decided to stab them all at once then they might have a bit of difficulty and have to do it in a confined space. But this does happen in China. As for stopping someone with basically any gun, any other person could stop them with a gun. It doesn't matter if the guy with the gun is an elite soldier and the defender is a little old lady, so long as the lady has decent aim. Guns are only a problem because people scoff at their right and duty to defend themselves. >Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US? So-called "mass shootings" are not the only violent crime you need to worry about. The definition is skewed to make the problem sound worse than it is, by including gang violence and gang wars in there. You need to consider violent crimes vs. violent crimes. And frankly, the agencies that report violent crime have a conflict of interest when it comes to that. You also don't get stats about violence prevented or mitigated because of guns, because it is not tracked. I think there are other factors that go into violent crime prevalence beyond gun availability, that make it impossible to reach any meaningful conclusion about whether banning guns would lower crime overall. Guns were very common in the entire world until recently, and nobody was really concerned about mass shootings. Any perceived violence problem is really a cultural issue or a perception issue. Even if banning guns did lower crime somehow I would not be interested, any more than I would be interested in banning cars because someone might get run over or banning printing presses because they can print offensive words. Self-defense is a human right and we all need effective tools to defend ourselves from all enemies. Some amount of regulation seems to be a necessary evil, but a ban on guns is as preposterous to me as a ban on pointy sticks.
jjulius 2y ago
>It's not a distraction. It absolutely is. It asks people to engage in a frivolous debate about semantics when, in reality, the issue is much larger and far more complex, with more intrinsically important and impactful aspects to it than that.

rbanffy 2y ago

> any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons. As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals. As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school. It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.

wakawaka28 2y ago
I don't accept that the government can be trusted to keep me safe, but you do. That is the fundamental difference. Guns used to be everywhere in the US, including in schools, and nobody was overly concerned about crazies with guns attacking schools. The reason is, anyone going crazy with a gun would be shot dead by any self-respecting person rather quickly. Our kids are more likely to die from any number of freak accidents than school shootings. If schools kept a few armed guards or even armed teachers and had secure fences and doors, the chances of someone doing a mass shooting there would be near zero. We have gun free zones that render everyone but criminals completely defenseless. It's a shame that people do not understand or appreciate the many benefits of being armed. The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security. Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance. So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > they face mass stabbings instead It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people. Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people. You're wrong about this. A knife does not need to be reloaded and many knife wounds can be more deadly than gunshot wounds. A person with a knife can stab random people in the back and run off, probably indefinitely. If they decided to stab them all at once then they might have a bit of difficulty and have to do it in a confined space. But this does happen in China. As for stopping someone with basically any gun, any other person could stop them with a gun. It doesn't matter if the guy with the gun is an elite soldier and the defender is a little old lady, so long as the lady has decent aim. Guns are only a problem because people scoff at their right and duty to defend themselves. >Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US? So-called "mass shootings" are not the only violent crime you need to worry about. The definition is skewed to make the problem sound worse than it is, by including gang violence and gang wars in there. You need to consider violent crimes vs. violent crimes. And frankly, the agencies that report violent crime have a conflict of interest when it comes to that. You also don't get stats about violence prevented or mitigated because of guns, because it is not tracked. I think there are other factors that go into violent crime prevalence beyond gun availability, that make it impossible to reach any meaningful conclusion about whether banning guns would lower crime overall. Guns were very common in the entire world until recently, and nobody was really concerned about mass shootings. Any perceived violence problem is really a cultural issue or a perception issue. Even if banning guns did lower crime somehow I would not be interested, any more than I would be interested in banning cars because someone might get run over or banning printing presses because they can print offensive words. Self-defense is a human right and we all need effective tools to defend ourselves from all enemies. Some amount of regulation seems to be a necessary evil, but a ban on guns is as preposterous to me as a ban on pointy sticks.

jjulius 2y ago

>It's not a distraction. It absolutely is. It asks people to engage in a frivolous debate about semantics when, in reality, the issue is much larger and far more complex, with more intrinsically important and impactful aspects to it than that.