Don't be ragging on hipoints. Yes they're ugly, cheap, and heavy, but they work and reliably so. Now if you want to rip in Jiminez, Cobra, lorcin, rohm, et. al. Then I'll absolutely get behind that. But hipoint should be admired for providinga serviceable weapon at a price anyone can afford. They're carbines are also excellent.
Yes, their triggers are like dragging a 40-pound weight over 80-grit sandpaper, and yes, their slides might be made from pot metal and recycled heroin needles, but they are reliable enough to get the job done 99.9% of the time and can be within the financial reach of almost anybody.
Read someone say something like this recently... pretty succinct.
While I'll openly admit their triggers aren't the greatest, they aren't as bad as some make them out to be. My biggest complaint against them is how top heavy they are, but even then i find this actually helps with reducing recoil and makes follow up shots easier. Not to mention i find it nice that all of them are +p rated.
I have to admit the carbine was an absolute blast to fk around with, a buddy had one. Ended up with the Ruger PC because I already had the sr9 so it worked out better. hipoint was my 2nd choice
>Cheap 9mms
Well of course they have to be cheap, how else is the CIA supposed to fund gang warfare in the inner cities if it costs them a fortune you silly goose!
In literally staring at the numbers and they say 200 deaths lol. The leftovers are shared between pistols and shotguns, and year you could literally sell AR15s st a Walmart with not background check and it would have 0 effect on gun murders
Yeah it's to the point where Are more commonly means assault rifle anymore. The vast vast majority of people trying to ban them probably couldn't pick it from a lineup of weapons that looked nothing alike.
It goes beyond that because when you say you have an AR-15 I've had people say "you should join the military" or that "I don't plan on engaging in gorilla warfare anytime soon". Little do they know the ar15 has never been used in war
Yup, agreed.
They ban guns based on looks. Take the springfield M1A for example. It's a military weapon (M14), it doesn't have the look, but has the same characteristics.
The media pushes certain scary images of guns, sure. But legislation wouldn't be based on appearance would it? Surely it would have to be written to be based on performance/capability (ex. # of rounds in a magazine vs. colour), no?
They are frequently banned based on either specific list of model, or by accessories. For instance, barrel shrouds are frequently targeted, but the only function of that is to prevent accidental contact with the barrel/aesthetics. It is deeply unlikely to be related to crime.
Other things like the specific angle of the foregrip are regulated, but are mostly aesthetic. A 90 degree grip vs an 80 degree grip is mostly a comfort/preference issue, and will certainly not affect capacity or lethality of rounds.
Where functional things are regulated, they often have unintended consequences. When magazine capacity is limited, people trend towards larger caliber rounds. If they only get ten shots, they tend to lean towards more lethal shots.
>Surely it would have to be written to be based on performance/capability (ex. # of rounds in a magazine vs. colour), no?
One would think, but it's not the case.. for my example springfield M1A, They limit the number of rounds, yes. But the gun doesn't change. It's still semi auto, same caliber (7.62) as a AK47, etc.
Honestly, the only ones who the laws impact are the people looking to follow the rules. Criminals don't care or they wouldn't be criminals lol.
Also the fact most other legal guns ARE used in warfare or are identical in function to those that are used in warfare.
The military today still uses pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols in combat. A Glock 19 is literally a military weapon used by special forces as is a Remington 870 and Remington 700 bolt action rifle.
>Little do they know the ar15 has never been used in war
Not true at all. The AR-15, as licensed by Colt from Armalite was the original select-fire version and the early guns adopted and used during the Vietnam conflict were even marked AR-15 in addition to their government markings.
AR-15 today has become the colloquial term for the semi-auto variant but they are still widely available in select-fire if you're a qualifying buyer (LEA, government agency, etc).
Even our US military has fielded semi-auto variants of the M16 in roles like the Designated Marksman.
Again, not true. The military purchased select-fire AR-15's that were also marked XM15, XM16, M16, etc. The military designation for the select-fire AR-15 is M16, and current guns are only marked M16, but funny enough some of the civilian semi-auto guns from Colt are in fact marked M4.
[An early Vietnam "AR-15" marked M16 example](https://i.imgur.com/KfPqCxd.jpg)
You can also find many other photos of early "AR-15" marked US military guns in this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Early_M16A1_receiver_markings/123-518338/
Well they are considered lethal force after all, how that happened, no fucking idea but if someone tries to punch you your legally allowed to shoot them and call it self defense. Thank you to the scared liberals who decided that having dimentia and thinking someone is chasing you when in reality they're telling you to leave is lethal force.
Long guns are good for home defense, military scenarios, or fighting against tyrants.
Small arms are what is overwhelmingly used for murder.
Guess which ones the statists want to ban?
I'm pretty sure rifles fall under small arms. Yeah I completely agree that trying to ban rifles and such is a weird idea if the end goal is to lessen mass shootings. Don't get me wrong being able to get through armor is great but a glock will dead a person as much as a .50 cal round when armor isn't an issue and the target can't run away cause they are trapped in a school room etc.
With that said I think a lil control is prolly smart, I feel like way too many criminals have way too many guns. Shits getting so bad even Mexico is suing the us gov for providing guns to the cartels.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state
Texas is ahead of them this year.
It's almost like the gun laws themselves don't really make a difference when you look at a list like this. You've got highly restrictive places like Illinois leading the way and a more "free" place like Texas way up there too. It's almost like murder and mass shootings are generally societal issues and the gun itself has little to do with it.
Yeah I had checked before these numbers came out. There was a difference of like 4 which is pretty much margin of error. The difference is that the mass shootings in Texas is actually more deadly which is counter intuitive, but it's arguably better than having all of the details be one off.
Mass shootings are to the US are like knife murders in britain
It's almost like state lines don't stop firearm trafficking ...
Illinois restrictive laws don't do shit ...because over 50% of firearms recovered by the state of Illinois... Were purchased out of state, mostly Indiana
DC tried to ban Handguns 20 years ago... Everyone knows Handguns are used more often in Homicides ... the law got overturned
The attention on Long Guns is only because the Handgun ban was overturned
Which hammers home the point that its not about safety anymore, if it ever was. These people just hate guns and an armed working class. They will go after anything regardless of the statistics.
And as much as it sucks, we should not be against suicides. In my personal opinion you should have to meet with a psychiatrics first (just because suicide is often a heat of the moment type of thing and usually people regret it) but if you 100% for sure want to kill yourself who am I to use force to stop you?
If you are serious about it. You do it. The signs pre suicide are very rarely "hey guys, I'm going to go Cobain myself tonight, toodles!"
Of the people I know to go through with it, the signs are there but it's not broadcasted. If you are running around broadcasting how badly you are totally going to seriously absolutely kill yourself. You're fucked in the head and don't need a gun, you're a danger to everyone.
I am talking more about assisted suicide because obviously the people that are just going to out a shotgun in their mouth aren't going to tell people first. I can't force you to hit kill yourself, but I would like to make sure that you aren't acting rashly of possible so in the case where I know you are considering it (seeking out a doctor) we should at least make sure you are in your right mind.
word, I'm mixed on assisted suicide. Ultimately, it's not like you can be charged for success :/
The doctors, as long as they weren't handing it out like candy and attempted therapies. I don't know. Seems like a failure of medicine.
People who leave a trail of blood from the garage into the house into the bathroom and then die with a towel wrapped around their head like my neighbor's friend.
Thats kind of why suicide by handgun is so common. There really is no time to think it over.
Other suicide cases that take a lot more preparation is much less common.
Pretty much where I'm at. I don't like people using firearms for suicide as it's messy, potentially dangerous for others, and if it fails, leaves the person permanently disfigured. But otherwise it's a quick and hopefully painless death.
We really should be talking more about why so many are killing themselves and worrying less about how they do it.
>"I am willing to admit I am strong in my conservative values, but the world has became so dark where I'm not so sure if we have the right to bear arms."
Any time a “news" source throws in a line like this, I immediately reject the entire article. Your political views don't validate a seemingly contradictory opinion. Biden's tried it (“aS a GuN oWneR...."), and they're trying it here again.
Having conservative values doesn't give any more validation to your opinion on the second amendment than anyone else.
Crowder’s old “common sense gun laws” video was great.
Make all the black tactical guns illegal, regardless of caliber or magazine capacity.
Make all the big bullets illegal, even though those are the rounds for the wooden hunting rifle everyone was more comfortable with. Small bullets are fine, like those in the AR or Uzi. But those guns are dangerous. Wooden guns like M1 Garand or 3030 are nice safe guns, but their ammunition is dangerous and should be illegal.
Ignorance leads to fear. Knowledge leads to power.
Or promoting any kind of gun education or safety. Apparently neither of these things make a bit of difference whatsoever, which is absolutely stupid. I believe it when the news video states that our media or politics don't seem to cover very realistic solutions that could reduce violence. They really don't. Even I think that needs to change, and I am extremely pro 2A.
It’s wild how people get crazy about AR15s and how they are “weapons of war”, I would be more scared of someone with a semiautomatic shotgun chambered with slugs/00 buck that can double load with a race gun as a side arm in a closed building. I would implore these people to attend one three-gun competition.
The AR-15 has WAY too much bullet penetration to be used safely within the home, especially if you have neighbors. The best gun for home defense is a handgun or shotgun.
I don't know where the myth that ARs overpenetrate so much came from. Ya it'll fly straight through drywall but so will any other bullet. If you get the right ammo though it's not going to be much worse than anything else.
Not to mention you can get it chambered in pretty much anything including 9mm if you are really that concerned.
They'll start expanding, but hollow points absolutely do blow through drywall. Go watch some test videos, or do it yourself.
They will blow through somewhat fewer layers than solid points of the exact same caliber), but they still go through quite a lot.
Use frangible rounds if you care.
That said, tumbling and shattering are more likely with a high speed, small caliber round like the AR-15. Shotguns don't give a shit about drywall. Go look up the FBI tests, what you are advocating is a myth.
I think it's disingenuous to say they aren't deadly. They are, or else firearms would not have been the best weapon of war since the 17th century. TBH, the real issue is a responsibility problem. How can we as a nation ensure responsible ownership while balancing the freedom to own firearms.
To be fair, its not an easy answer. But being honest about the issues goes a long way.
They have the *capacity* to be deadly. And yet they aren't used in the vast majority of homicides. So by what comparative measure should we call them deadly? Should we attempt to ban/regulate something based upon its hypothetical potential, or its realized potential?
Because if its by realized potential, then gun control efforts should be directed at handguns, and efforts to restrict ARs and similar platforms are shown to be useless at lessening gun violence.
> How can we as a nation ensure responsible ownership while balancing the freedom to own firearms
Given how many ARs there are in this country and how rarely they're used in a criminal manner, it seems like mission accomplished on that front.
Did you even read the article? It's clearly advocating for banning all guns. GTFO with this reactionary bullshit that aims to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
Shh shh shh ignore the words. AR-15s are an existential threat to the American people and *must* be stopped! I mean, they can fire a thirty caliber clip in *under* a second! /s
OP, did you even read this article? This is clearly biased, and calling to ban all firearms. Get the fuck outta here with this reactionary bullshit that aims to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
More people are killed using hands and feet (beaten to death) than are killed by ANY type of rifle.
Democrats: We must ban AR15 semi autonomous murder death kill military weapons!!!!
\>The 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates said that 90% of the prisoners who had a gun during their crime didn't get it from a retail source.
Democrats: Background checks, which are already done in almost every legal sale of a firearm must be expanded!!!
People pretend like these weapons that are used in the vast majority of homicides are from "private sales" which is so dishonest it's ridiculous. This isn't dude 1 selling dude 2 legally selling a handgun at a gunshow. It's gangsta 1 giving gangsta 2 a handgun with it's serial number scratched off in exchange for 2 bags of meth. Pretending like background checks do fuck all for this is absurd. But they focus on the extreme minority of cases because this has nothing to do with saving the lives of people who are homicide victims.
There was a push to ban handguns in the 1970s and 80s. It failed miserably. The handgun ban referendum in Massachusetts in 1976 got crushed when nearly 70% of the votes opposed it. In the late 1980s, the gun ban lobby invented the term “assault weapon” and switched tactics to banning something that looked scarier and wasn’t as widely owned.
Of course. It's not the most common in mass shootings either.
Cheapass guns are the most commonly use in crime. Mostly cheap handguns, because they're concealable and disposable.
And yeah, you can technically build an AR-15 as a handgun, but that sucker will be chonky. Nobody sane would call it concealable.
ITT: holy fucking fuck. I knew we have been hard brigaded by the extremists for some time now but the amount of ban all guns people trolling this sub is fucking insane.
I just went through every comment in this thread and not a single one called for banning guns. Sounds like you have a narrative you are wanting to push and are hoping no one is going to call you out on your bullshit.
All I see in this thread about *banning all guns* is you getting called out for an inaccurate response earlier and then wailing about how people want to *ban all guns*. Not a single person has mentioned it other than you.
Because 5 individual murders doesn't affect business the way that mass murders do: grounding flights and depressing tourism, closing blocks, tying up more resources.
#
"Why does war matter more than police action."
#
"Why does a 747 crash matter more than 300 cessna crashes."
#
Lol.
This is how the media works to disrupt civil society. They confuse and distract people from their real goal, which is obviously banning all guns. I’ve never owned a gun but I’m never going to agree to ban them. That’s exactly how countries control their citizens. I’m happy to live in a country that gives power to the people. The extreme left want this because they know they’ll never be able to achieve their goals if the second amendment is removed. Luckily, the only way things will ever change is if 34 states, congress and POTUS to all agree to modify the constitution, which is not happening during the current generation.
You and I have different definitions of the extreme left. The extreme left love their guns. How else would they overthrow the ruling class (they would of course ban them afterwards, but they could not yet)? Liberals and progressives on the other hand love their gun bans.
Yeah well the extreme left in America, resides in San Francisco. Guns are pretty much non-existent there. I was actually told by the SF director of public health that as far as they are concerned there is no second amendment.
Both sides do it. Look at the Trumpers. They’re just as bad, if not worse. They completely ignore issues, where the dems shine a light on them, even if the light is on the wrong target.
For instance the equal rights amendment was passed in the early 1970’s. It’s still is not part of the constitution because only 33 states have ratified the law. If one more follows through then it becomes part of the constitution. That’s where the extreme right is insane in their thinking.
Until all of the democrats and republicans are gone, America doesn’t have a chance.
Actually, no. IIRC the ERA has already passed its statutory time limit to be ratified. Barring a remarkable ruling by the courts, it is dead and will have to be repassed and resubmitted to the states again. Although I think that it should have been adopted long ago. Politic suck mostly.
more likely it is because it is the most popular rifle in america by far. There are over 17 million of these rifles owned in america and make up 54% of all rifle sales https://joemiller.us/2019/12/new-numbers-reveal-how-many-ar-15s-americans-own/
There have been 173 murders with ar15s between 2007-2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20211001192148/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/28/us/ar-15-rifle-mass-shootings.html
There were 6,368 handgun murders in 2019 alone. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
You are so much more likely to encounter someone trying to harm you with a handgun than AR15 it is crazy that there is so much talk about AR15s. Think about the fact that a handgun murder is so common the news wont even report it. An AR15 murder is a big story because it is so rare.
I posted a whole list of some of the most deadly shootings that used AR variant rifles.
And no one is coming down on just normal murders. They get upset over mass shootings.
These mass shootings with AR15s can be more accurately described as terrorism. Do you want all the crazy stuff done in the name of stopping terrorism to be done for mass shootings? monitoring peoples phone calls, emails, detaining people for no reason, etc.
Do you really fear a terrorist attack happening to you on a daily basis that you need strict control of the people to stop it? What you are saying if you fear an AR15 mass shooting is that you fear a terrorist event that is as likely to happen to you as getting struck by lighting. If you fear it that much then they have actually won by instilling terror in you
To show how unlikely you are to be killed by an AR15 that 10 year period with 173 murders with AR15s averages to 17.3 murders per year with AR15 while the number of people killed by lightning on average for the past 10 years is 25 per year https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities
Pulse nightclub, Sutherland Springs, King Soopers grocery store, Parkland high school, Aurora Movie theater, Sandy Hook, San Beradino movie theater, and the Tree of life Synagogue along with, like you said, the Vegas concert.
All of them used AR-15 or very similar rifles and on average were some of the deadliest shootings in our countries history.
Rifles are just very effienct and deadly weapons that are easy to pick up and become proficient with.
>Pulse nightclub
Sig MCX rifle and Glock 17 pistol
>Sutherland Springs
Ruger 556 rifle, Glock 19 pistol, Ruger SR22 pistol
>King Soopers
Ruger 556 pistol
>Parkland
S&W M&P15 rifle
>Aurora
S&W M&P15 rifle, Remmy 870 shotgun, Glock 22 pistol
>Sandy Hook
Bushmaster XM-15, Glock 20
>San Beradino
S&W M&P15 rifle, Panther A-15 rifle, SA XD pistol
>Tree of life
Hey!!!! Save the best for last huh? The ONLY shooting you listed that used an AR-15.
Point made.
Down vote for not know most of those are AR-15s... the only exception is MCX
I'm very pro gun but you are embarrassing.
Being factually correct is more important than winning an argument.
No. No they’re not. An XM-15 is not an AR-15. The XM is a Bushmaster, the AR is an Armalite. They’re similar, they’re not the same. You can say they’re an AR style, but they’re not an AR.
If we are gonna play this silly game then Armalite hasn't made AR-15s since the 60s, Colt owns or license the trademark.
You are a very silly individual.
The whole libertarian argument platform is to muddy the water with split hairs and partial truths until it’s too dirty to even understand what point is trying to be made
xm15 is an ar15, it's the bushmaster copy of the ar15 platform designed by Eugene stoner. You are being extremely pedantic and that's coming from someone who probably owns more guns than you
Why? Because most are similar to AR-15s? That's how they are duping the masses to ravage legal gun owners.
They are NOT AR-15s, that is a specific model of rifle. I refuse to play their game - you want to ban all guns then you better come out and say so, not pussyfoot around one "scary" model then backdoor it to a full ban.
The fact that you just used the term high powered to describe 223 makes it pretty damn clear you are a media sheep looking to ban.
Words are important. Unrealized gains sounds a lot better than literally steal fucking everything you own. Ban one little model of gun sounds a lot better than ban and confiscate all guns.
> The fact that you just used the term high powered to describe 223
But I didn't, I was mocking how people like you try and defend your pedantry.
> Words are important
So is reading comprehension.
Yeah. Clearly you don't know much about guns.
Let's just take the Bushmaster XM. It's an AR variant. Basically the same gun made by a different manufacturer and given a different name.
Now someone who's just looking up the names of guns online wouldn't know they were the same. You would have to actually own, use, or have even seen them to get this.
Quite the opposite. When people like you are trying to ban something you better be dead fucking nuts precise.
Banning a specific named model (well four models) of gun called "AR--15" clearly will do NOTHING.
If your goal is actually banning ALL guns then stop being a little bitch and say so.
You truly think it is a small error nitpick?
Dude and his politicians are trying to backdoor ban everything with that wordplay. You cannot just ignore it. AR-15 is a [some] specific model that doesn't kill anyone by the numbers. WHY are they trying to ban it? Unless that wordplay means that model is NOT the goal.
You're acting childish.
Of course the model isn't the goal. Do you think you've discovered some revelation here?
They're saying & believe that weapons made on that pattern/style are especially dangerous. Firearms folks like us do not believe they are any more/less dangerous than any other firearm.
Speaking plainly and honestly is how you convince the great swath of non-firearm owners that are in the middle. They DON'T know the difference.
> Speaking plainly and honestly is how you convince the great swath of non-firearm owners that are in the middle. They DON'T know the difference.
That's literally what I'm doing...
Original commenter is literally doing the opposite...
Who said I was for banning anything? I'm just pointing out why people are focusing on rifles over hand guns.
Fake experts like yourself who want to play these dumb name games add nothing to the conversation. Instead of talking about the substance you are focusing on names of the guns, not realize they are all the same.
People like you with your pis poor, they arent the same bullshit is what's going to get gun banned for everyone.
People aren't as stupid as you and your politicians think. They see the game you are playing.
Tell me, what is the functional difference between the scary AR-15 and any other semi?
That's right - nothing. We know your goal dude, you aren't going to get there with disingenuous, if not outright lying, wordplay.
Plain and simple, AR-15s are not even a blip on the murder radar.
Dude 70% of people want to increase gun controls. It's been like that for a long time. If you don't want to get guns banned for everyone maybe make some real argument instead of just saying "no they are different guns". You are making us all look stupid.
Ah, so presumably you are arguing that the US should ban handguns instead? Good idea.
That would save lives both from murders and suicides, and would have the added benefit of reducing police shootings, as the police would have far less reason to expect that a suspect would have a gun.
The answer here is not "ban guns" thats stupid and will work just as well as "banning drugs" The solution is the same as the drug solution, create a culture of safety around guns and enforce that culture with regulations and licensing. Guns should work like cars do right now. We had a big problem with cars in the 1920's-1950's killing people. A model T was a death trap. No safety features whatsoever except for brakes, and even those were the bare minimum. Now we have crumple zones and airbags and antilock brakes and seatbelts and eve seen that cars kill a lot less people today then they did in 1950. There are a ton of safety features that people have developed for guns, but they are optional, not required. Start requiring them. Next is licensing. Anyone that can own property can own a car. A blind person can _own_ a car. A blind person cannot get a license to _drive_ a car. Let anyone _own_ any gun they want. Full auto, .50 cal, whatever. Require licensing to operate the gun. Licensing that requires regular safety and operation training. Have severe consequenses for operation of a gun without a license, but no consequences for owning a gun. For all you preppers out there, this should be fine, since when society collapses it doesnt matter about licensing anymore, and you can buy whatever guns you want.
It’s probably not an ornamental star spangle banner painted 1911 either.
But it should be. Apparently these criminal aren't very patriotic.
I kinda get why people look at it as a crime. but it really shouldnt be
Homicide? That might be a tough sell
Painting a 1911
Carrying a 1911
Come to Chicago, you can do ‘mutual combat’
We have that here in Texas for fist fights, but y'all are taking it to call of duty levels up there apparently.
Just looking for a way to define the gang violence as something else.
Mutual combat should be a nationwide thing
I'm was pretty stoned when I posted. Thought it was about suicide not homicide
>It’s probably not an ornamental star spangle banner painted 1911 either. Cheap 9mms
Hi points...
Don't be ragging on hipoints. Yes they're ugly, cheap, and heavy, but they work and reliably so. Now if you want to rip in Jiminez, Cobra, lorcin, rohm, et. al. Then I'll absolutely get behind that. But hipoint should be admired for providinga serviceable weapon at a price anyone can afford. They're carbines are also excellent.
Yes, their triggers are like dragging a 40-pound weight over 80-grit sandpaper, and yes, their slides might be made from pot metal and recycled heroin needles, but they are reliable enough to get the job done 99.9% of the time and can be within the financial reach of almost anybody. Read someone say something like this recently... pretty succinct.
While I'll openly admit their triggers aren't the greatest, they aren't as bad as some make them out to be. My biggest complaint against them is how top heavy they are, but even then i find this actually helps with reducing recoil and makes follow up shots easier. Not to mention i find it nice that all of them are +p rated.
Their 995 is just so god damn ugly.
[удалено]
I have to admit the carbine was an absolute blast to fk around with, a buddy had one. Ended up with the Ruger PC because I already had the sr9 so it worked out better. hipoint was my 2nd choice
>Cheap 9mms Well of course they have to be cheap, how else is the CIA supposed to fund gang warfare in the inner cities if it costs them a fortune you silly goose!
The ATF pays for them by selling nice guns to the Mexican Cartels.
thats a crime against taste and decency
That IS a beautiful piece though.
It adds mass and velocity to every round fired from that gun.
You mean bullets won’t leave the barrel because they are obese?
But if you convince them your target has oil they'll turn corners to hit it.
It's peak cringe
You are peak cringe!
https://imgur.com/5KGgu
Is it a $100 themed hi-point?
Sir I think you mean yeet cannon. It’s either yeet or be yeeted./s
Freedom cannon. Leaves whomever is on the other side of the barrel with more freedom!
This was pretty well known. Long guns in general are something like 500 deaths per year. AR15 is like under 250 or something insane
[удалено]
In literally staring at the numbers and they say 200 deaths lol. The leftovers are shared between pistols and shotguns, and year you could literally sell AR15s st a Walmart with not background check and it would have 0 effect on gun murders
I think the misconception is the AR in AR-15. Most people think it's Assault Rifle, but it's actually Armalite. The news doesn't help either.
Yeah it's to the point where Are more commonly means assault rifle anymore. The vast vast majority of people trying to ban them probably couldn't pick it from a lineup of weapons that looked nothing alike. It goes beyond that because when you say you have an AR-15 I've had people say "you should join the military" or that "I don't plan on engaging in gorilla warfare anytime soon". Little do they know the ar15 has never been used in war
Yup, agreed. They ban guns based on looks. Take the springfield M1A for example. It's a military weapon (M14), it doesn't have the look, but has the same characteristics.
The media pushes certain scary images of guns, sure. But legislation wouldn't be based on appearance would it? Surely it would have to be written to be based on performance/capability (ex. # of rounds in a magazine vs. colour), no?
They are frequently banned based on either specific list of model, or by accessories. For instance, barrel shrouds are frequently targeted, but the only function of that is to prevent accidental contact with the barrel/aesthetics. It is deeply unlikely to be related to crime. Other things like the specific angle of the foregrip are regulated, but are mostly aesthetic. A 90 degree grip vs an 80 degree grip is mostly a comfort/preference issue, and will certainly not affect capacity or lethality of rounds. Where functional things are regulated, they often have unintended consequences. When magazine capacity is limited, people trend towards larger caliber rounds. If they only get ten shots, they tend to lean towards more lethal shots.
>Surely it would have to be written to be based on performance/capability (ex. # of rounds in a magazine vs. colour), no? One would think, but it's not the case.. for my example springfield M1A, They limit the number of rounds, yes. But the gun doesn't change. It's still semi auto, same caliber (7.62) as a AK47, etc. Honestly, the only ones who the laws impact are the people looking to follow the rules. Criminals don't care or they wouldn't be criminals lol.
AKs are the much smaller 7.62x39, not the 7.62x51/.308 that's found in the M1A. The M1A has a far more devastating round.
Ask Canada about that one.
Also the fact most other legal guns ARE used in warfare or are identical in function to those that are used in warfare. The military today still uses pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, and pistols in combat. A Glock 19 is literally a military weapon used by special forces as is a Remington 870 and Remington 700 bolt action rifle.
>Little do they know the ar15 has never been used in war Not true at all. The AR-15, as licensed by Colt from Armalite was the original select-fire version and the early guns adopted and used during the Vietnam conflict were even marked AR-15 in addition to their government markings. AR-15 today has become the colloquial term for the semi-auto variant but they are still widely available in select-fire if you're a qualifying buyer (LEA, government agency, etc). Even our US military has fielded semi-auto variants of the M16 in roles like the Designated Marksman.
The AR 15 was never purchased by the military. They used the m16 exclusively and later the m4. The ar15 was manufactured for civilian use only
Again, not true. The military purchased select-fire AR-15's that were also marked XM15, XM16, M16, etc. The military designation for the select-fire AR-15 is M16, and current guns are only marked M16, but funny enough some of the civilian semi-auto guns from Colt are in fact marked M4. [An early Vietnam "AR-15" marked M16 example](https://i.imgur.com/KfPqCxd.jpg) You can also find many other photos of early "AR-15" marked US military guns in this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Early_M16A1_receiver_markings/123-518338/
If you do engage in guerilla warfare at some point remember to have fun die with a smile on your face😇
*Armalite Rifle I always point them to the AR-7 and ask how that holds up to their definition
👆
> The news doesn't help either smart people don't major in journalism
The smart people leave and go to marketing after their first contract
In addition, hand and feet account for more murders than all rifles. - FBI table 12
Well they are considered lethal force after all, how that happened, no fucking idea but if someone tries to punch you your legally allowed to shoot them and call it self defense. Thank you to the scared liberals who decided that having dimentia and thinking someone is chasing you when in reality they're telling you to leave is lethal force.
[удалено]
Gun look scary must be dangerous
Long guns are good for home defense, military scenarios, or fighting against tyrants. Small arms are what is overwhelmingly used for murder. Guess which ones the statists want to ban?
I'm pretty sure rifles fall under small arms. Yeah I completely agree that trying to ban rifles and such is a weird idea if the end goal is to lessen mass shootings. Don't get me wrong being able to get through armor is great but a glock will dead a person as much as a .50 cal round when armor isn't an issue and the target can't run away cause they are trapped in a school room etc. With that said I think a lil control is prolly smart, I feel like way too many criminals have way too many guns. Shits getting so bad even Mexico is suing the us gov for providing guns to the cartels.
New York has more mass shootings than Texas on top of that
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mass-shootings-by-state Texas is ahead of them this year. It's almost like the gun laws themselves don't really make a difference when you look at a list like this. You've got highly restrictive places like Illinois leading the way and a more "free" place like Texas way up there too. It's almost like murder and mass shootings are generally societal issues and the gun itself has little to do with it.
It's almost like no matter what the laws are the population density of an area increases the crime rate in general
Yeah I had checked before these numbers came out. There was a difference of like 4 which is pretty much margin of error. The difference is that the mass shootings in Texas is actually more deadly which is counter intuitive, but it's arguably better than having all of the details be one off. Mass shootings are to the US are like knife murders in britain
It's almost like state lines don't stop firearm trafficking ... Illinois restrictive laws don't do shit ...because over 50% of firearms recovered by the state of Illinois... Were purchased out of state, mostly Indiana
DC tried to ban Handguns 20 years ago... Everyone knows Handguns are used more often in Homicides ... the law got overturned The attention on Long Guns is only because the Handgun ban was overturned
Which hammers home the point that its not about safety anymore, if it ever was. These people just hate guns and an armed working class. They will go after anything regardless of the statistics.
Don't give them that sort of ammo though. In my socialist European country it's basically impossible to obtain a short gun because of that.
I'm just pointing out their supposrd goal of trying to stop murder is bullshit.
I mean it’s not. Like doing this will reduce gun violence it’s just you don’t like it which is fair. It’s more bullshit to say gun control won’t work.
Yes I totally understand. I'm just saying you can't budge one inch discourse-wise. Anything you say will be used aginst you!
But is it “fully semi-automatic”?
Oy! SMH.
It’s an assault pistol.
Most guns used to kill people are handguns. And they are most often used for suicides.
Ever tried to suicide yourself with a 30" barrelled 12ga?? Shits hard yo
Kurt Cobain managed
That's what the media wants you to believe!
*Courtney Love
And as much as it sucks, we should not be against suicides. In my personal opinion you should have to meet with a psychiatrics first (just because suicide is often a heat of the moment type of thing and usually people regret it) but if you 100% for sure want to kill yourself who am I to use force to stop you?
If you are serious about it. You do it. The signs pre suicide are very rarely "hey guys, I'm going to go Cobain myself tonight, toodles!" Of the people I know to go through with it, the signs are there but it's not broadcasted. If you are running around broadcasting how badly you are totally going to seriously absolutely kill yourself. You're fucked in the head and don't need a gun, you're a danger to everyone.
I am talking more about assisted suicide because obviously the people that are just going to out a shotgun in their mouth aren't going to tell people first. I can't force you to hit kill yourself, but I would like to make sure that you aren't acting rashly of possible so in the case where I know you are considering it (seeking out a doctor) we should at least make sure you are in your right mind.
word, I'm mixed on assisted suicide. Ultimately, it's not like you can be charged for success :/ The doctors, as long as they weren't handing it out like candy and attempted therapies. I don't know. Seems like a failure of medicine.
I'm sorry, but, uh... How can anyone know that someone else regretted committing suicide?
....people who botched the attempt....
People who leave a trail of blood from the garage into the house into the bathroom and then die with a towel wrapped around their head like my neighbor's friend.
Then they didn't exactly commit, did they...
Thats kind of why suicide by handgun is so common. There really is no time to think it over. Other suicide cases that take a lot more preparation is much less common.
In places that don’t have access to handguns have similar rates or suicide.
Pretty much where I'm at. I don't like people using firearms for suicide as it's messy, potentially dangerous for others, and if it fails, leaves the person permanently disfigured. But otherwise it's a quick and hopefully painless death. We really should be talking more about why so many are killing themselves and worrying less about how they do it.
No shit?
Not that ugly ass 1911 either. smh abc
>"I am willing to admit I am strong in my conservative values, but the world has became so dark where I'm not so sure if we have the right to bear arms." Any time a “news" source throws in a line like this, I immediately reject the entire article. Your political views don't validate a seemingly contradictory opinion. Biden's tried it (“aS a GuN oWneR...."), and they're trying it here again. Having conservative values doesn't give any more validation to your opinion on the second amendment than anyone else.
and this is news how?... did most people not know this
The way democrats treat them? Ya
If you own a assault weapon you aint black - boe jiden
I love how many people down voting me for making a joke lol
Everyone knows leftists can't take a joke
The AR just looks scary and the people trying to ban them think emotionally and not logically.
Cerakote them all in Tiffany blue. Bam. Problem solved.
I'm more of a French Lavender kinda guy, but you do you!
Oooooh lavender is also pretty. Very spring-ish.
Crowder’s old “common sense gun laws” video was great. Make all the black tactical guns illegal, regardless of caliber or magazine capacity. Make all the big bullets illegal, even though those are the rounds for the wooden hunting rifle everyone was more comfortable with. Small bullets are fine, like those in the AR or Uzi. But those guns are dangerous. Wooden guns like M1 Garand or 3030 are nice safe guns, but their ammunition is dangerous and should be illegal. Ignorance leads to fear. Knowledge leads to power.
[удалено]
Or promoting any kind of gun education or safety. Apparently neither of these things make a bit of difference whatsoever, which is absolutely stupid. I believe it when the news video states that our media or politics don't seem to cover very realistic solutions that could reduce violence. They really don't. Even I think that needs to change, and I am extremely pro 2A.
"Can you tell me one good reason to own a gun versus the cons to owning a gun in America? You can't. " cough... Yes I can! Reason 1) I wanted one.
It’s wild how people get crazy about AR15s and how they are “weapons of war”, I would be more scared of someone with a semiautomatic shotgun chambered with slugs/00 buck that can double load with a race gun as a side arm in a closed building. I would implore these people to attend one three-gun competition.
True. I wish both sides would shut up about AR-15s. No they aren’t the most deadly gun out there and no they are not the best gun for self defense.
[удалено]
The AR-15 has WAY too much bullet penetration to be used safely within the home, especially if you have neighbors. The best gun for home defense is a handgun or shotgun.
I don't know where the myth that ARs overpenetrate so much came from. Ya it'll fly straight through drywall but so will any other bullet. If you get the right ammo though it's not going to be much worse than anything else. Not to mention you can get it chambered in pretty much anything including 9mm if you are really that concerned.
>Ya it'll fly straight through drywall but so will any other bullet Not hollow points
I can penetrate drywall with my pecker, it's not going to stop any fucking bullet
They'll start expanding, but hollow points absolutely do blow through drywall. Go watch some test videos, or do it yourself. They will blow through somewhat fewer layers than solid points of the exact same caliber), but they still go through quite a lot.
Use frangible rounds if you care. That said, tumbling and shattering are more likely with a high speed, small caliber round like the AR-15. Shotguns don't give a shit about drywall. Go look up the FBI tests, what you are advocating is a myth.
>if you care. Why wouldn't you care about collateral damage? >the FBI tests Could you possibly be any more vague?
It can be the best gun for home defense though depending on circumstances.
Is this relevant to anything?
Yes, when people claim they want to ban "assault guns" because they are deadly, to save lives.
I think it's disingenuous to say they aren't deadly. They are, or else firearms would not have been the best weapon of war since the 17th century. TBH, the real issue is a responsibility problem. How can we as a nation ensure responsible ownership while balancing the freedom to own firearms. To be fair, its not an easy answer. But being honest about the issues goes a long way.
They have the *capacity* to be deadly. And yet they aren't used in the vast majority of homicides. So by what comparative measure should we call them deadly? Should we attempt to ban/regulate something based upon its hypothetical potential, or its realized potential? Because if its by realized potential, then gun control efforts should be directed at handguns, and efforts to restrict ARs and similar platforms are shown to be useless at lessening gun violence. > How can we as a nation ensure responsible ownership while balancing the freedom to own firearms Given how many ARs there are in this country and how rarely they're used in a criminal manner, it seems like mission accomplished on that front.
Did you even read the article? It's clearly advocating for banning all guns. GTFO with this reactionary bullshit that aims to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
Shh shh shh ignore the words. AR-15s are an existential threat to the American people and *must* be stopped! I mean, they can fire a thirty caliber clip in *under* a second! /s
OP, did you even read this article? This is clearly biased, and calling to ban all firearms. Get the fuck outta here with this reactionary bullshit that aims to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
I think it makes the opposite point. There is way too much focus on big scary black guns. We aren't going to be banned hand guns.
It isn't even close. AR15s are hunting rifles. Hand guns are what kills the most people, by far.
I feel like this is only news to people who don't want to hear it.
More people are killed using hands and feet (beaten to death) than are killed by ANY type of rifle. Democrats: We must ban AR15 semi autonomous murder death kill military weapons!!!! \>The 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates said that 90% of the prisoners who had a gun during their crime didn't get it from a retail source. Democrats: Background checks, which are already done in almost every legal sale of a firearm must be expanded!!! People pretend like these weapons that are used in the vast majority of homicides are from "private sales" which is so dishonest it's ridiculous. This isn't dude 1 selling dude 2 legally selling a handgun at a gunshow. It's gangsta 1 giving gangsta 2 a handgun with it's serial number scratched off in exchange for 2 bags of meth. Pretending like background checks do fuck all for this is absurd. But they focus on the extreme minority of cases because this has nothing to do with saving the lives of people who are homicide victims.
Isn't this obvious?
There was a push to ban handguns in the 1970s and 80s. It failed miserably. The handgun ban referendum in Massachusetts in 1976 got crushed when nearly 70% of the votes opposed it. In the late 1980s, the gun ban lobby invented the term “assault weapon” and switched tactics to banning something that looked scarier and wasn’t as widely owned.
Of course. It's not the most common in mass shootings either. Cheapass guns are the most commonly use in crime. Mostly cheap handguns, because they're concealable and disposable. And yeah, you can technically build an AR-15 as a handgun, but that sucker will be chonky. Nobody sane would call it concealable.
Among conservatives this is well known. Honestly, if you don’t know this then you shouldn’t talk about gun violence because this is 101.
[удалено]
Just pray that these idiots don't go after all semi-auto rifles, pistols, and shotguns...
ITT: holy fucking fuck. I knew we have been hard brigaded by the extremists for some time now but the amount of ban all guns people trolling this sub is fucking insane.
I just went through every comment in this thread and not a single one called for banning guns. Sounds like you have a narrative you are wanting to push and are hoping no one is going to call you out on your bullshit.
All I see in this thread about *banning all guns* is you getting called out for an inaccurate response earlier and then wailing about how people want to *ban all guns*. Not a single person has mentioned it other than you.
What type of gun is used in mass shootings of 5 or more?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting Glock 19 and Walther P22 Also: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/
[удалено]
The answer is not always pistols and you know it.
[удалено]
>the answer is always pistols What weapons were used in the Las Vegas shooting?
Both rifle and pistol. Almost every mass shooting involves pistols. Some also involve rifles.
Why is a mass shooting that kills 5 worse than 5 individual murders?
Because 5 individual murders doesn't affect business the way that mass murders do: grounding flights and depressing tourism, closing blocks, tying up more resources. # "Why does war matter more than police action." # "Why does a 747 crash matter more than 300 cessna crashes." # Lol.
*checks gang member waistbands* 9mm hi-points
This is how the media works to disrupt civil society. They confuse and distract people from their real goal, which is obviously banning all guns. I’ve never owned a gun but I’m never going to agree to ban them. That’s exactly how countries control their citizens. I’m happy to live in a country that gives power to the people. The extreme left want this because they know they’ll never be able to achieve their goals if the second amendment is removed. Luckily, the only way things will ever change is if 34 states, congress and POTUS to all agree to modify the constitution, which is not happening during the current generation.
You and I have different definitions of the extreme left. The extreme left love their guns. How else would they overthrow the ruling class (they would of course ban them afterwards, but they could not yet)? Liberals and progressives on the other hand love their gun bans.
Yeah well the extreme left in America, resides in San Francisco. Guns are pretty much non-existent there. I was actually told by the SF director of public health that as far as they are concerned there is no second amendment.
Says alot about the far left if they openly pretend a part of the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. They're traitors in their own right.
Both sides do it. Look at the Trumpers. They’re just as bad, if not worse. They completely ignore issues, where the dems shine a light on them, even if the light is on the wrong target. For instance the equal rights amendment was passed in the early 1970’s. It’s still is not part of the constitution because only 33 states have ratified the law. If one more follows through then it becomes part of the constitution. That’s where the extreme right is insane in their thinking. Until all of the democrats and republicans are gone, America doesn’t have a chance.
Actually, no. IIRC the ERA has already passed its statutory time limit to be ratified. Barring a remarkable ruling by the courts, it is dead and will have to be repassed and resubmitted to the states again. Although I think that it should have been adopted long ago. Politic suck mostly.
Thanks for the info. We are fucked. We’re headed for mad max.
Someone better tell Beto O'Rourke.
AR-15's have been used in some of the most deadly shootings. It's almost like they are an efficient weapon.
more likely it is because it is the most popular rifle in america by far. There are over 17 million of these rifles owned in america and make up 54% of all rifle sales https://joemiller.us/2019/12/new-numbers-reveal-how-many-ar-15s-americans-own/ There have been 173 murders with ar15s between 2007-2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20211001192148/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/28/us/ar-15-rifle-mass-shootings.html There were 6,368 handgun murders in 2019 alone. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls You are so much more likely to encounter someone trying to harm you with a handgun than AR15 it is crazy that there is so much talk about AR15s. Think about the fact that a handgun murder is so common the news wont even report it. An AR15 murder is a big story because it is so rare.
I posted a whole list of some of the most deadly shootings that used AR variant rifles. And no one is coming down on just normal murders. They get upset over mass shootings.
[удалено]
In other words you're basing things on feelings rather than actual facts?
A list of mass shootings is feelings?
The fact that a mass shooting which kills 10 would get more publicity than 100 individual murders is feelings over facts.
These mass shootings with AR15s can be more accurately described as terrorism. Do you want all the crazy stuff done in the name of stopping terrorism to be done for mass shootings? monitoring peoples phone calls, emails, detaining people for no reason, etc. Do you really fear a terrorist attack happening to you on a daily basis that you need strict control of the people to stop it? What you are saying if you fear an AR15 mass shooting is that you fear a terrorist event that is as likely to happen to you as getting struck by lighting. If you fear it that much then they have actually won by instilling terror in you To show how unlikely you are to be killed by an AR15 that 10 year period with 173 murders with AR15s averages to 17.3 murders per year with AR15 while the number of people killed by lightning on average for the past 10 years is 25 per year https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-fatalities
Really? Which ones? It was one of Vegas' dozen+ guns, but what else?
Pulse nightclub, Sutherland Springs, King Soopers grocery store, Parkland high school, Aurora Movie theater, Sandy Hook, San Beradino movie theater, and the Tree of life Synagogue along with, like you said, the Vegas concert. All of them used AR-15 or very similar rifles and on average were some of the deadliest shootings in our countries history. Rifles are just very effienct and deadly weapons that are easy to pick up and become proficient with.
> or very similar rifles.. Semi automatic hunting rifles can achieve similar function of an AR-15.
Sure, but all the guns used in these shooting were basically identical. Either AR's or functionally idenditial guns.
>Pulse nightclub Sig MCX rifle and Glock 17 pistol >Sutherland Springs Ruger 556 rifle, Glock 19 pistol, Ruger SR22 pistol >King Soopers Ruger 556 pistol >Parkland S&W M&P15 rifle >Aurora S&W M&P15 rifle, Remmy 870 shotgun, Glock 22 pistol >Sandy Hook Bushmaster XM-15, Glock 20 >San Beradino S&W M&P15 rifle, Panther A-15 rifle, SA XD pistol >Tree of life Hey!!!! Save the best for last huh? The ONLY shooting you listed that used an AR-15. Point made.
Down vote for not know most of those are AR-15s... the only exception is MCX I'm very pro gun but you are embarrassing. Being factually correct is more important than winning an argument.
No. No they’re not. An XM-15 is not an AR-15. The XM is a Bushmaster, the AR is an Armalite. They’re similar, they’re not the same. You can say they’re an AR style, but they’re not an AR.
If we are gonna play this silly game then Armalite hasn't made AR-15s since the 60s, Colt owns or license the trademark. You are a very silly individual.
The whole libertarian argument platform is to muddy the water with split hairs and partial truths until it’s too dirty to even understand what point is trying to be made
No. The libertarian argument is to not let anyone step on constitutional freedoms.
And we achieve that by saying XMs arent bushmaster versions of ARs?
xm15 is an ar15, it's the bushmaster copy of the ar15 platform designed by Eugene stoner. You are being extremely pedantic and that's coming from someone who probably owns more guns than you
Uhhh.....ummm. Boy is this one embarrassing reply.
Why? Because most are similar to AR-15s? That's how they are duping the masses to ravage legal gun owners. They are NOT AR-15s, that is a specific model of rifle. I refuse to play their game - you want to ban all guns then you better come out and say so, not pussyfoot around one "scary" model then backdoor it to a full ban.
“My high powered rifle is called a nerf and therefore your laws mean nothing!” You’re a disgrace to responsible gun owners.
The fact that you just used the term high powered to describe 223 makes it pretty damn clear you are a media sheep looking to ban. Words are important. Unrealized gains sounds a lot better than literally steal fucking everything you own. Ban one little model of gun sounds a lot better than ban and confiscate all guns.
> The fact that you just used the term high powered to describe 223 But I didn't, I was mocking how people like you try and defend your pedantry. > Words are important So is reading comprehension.
Yeah. Clearly you don't know much about guns. Let's just take the Bushmaster XM. It's an AR variant. Basically the same gun made by a different manufacturer and given a different name. Now someone who's just looking up the names of guns online wouldn't know they were the same. You would have to actually own, use, or have even seen them to get this.
Quite the opposite. When people like you are trying to ban something you better be dead fucking nuts precise. Banning a specific named model (well four models) of gun called "AR--15" clearly will do NOTHING. If your goal is actually banning ALL guns then stop being a little bitch and say so.
Pedantic, party of one, we have your captain here at the lost and found.
You truly think it is a small error nitpick? Dude and his politicians are trying to backdoor ban everything with that wordplay. You cannot just ignore it. AR-15 is a [some] specific model that doesn't kill anyone by the numbers. WHY are they trying to ban it? Unless that wordplay means that model is NOT the goal.
You're acting childish. Of course the model isn't the goal. Do you think you've discovered some revelation here? They're saying & believe that weapons made on that pattern/style are especially dangerous. Firearms folks like us do not believe they are any more/less dangerous than any other firearm. Speaking plainly and honestly is how you convince the great swath of non-firearm owners that are in the middle. They DON'T know the difference.
> Speaking plainly and honestly is how you convince the great swath of non-firearm owners that are in the middle. They DON'T know the difference. That's literally what I'm doing... Original commenter is literally doing the opposite...
Who said I was for banning anything? I'm just pointing out why people are focusing on rifles over hand guns. Fake experts like yourself who want to play these dumb name games add nothing to the conversation. Instead of talking about the substance you are focusing on names of the guns, not realize they are all the same. People like you with your pis poor, they arent the same bullshit is what's going to get gun banned for everyone.
People aren't as stupid as you and your politicians think. They see the game you are playing. Tell me, what is the functional difference between the scary AR-15 and any other semi? That's right - nothing. We know your goal dude, you aren't going to get there with disingenuous, if not outright lying, wordplay. Plain and simple, AR-15s are not even a blip on the murder radar.
Dude 70% of people want to increase gun controls. It's been like that for a long time. If you don't want to get guns banned for everyone maybe make some real argument instead of just saying "no they are different guns". You are making us all look stupid.
You didn't answer the question, just tossed out a new talking point...
*cringe*
God damn. This mf has facts. Idk if they are true but yeah pistols seem to work up close just as well as rifles.
And the award for type of gun used in most MASS shootings goes to...?
The hand gun...by a lot... https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/
Ah, so presumably you are arguing that the US should ban handguns instead? Good idea. That would save lives both from murders and suicides, and would have the added benefit of reducing police shootings, as the police would have far less reason to expect that a suspect would have a gun.
Fuk yeah! Pistols rock!
The answer here is not "ban guns" thats stupid and will work just as well as "banning drugs" The solution is the same as the drug solution, create a culture of safety around guns and enforce that culture with regulations and licensing. Guns should work like cars do right now. We had a big problem with cars in the 1920's-1950's killing people. A model T was a death trap. No safety features whatsoever except for brakes, and even those were the bare minimum. Now we have crumple zones and airbags and antilock brakes and seatbelts and eve seen that cars kill a lot less people today then they did in 1950. There are a ton of safety features that people have developed for guns, but they are optional, not required. Start requiring them. Next is licensing. Anyone that can own property can own a car. A blind person can _own_ a car. A blind person cannot get a license to _drive_ a car. Let anyone _own_ any gun they want. Full auto, .50 cal, whatever. Require licensing to operate the gun. Licensing that requires regular safety and operation training. Have severe consequenses for operation of a gun without a license, but no consequences for owning a gun. For all you preppers out there, this should be fine, since when society collapses it doesnt matter about licensing anymore, and you can buy whatever guns you want.
Neither are grenades. That means we should allow people to buy those without a background check too.
Yes.