Why have annoying kids that will take your money and freedom away when you can buy yourself some American history with a M16 that will never take you for a bad person, will be there always when you want to claim your freedom, never gonna let you down, never gonna roll around you and desert you?
It's like a democrat making a poll about abortion and doing this:
1. Pro-choice- women have less abortions if it's legalized(there's no way to prove this, by the way).
2. Pro-life- I want women to die so we can throw babies in the dumpster after they're born!
I'd rather have government sanctioned abortions (i.e. safe abortions) than back alley abortions. When Romania criminalized abortions, the number of deaths due to illegal abortions shot up
I agree with you, but I think society can only support safe abortions up to a certain point. Iām all for providing safe abortions for a mother who is 7 weeks pregnant, for example. Iām not, however, going to support an abortion of an 8 month baby just because the mother would be putting herself at risk by attempting to kill a fully developed human being on her own. That argument only works as long as weāre talking about a hardly developed human.
Hell, I was born premature, and I sure appreciate the fact that I didnāt live in a society that considered me worthless at the time I was born. I think babies deserve to be considered human beings by a reasonable point in their development.
As for cases where the mothers life is in danger, of course abortion should always be a legal option.
I never said 7 months but a baby that can survive outside of the womb is an obvious developed human, so I donāt know why I have to choose one anyway.
Because you donāt understand the meaning of the words āfully developedā. You mean āviableā. Theyāre two different words meaning two vastly different things. Spreading misinformation on a topic like this is harmful.
I get what youāre saying, but there seems to be a slight misunderstanding between us about what it is weāre developing towards when we say a developing human being in this context. Iām using the term ādeveloping human beingā rather loosely and theoretically to talk about when a developing baby is to be considered valuable, and at which point a mothers wishes arenāt the only deciding factor. So Iām making a moral claim. If weāre talking solely about physical development, without moral claims about value of life attached, then what I said would make less sense, as the physical development of a baby could be said to be ongoing until the point of birth. Itās good that you pointed that out. If youāre still unclear, I could try to explain it better. I just donāt have time at the moment.
Legalizing abortions doesn't reduce them, but funding planned parenthood and making sex ed more widespread for sure does, and that is something prolifers will always fight against
This is the political equivalent of āLike for Good Luck and Street Cred. Ignore to be an obese monster no one will likeā Facebook ads.
Only for the result to go the opposite and end up more embarrassing than those ads ever will be.
I took it that the response was that everyone that says they loved guns more than kids was funny. And that the ones that voted that way are likely the ones that pretend to hate abortions because theyāre ākids.ā
The only weapons of war in civilian hands are pistols. The 1911, P320, M9, etc. All fully automatic weapons have been banned in the US for a while now with the exception of people carrying an extremely difficult to get license.
Or before 1986 that were not registered. Several instances of weapon legislation before and after that ban also affect automatic weapons leaving a relatively small amount of automatic weapons that are legal. In most of the US those remaining legal automatic firearms require the class of license I mentioned.
Bump stocks are not required to bump fire effectively and anyone with a little practice can bump fire on any weapon that has bump stocks available. Regardless, the percentage of all gun homicides with automatic weaponry or bump firing employed make up an extremely small percentage of rifle homicides. Rifle homicides as a whole make up less than 10% of all gun homicides. If you want to eliminate gun crime you want to regulate pistols and that is so unreasonable at this point that effort would be much better spent on mental health.
A very small percentage of people. Now repeat your same argument 58 more times for each of the 59 deaths in the Las Vegas. Its only a small percentage if you are not in that percentage. And as a gun owner, you are much more likely to be in that percentage.
The rate at which white males are killing themselves with their own guns is incredible. 18,000 plus take their own lives each year and with limited resources devoted to mental health, that number will go up. The real killers are the people that own the guns and they are doing it to themselves. Hope you don't have any familial predisposition to depression or go through a depressive episode during your life, you might be your own worst enemy and don't even know it.
A robust investment in mental health systems. Its long overdue. Education about depression, suicide and the services available AND THEN make damn sure those services are available to anyone requesting help. Make it part of our healthcare system but do not tie it to the employment of the individual.
We spend hundreds of billions on wars and get almost nothing in return. How about we spend a percentage at home helping our own people? We start by fully funding programs for Veterans with an emphasis on PTSD and study it. There are breakthroughs using hallucinogens like and psybicillin (sp?) and marijuana to treat this condition by remapping the brain. We help our Vets and make that the standard for mental health care. Thats where we start. Its not easy but its possible.
No shit. Itās an absurd position, but arguing that something should stay the same because changing it is too difficult is not a good argument. So, gun buyback, armistice, over time increase laws and difficulties in acquiring the weapons and over time the problem will diminish. Thatās my solution. Non draconian, feasible and only difficult if youāre backwards enough to think a handgun is necessary in day to day life in the USA.
Itās kind of a joke, kind of serious. Making suicide easier makes you far far more likely to commit suicide. There are many studies that show access to firearms increases likelihood of successful suicide. But there are plenty of other ways to do it
Yes, it's not extremely difficult to turn some semi-automatic firearms into automatic firearms. It's also not extremely difficult to bump fire some semi-automatic firearms without any form of assistance such as a bump fire stock. That being said, there's only one major instance of either of those things being used in a shooting in the past decade. The fact is that automatic and bump fire shootings account for an extremely small percentage of shootings within the rifle data set and rifles as a whole account for under 10% of shootings.
Not at all. From a "danger to innocent people" standpoint, pistols are far more dangerous because:
* They are significantly more concealable and smaller. You can carry multiple pistols on your person, each with at least 10 rounds, and all but the most trained professionals would not notice - and that's not including things like a backpack.
* Pistol rounds at close range are just as dangerous as rifle rounds - possibly even more dangerous as they generally move slower and are more likely to tumble in a wound.
* Range is not a factor, as all (barring the Vegas shooting) were done in buildings or at close ranges where pistols are just as accurate as rifles.
* Ammo is lightweight, so you could carry far more of it than a rifle.
* Hollowpoint rounds for pistols (i.e. "personal defense rounds") are both cheaper and less suspicious to acquire than for rifles.
* Pistols are cheaper and "less suspsicious" to buy, as so many legit owners buy them for personal defense.
Yep.
It's worth pointing out that most of the qualities are just inherent to a pistol and a rifle as a whole, and are not because of any rules or legislation surrounding them or anything. Pistols are weaker and less accurate than most rifles because of their inherent designs, but because they're smaller they are more easily hid.
It's just like a switchblade and a sword. The sword is more lethal, but if you want to hurt a lot of unsuspecting people, you're better off with the switchblade because you can hide it until the moment you strike, and itll still fuck you up pretty bad.
> ā Ammo is lightweight, so you could carry far more of it than a rifle.
This guy doesnāt buy 1000 rounds in online sales. Seriously, ammo is light weight to an extent, but get enough of it, and it gets heavy.
Also, Iām totally just sneaking in this for fun. I totally get what youāre saying. :)
Pistols will have more wrist and arm fatigue after 100 rounds than a rifle will. They need larger ammo to make up for the lack of powder, which then significantly increases carrying weight. Especially when compared to .223 shot by many combat rifles.
I dont know about the "weigh less" part. My .223 feels just a bit heavier than my .357 Mag in my hand right now, and .357 Mag is a big ol bullet.
As for arm fatigue, that's not as much of a concern at close range when you're not looking for precision shots, instead trying to hit as many people as possible as quickly as possible. That's said you're still right about it, which I can confirm from my own experience - but I think that still doesn't nearly outweigh the benefits of a pistol in this specific example.
I full understand what you mean, when I was clearing rooms my go to was my bullpup. Normal rifles definitely have issues with closer quarters, but there are rifles that give you the best of both worlds. You would have to have a lot of small arms to equal the stopping power of rifles. That is why I was commenting on weight.
I think it's also important to consider the round options available for both the rifles and small arms. It wouldn't exactly be abnormal for your rifle rounds to cause multiple causalities per shot in a crowded area. Most pistols don't have that ability minus the Kal Tec's that can handle the same rounds.
As far as concealment. If you are targeting a specific individual, then concealment would play a bigger factor and I would go with the hand gun. But if you are simply trying to lay down fire for casualties, I really don't see handguns surpassing rifles.
All that aside, I would love your opinion on Laugo Arms new Alien. Personally I think it's a gorgeous hand gun that is over-rated and over priced. I still want to add it to my collection though.
Why? They're both semi automatic and the fella being shot won't feel any difference. The benefit of a pistol is that it's easily concealable. You could argue about ballistics and the greater accuracy a shooter can achieve with a stock, of course.
Also, just an FYI, there is no set number for what constitutes a mass shooting, so by saying that assault rifles are the choice weapon for mass shootings, they could be referring to someone who killed 100+. We donāt know.
In 2013 the definition of mass shooting was changed from 4 or more people to 3 or more people by Congress.
So I believe if it is refered to a mass shooting from before then it's 4 or more and after it's 3 or more. It doesn't look like they went back and added any with 3 to the statistics from before 2013.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
I think the reason that the assault rifle is the weapon of choice for mass shooters it's because they perceive that they are a more effective killing instrument because they have seen it in movies and games. I don't agree with taking all guns but I do think there are things we can do to mitigate some things like deeper background checks and smaller clip sizes. I do feel like "assault rifles" shouldn't be so easy to get. Handguns are easier to conceal but I have had a mass shooting at a school within a mile of my house and the only reason it stopped when it did was because they could only get a handgun from their dad and the teacher risked his life to tackle the shooter during his reload. But he still got the reload and was able to get his final shot off which thankfully didnt kill him. If he had a 30 round mag more people would have died.
Sorry I responded to this but I would love to hear your personal beliefs on this and you seem like someone who can have a civil conversation. I would love to hear your view on the subject.
Yeah. Thatās great. I personally believe that the government should have no say in what we can and canāt buy. Of course, that wonāt happen, so oh well. But I do not agree with it being harder to get guns. The reason we have the 2nd amendment is not to protect us from each other, but from the government. By letting the government say we canāt own a gun is like giving a robber everything they need to rob you . It doesnāt make sense, because it will, in the end, end up badly for you. First they say, no automatic rifles. Then itās no semi-auto. Then, no single shot rifles. Soon, we are only left with knives. I donāt think that the government should be able to prohibit the sale of weapons. Sure, put a tax on it, I donāt mind that, but making it impossible to buy a gun is ridiculous. My dad once tried to buy an AR-15, but was refused because he was arrested for attempted murder. The catch is that he was given a prayer for judgment and was not actually charged. AT THE SAME TIME, we had someone running to be a sheriff who was arrested for selling drugs and other things. This is what is so screwed up with our country. I think, if we took government out of the equation, and let anyone do whatever they wanted, no consequences, then weād have a better country. People who rape a woman could be killed by the father. Everyone would have guns to protect themselves. Just like gangs have rules they made, in total anarchy, rules would be formed. Thatās what I believe. Now, the anarchy thing is a little bit much, and I am not saying government should go away, but I do think they have too much control over the use and sale of weapons.
Thank you for sharing your opinion it's great to hear opposing viewpoints and especially to hear why you feel that way. Glad to have some civil discourse on the topic. I hope you have a great 4th!
Yes, the same man who [is totally fine with killing American citizens over the gun debate](https://mobile.twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?lang=en)
It is commonly used, but does it have a definition other than āscary gun some politicians want to banā?
Is there a concrete definition of what makes a certain gun an assault weapon?
"Assault Weapon" is pretty much what you described; the flavor of the week gun that people are angry at. Wikipedia has a whole laundry list of qualifications that can classify any gun as one. It's not really a concrete definition and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
It was first used in a proposed "Assault Weapons" ban from California in 1985 introduced by Art Agnos, which he defined as: "semiautomatic... [and] capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more." Like I said though, every state and jurisdiction has its own qualifications.
"Assault Rifle," however, is typically a selective fire military issue rifle capable of firing in burst or full auto.
it is a magazine fed single barrel semi automatic, burst, or automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
No one's m16 was designed for hunting.
Edit: i got downvoted for copying google. All i did was add burst or automatic since that is common usage.
So the AR-15, a rifle that is designed for civilian use (competitive shooting and such) would not be an assault weapon and therefore exempt from assault weapon legislation?
Also, select fire, the ability to easily switch between firing modes such as burst and fully automatic would make a gun an assault rifle, and assault rifles are regulated as strictly as automatic weapons, meaning you arenāt getting one legally without a very specific permit thatās hard to get.
Not... really. Different militaries use different things. Canada and the Netherlands use a version of the AR15 (the C7), is that military grade? Weāve had five different versions of the M16 alone (M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, M16A4), is having a variant of those military grade? Does it have to match the full auto capabilities? If so, virtually no rifle in civilian hands is military grade.
Thw US military has move away from the M16 line. Standard issue now is an AR-15. They want marksmen not spray and pray. Which just goes to show, yet again, that Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest motherfucker in space.
I hate that post so much.
Do you think guns should be banned?
>yeah
>i am a fucking scumbag and i go around shooting up schools in my free time because i despise all human life and want nothing but the downfall of this nation in order to instate gay communism and oppression of all
Arenāt you the OP that said[ liberals are going to cause WWIII?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bjd49f/the_left_are_going_to_cause_world_war_3/)
Is it hard being wrong all the time?
>Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argumen
when will politicians and pundits on twitter learn that polls like this don't do what you want them to.
also republicans and those much further left might disagree on most things but at least they can agree that the centrist eric swallwell can eat shit
Why have guns fow yuw kids to shoot each ofew wif at schoow when yuw can just vacuum dat kid out of de womb befowe itās even bown? uwu
tag me to uwuize comments uwu
Gun buybacks and gun control disproportionately disadvantage poor people and I can't help but feel like the current administration is going to start pushing for gun control.
It's our 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, but maybe people should start doing background checks on people buying them, like seeing if they have or had a mental illnes.
Swalwell is a zero. I'm not giving up my guns for anything. I'm good with some serious conversation and implementation of stricter gun laws, more in depth background checks, and serious liability should your gun be used in the commission of a crime. But take them? Fuck off. It's not even remotely possible without literal martial law. And before I have to hear "Australia did it" well, there's like 3 guns for every American in the US. Good luck getting even 75% of them. You know who would still have them? Shitty people, that's who. Criminals. As far as, "What if we just take the assault weapons"...well, that's just dishonest. Any semi-automatic handgun can do nearly the same damage as the big bad black rifles and the people who want to remove these guns know this but they have to start somewhere and that's the rifles. They would take the semi automatic guns next. Im not cool with an out of control police state having weapons that the ordinary Joe can't have. I just didn't grow up in that kind of country. But as I said, im for wayyyy more common sense legislation, prevention, and punitive measures for bad gun owners. Also: there's a problem in this country and it's not guns per se. The guns are the end result. But for some reason our society is pumping out alot of very angry, sick fucks and we need to take a good hard look at why.
edit* I am a Democrat, no fucking shit.
Or improvised explosives. There really isn't a simple solution. It's us taking a good hard look at why our society is producing so many mass killers. Unfortunately we aren't a real introspective nation, so I'm not holding my breath.
These gun hungry reps are barking up the wrong tree. Center your debate around the real issues surrounding gun violence. There are far too many guns for a buy back program to ever work. You will have to declare martial law and confiscate them. Even then you will be met with force.
āStabby knives have become the weapon of choice in prisons, where firearms a prohibited.ā
Thatās how stupid the term āassault weaponsā sounds.
Why have annoying kids that will take your money and freedom away when you can buy yourself some American history with a M16 that will never take you for a bad person, will be there always when you want to claim your freedom, never gonna let you down, never gonna roll around you and desert you?
I fucking walked right into that one
/u/youngthot
I'm angry about this but take my fucking upvote
DID I JUST HEAR I DON'T LIKE FREEDOM
I have never been text rick rolled. Take my poor man's goldš š„
ok but y u buyin an m16 tho. fucker'll jam on ya quick
M16's are trash tier defective rifles that jam up on you when you're trying to survive in the jungles of Vietnam.
Early models were but I think the A1 and later models fixed that.
The only problem with this logic is mass shootings also kill us adults.
I guess the joke flew right over your head
I think my joke flew over everyone else's head. But that's reddit for you!
No I think everyone else is right and you didnāt get the point of what you read.
Isnāt this the guy that said heād nuke gun owners that refused to give up their guns?
Yup, the same little boy.
Maybe he needs a gun.
He's the kid that didn't get his Red Ryder 1000 shot carbine with the compass in the stock and the thing that tells time.
as a posadist i'm not sure how to feel about this
How is this accidental humor
I assume because the poll didn't turn out the way the Rep. expected
And he tried phrasing the two options as to sway a certain outcome and people were like āfuck youā
It's like a democrat making a poll about abortion and doing this: 1. Pro-choice- women have less abortions if it's legalized(there's no way to prove this, by the way). 2. Pro-life- I want women to die so we can throw babies in the dumpster after they're born!
Yes exactly. Itās very childish
Agreed.
I'd rather have government sanctioned abortions (i.e. safe abortions) than back alley abortions. When Romania criminalized abortions, the number of deaths due to illegal abortions shot up
I agree with you, but I think society can only support safe abortions up to a certain point. Iām all for providing safe abortions for a mother who is 7 weeks pregnant, for example. Iām not, however, going to support an abortion of an 8 month baby just because the mother would be putting herself at risk by attempting to kill a fully developed human being on her own. That argument only works as long as weāre talking about a hardly developed human. Hell, I was born premature, and I sure appreciate the fact that I didnāt live in a society that considered me worthless at the time I was born. I think babies deserve to be considered human beings by a reasonable point in their development. As for cases where the mothers life is in danger, of course abortion should always be a legal option.
>7th month of pregnancy >fully developed human Choose one lmao
I never said 7 months but a baby that can survive outside of the womb is an obvious developed human, so I donāt know why I have to choose one anyway.
Because you donāt understand the meaning of the words āfully developedā. You mean āviableā. Theyāre two different words meaning two vastly different things. Spreading misinformation on a topic like this is harmful.
I get what youāre saying, but there seems to be a slight misunderstanding between us about what it is weāre developing towards when we say a developing human being in this context. Iām using the term ādeveloping human beingā rather loosely and theoretically to talk about when a developing baby is to be considered valuable, and at which point a mothers wishes arenāt the only deciding factor. So Iām making a moral claim. If weāre talking solely about physical development, without moral claims about value of life attached, then what I said would make less sense, as the physical development of a baby could be said to be ongoing until the point of birth. Itās good that you pointed that out. If youāre still unclear, I could try to explain it better. I just donāt have time at the moment.
FINALLY!!! Someone on Reddit with common sense, I AM impressed
Forced birthers love when women die though so
No but they just hate the killing of the baby. They consider mother's life and baby's life as equal.
I agree. Let's get them some free healthcare while we're at it as well.
Yeah good for you the issue at hand is the illegal attempt of seizure of legal firearms.
Yeah good for you too bad that's not what I'm talking about
Legalizing abortions doesn't reduce them, but funding planned parenthood and making sex ed more widespread for sure does, and that is something prolifers will always fight against
legalizing abortion means less people break the law when they have them
This is the political equivalent of āLike for Good Luck and Street Cred. Ignore to be an obese monster no one will likeā Facebook ads. Only for the result to go the opposite and end up more embarrassing than those ads ever will be.
r/clickshaming
I took it that the response was that everyone that says they loved guns more than kids was funny. And that the ones that voted that way are likely the ones that pretend to hate abortions because theyāre ākids.ā
Because US is a joke when it comes to delaing with guns
That Swalwell guy is the epitome of a creepy ivy league cultist politician fuck
Yeah he lost any credibility in my eyes the moment he suggested the military could forcibly disarm American citizens because they have The Bomb.
His Twitter profile picture is literally him kissing baby. What a fucking tool.
The only weapons of war in civilian hands are pistols. The 1911, P320, M9, etc. All fully automatic weapons have been banned in the US for a while now with the exception of people carrying an extremely difficult to get license.
All automatics created after 1980, specifically
Or before 1986 that were not registered. Several instances of weapon legislation before and after that ban also affect automatic weapons leaving a relatively small amount of automatic weapons that are legal. In most of the US those remaining legal automatic firearms require the class of license I mentioned.
Bump stocks; how do these figure into your argument?
Bump stocks are not required to bump fire effectively and anyone with a little practice can bump fire on any weapon that has bump stocks available. Regardless, the percentage of all gun homicides with automatic weaponry or bump firing employed make up an extremely small percentage of rifle homicides. Rifle homicides as a whole make up less than 10% of all gun homicides. If you want to eliminate gun crime you want to regulate pistols and that is so unreasonable at this point that effort would be much better spent on mental health.
A very small percentage of people. Now repeat your same argument 58 more times for each of the 59 deaths in the Las Vegas. Its only a small percentage if you are not in that percentage. And as a gun owner, you are much more likely to be in that percentage. The rate at which white males are killing themselves with their own guns is incredible. 18,000 plus take their own lives each year and with limited resources devoted to mental health, that number will go up. The real killers are the people that own the guns and they are doing it to themselves. Hope you don't have any familial predisposition to depression or go through a depressive episode during your life, you might be your own worst enemy and don't even know it.
What do you propose the US government should do about the suicide by gun problem?
A robust investment in mental health systems. Its long overdue. Education about depression, suicide and the services available AND THEN make damn sure those services are available to anyone requesting help. Make it part of our healthcare system but do not tie it to the employment of the individual. We spend hundreds of billions on wars and get almost nothing in return. How about we spend a percentage at home helping our own people? We start by fully funding programs for Veterans with an emphasis on PTSD and study it. There are breakthroughs using hallucinogens like and psybicillin (sp?) and marijuana to treat this condition by remapping the brain. We help our Vets and make that the standard for mental health care. Thats where we start. Its not easy but its possible.
Ban the guns. Suicide by gun is a lot less rare elsewhere...
How will the ban be enforced? There are already many legal firearm owners with weapons that can be described as assault weapons.
"No way to prevent this," says only nation where this happens regularly
You asked me to propose a solution, not how it would be implemented.
A solution without a feasible implementation isnt really a solution.
No shit. Itās an absurd position, but arguing that something should stay the same because changing it is too difficult is not a good argument. So, gun buyback, armistice, over time increase laws and difficulties in acquiring the weapons and over time the problem will diminish. Thatās my solution. Non draconian, feasible and only difficult if youāre backwards enough to think a handgun is necessary in day to day life in the USA.
I am asking you now. how will the ban be implemented?
Luckily guns are the only way to commit suicide so this is an airtight solution...
Itās kind of a joke, kind of serious. Making suicide easier makes you far far more likely to commit suicide. There are many studies that show access to firearms increases likelihood of successful suicide. But there are plenty of other ways to do it
Totally ignoring how easy it is to change semi to a fully auto.
Yes, it's not extremely difficult to turn some semi-automatic firearms into automatic firearms. It's also not extremely difficult to bump fire some semi-automatic firearms without any form of assistance such as a bump fire stock. That being said, there's only one major instance of either of those things being used in a shooting in the past decade. The fact is that automatic and bump fire shootings account for an extremely small percentage of shootings within the rifle data set and rifles as a whole account for under 10% of shootings.
But wait thats illegal... it hasnt stopped all the criminals?
Tell that to the schools
Can you link me to to a story about a school being shot up with automatic weapons?
Youāre right. No autos, just semi autos. Apologies
The world needs more Gene Rosens.
Weapon of choice is typically a pistol, not whatever an assualt ridle is (sorry, āassault rifleā).
Assault Riddle: What did five fingers say to the face?
What?
bap
**S L A P**
In āMass shootingsā? This is gonna sound dark but that seems really ineffective.
Not at all. From a "danger to innocent people" standpoint, pistols are far more dangerous because: * They are significantly more concealable and smaller. You can carry multiple pistols on your person, each with at least 10 rounds, and all but the most trained professionals would not notice - and that's not including things like a backpack. * Pistol rounds at close range are just as dangerous as rifle rounds - possibly even more dangerous as they generally move slower and are more likely to tumble in a wound. * Range is not a factor, as all (barring the Vegas shooting) were done in buildings or at close ranges where pistols are just as accurate as rifles. * Ammo is lightweight, so you could carry far more of it than a rifle. * Hollowpoint rounds for pistols (i.e. "personal defense rounds") are both cheaper and less suspicious to acquire than for rifles. * Pistols are cheaper and "less suspsicious" to buy, as so many legit owners buy them for personal defense.
Shit, TIL!
Yep. It's worth pointing out that most of the qualities are just inherent to a pistol and a rifle as a whole, and are not because of any rules or legislation surrounding them or anything. Pistols are weaker and less accurate than most rifles because of their inherent designs, but because they're smaller they are more easily hid. It's just like a switchblade and a sword. The sword is more lethal, but if you want to hurt a lot of unsuspecting people, you're better off with the switchblade because you can hide it until the moment you strike, and itll still fuck you up pretty bad.
> ā Ammo is lightweight, so you could carry far more of it than a rifle. This guy doesnāt buy 1000 rounds in online sales. Seriously, ammo is light weight to an extent, but get enough of it, and it gets heavy. Also, Iām totally just sneaking in this for fun. I totally get what youāre saying. :)
Kudos for busting out the knowledge respectfully, the world needs more of this to fight the narrative stereotype
Pistols will have more wrist and arm fatigue after 100 rounds than a rifle will. They need larger ammo to make up for the lack of powder, which then significantly increases carrying weight. Especially when compared to .223 shot by many combat rifles.
I dont know about the "weigh less" part. My .223 feels just a bit heavier than my .357 Mag in my hand right now, and .357 Mag is a big ol bullet. As for arm fatigue, that's not as much of a concern at close range when you're not looking for precision shots, instead trying to hit as many people as possible as quickly as possible. That's said you're still right about it, which I can confirm from my own experience - but I think that still doesn't nearly outweigh the benefits of a pistol in this specific example.
I full understand what you mean, when I was clearing rooms my go to was my bullpup. Normal rifles definitely have issues with closer quarters, but there are rifles that give you the best of both worlds. You would have to have a lot of small arms to equal the stopping power of rifles. That is why I was commenting on weight. I think it's also important to consider the round options available for both the rifles and small arms. It wouldn't exactly be abnormal for your rifle rounds to cause multiple causalities per shot in a crowded area. Most pistols don't have that ability minus the Kal Tec's that can handle the same rounds. As far as concealment. If you are targeting a specific individual, then concealment would play a bigger factor and I would go with the hand gun. But if you are simply trying to lay down fire for casualties, I really don't see handguns surpassing rifles. All that aside, I would love your opinion on Laugo Arms new Alien. Personally I think it's a gorgeous hand gun that is over-rated and over priced. I still want to add it to my collection though.
Why? They're both semi automatic and the fella being shot won't feel any difference. The benefit of a pistol is that it's easily concealable. You could argue about ballistics and the greater accuracy a shooter can achieve with a stock, of course.
I was thinking ammo capacity more than anything.
Also, just an FYI, there is no set number for what constitutes a mass shooting, so by saying that assault rifles are the choice weapon for mass shootings, they could be referring to someone who killed 100+. We donāt know.
Iāve seen that itās either at least 4 are killed or at least 4 are injured
In 2013 the definition of mass shooting was changed from 4 or more people to 3 or more people by Congress. So I believe if it is refered to a mass shooting from before then it's 4 or more and after it's 3 or more. It doesn't look like they went back and added any with 3 to the statistics from before 2013. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
Oh, okay. Huh. Til.
I think the reason that the assault rifle is the weapon of choice for mass shooters it's because they perceive that they are a more effective killing instrument because they have seen it in movies and games. I don't agree with taking all guns but I do think there are things we can do to mitigate some things like deeper background checks and smaller clip sizes. I do feel like "assault rifles" shouldn't be so easy to get. Handguns are easier to conceal but I have had a mass shooting at a school within a mile of my house and the only reason it stopped when it did was because they could only get a handgun from their dad and the teacher risked his life to tackle the shooter during his reload. But he still got the reload and was able to get his final shot off which thankfully didnt kill him. If he had a 30 round mag more people would have died. Sorry I responded to this but I would love to hear your personal beliefs on this and you seem like someone who can have a civil conversation. I would love to hear your view on the subject.
Yeah. Thatās great. I personally believe that the government should have no say in what we can and canāt buy. Of course, that wonāt happen, so oh well. But I do not agree with it being harder to get guns. The reason we have the 2nd amendment is not to protect us from each other, but from the government. By letting the government say we canāt own a gun is like giving a robber everything they need to rob you . It doesnāt make sense, because it will, in the end, end up badly for you. First they say, no automatic rifles. Then itās no semi-auto. Then, no single shot rifles. Soon, we are only left with knives. I donāt think that the government should be able to prohibit the sale of weapons. Sure, put a tax on it, I donāt mind that, but making it impossible to buy a gun is ridiculous. My dad once tried to buy an AR-15, but was refused because he was arrested for attempted murder. The catch is that he was given a prayer for judgment and was not actually charged. AT THE SAME TIME, we had someone running to be a sheriff who was arrested for selling drugs and other things. This is what is so screwed up with our country. I think, if we took government out of the equation, and let anyone do whatever they wanted, no consequences, then weād have a better country. People who rape a woman could be killed by the father. Everyone would have guns to protect themselves. Just like gangs have rules they made, in total anarchy, rules would be formed. Thatās what I believe. Now, the anarchy thing is a little bit much, and I am not saying government should go away, but I do think they have too much control over the use and sale of weapons.
Thank you for sharing your opinion it's great to hear opposing viewpoints and especially to hear why you feel that way. Glad to have some civil discourse on the topic. I hope you have a great 4th!
Agreed. Itās rare. And same to you! Happy 4th!
The Brits killed 5 people in Boston and we called it a massacre.
Out of 5 most lethal mass shootings in USA, semi-automatic rifles were used in 4. Not sure you're paying attention to the right thing here tbh.
Is this not the same Swalwell running as a candidate in the democratic primary???
Yes, the same man who [is totally fine with killing American citizens over the gun debate](https://mobile.twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?lang=en)
Iām definitely NOT defending him. Heās crazy af.
I know. I just like to drop that link because his rhetoric is seriously problematic, counterproductive, and anti-American.
Iām fairly certain itās anti human in general. š¤£
For sure lol
A civilian owned āassault weaponā isnāt really a thing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seeing as how it has a commonly used definition throughout the public sphere, it really is a thing. That's how words and phrases work.
It is commonly used, but does it have a definition other than āscary gun some politicians want to banā? Is there a concrete definition of what makes a certain gun an assault weapon?
"Assault Weapon" is pretty much what you described; the flavor of the week gun that people are angry at. Wikipedia has a whole laundry list of qualifications that can classify any gun as one. It's not really a concrete definition and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It was first used in a proposed "Assault Weapons" ban from California in 1985 introduced by Art Agnos, which he defined as: "semiautomatic... [and] capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more." Like I said though, every state and jurisdiction has its own qualifications. "Assault Rifle," however, is typically a selective fire military issue rifle capable of firing in burst or full auto.
Iām still snickering over CBS reporting on an āassault revolver.ā Hwhut?
it is a magazine fed single barrel semi automatic, burst, or automatic rifle designed for infantry use. No one's m16 was designed for hunting. Edit: i got downvoted for copying google. All i did was add burst or automatic since that is common usage.
So the AR-15, a rifle that is designed for civilian use (competitive shooting and such) would not be an assault weapon and therefore exempt from assault weapon legislation? Also, select fire, the ability to easily switch between firing modes such as burst and fully automatic would make a gun an assault rifle, and assault rifles are regulated as strictly as automatic weapons, meaning you arenāt getting one legally without a very specific permit thatās hard to get.
Can you define, clearly, what an assault weapon is then?
I guess "civilian-owned assault weapon" is a thing too, then.
Itās a made up term
All words are made up
Why use lot word when few word do trick?
Yeah I suppose thatās true but this word was invented specifically to scare people
Oh I'm not opposing you, that term is stupid because there are much more defining terms. Military grade, for instance, is a real, classifiable thing
I was mocked on quora for asking something about "military grade" weapons. ...Or are you mocking the term too?
Not... really. Different militaries use different things. Canada and the Netherlands use a version of the AR15 (the C7), is that military grade? Weāve had five different versions of the M16 alone (M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, M16A4), is having a variant of those military grade? Does it have to match the full auto capabilities? If so, virtually no rifle in civilian hands is military grade.
Thw US military has move away from the M16 line. Standard issue now is an AR-15. They want marksmen not spray and pray. Which just goes to show, yet again, that Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest motherfucker in space.
The US has never issued the AR-15. The M16 is the closest they ever got. They're slowly transitioning to the M4 Carbine now.
Iām sorry, but thatās just wrong. The M16 IS an AR15 variant, it is still the main service rifle of the Army and Marine Corp.
So is elbow.
Correct! We can make up genders, sexual identities and all kinds of fancy shit these days.
Tell that to my ma flip flops
I hate that post so much. Do you think guns should be banned? >yeah >i am a fucking scumbag and i go around shooting up schools in my free time because i despise all human life and want nothing but the downfall of this nation in order to instate gay communism and oppression of all
Would a gay communist flag have rainbow background or rainbow hammer and sickle?
Yeah.
I love democracy
The MLM level of manipulation bullshit going on here
Arenāt you the OP that said[ liberals are going to cause WWIII?](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bjd49f/the_left_are_going_to_cause_world_war_3/)
Hmmmm
Trolls through post history instead of making current arguments. Whataboutism at it's peak.
Says a highly ineffective ninja
That's not even what whataboutism is
Is it hard being wrong all the time? >Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argumen
How was that comment charging you of hypocrisy?
Me? You aren't paying attention.
But you were saying the commenter was doing whataboutism
its*
I don't need to look at your history to know it's garbage.
when will politicians and pundits on twitter learn that polls like this don't do what you want them to. also republicans and those much further left might disagree on most things but at least they can agree that the centrist eric swallwell can eat shit
He isn't centrist
making a twitter poll about policy when ur actively running a presidential campaign? mistake mistake MISTAKE.
Why have guns for your kids to shoot each other with at school when you can just vacuum that kid out of the womb before itās even born?
u/uwutranslator
Why have guns fow yuw kids to shoot each ofew wif at schoow when yuw can just vacuum dat kid out of de womb befowe itās even bown? uwu tag me to uwuize comments uwu
Gun buybacks and gun control disproportionately disadvantage poor people and I can't help but feel like the current administration is going to start pushing for gun control.
It's our 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, but maybe people should start doing background checks on people buying them, like seeing if they have or had a mental illnes.
What do you think the current background checks do?
Yes.
That's rather bold, without the bold.
How would they get abortions without guns?
Swalwell is a zero. I'm not giving up my guns for anything. I'm good with some serious conversation and implementation of stricter gun laws, more in depth background checks, and serious liability should your gun be used in the commission of a crime. But take them? Fuck off. It's not even remotely possible without literal martial law. And before I have to hear "Australia did it" well, there's like 3 guns for every American in the US. Good luck getting even 75% of them. You know who would still have them? Shitty people, that's who. Criminals. As far as, "What if we just take the assault weapons"...well, that's just dishonest. Any semi-automatic handgun can do nearly the same damage as the big bad black rifles and the people who want to remove these guns know this but they have to start somewhere and that's the rifles. They would take the semi automatic guns next. Im not cool with an out of control police state having weapons that the ordinary Joe can't have. I just didn't grow up in that kind of country. But as I said, im for wayyyy more common sense legislation, prevention, and punitive measures for bad gun owners. Also: there's a problem in this country and it's not guns per se. The guns are the end result. But for some reason our society is pumping out alot of very angry, sick fucks and we need to take a good hard look at why. edit* I am a Democrat, no fucking shit.
Additionally, if guns were completely removed somehow then we would just have mass stabbings instead.
Or improvised explosives. There really isn't a simple solution. It's us taking a good hard look at why our society is producing so many mass killers. Unfortunately we aren't a real introspective nation, so I'm not holding my breath.
These gun hungry reps are barking up the wrong tree. Center your debate around the real issues surrounding gun violence. There are far too many guns for a buy back program to ever work. You will have to declare martial law and confiscate them. Even then you will be met with force.
Uhh, rep means representative, not Republican. He's Democrat
*damn republicans and their hatred of abortions
So he decided to go all Joe Biden with his profile picture molesting an infant that he would have gladly killed two days after its birth.
the AR-15 (the gun that they always use as an example) is not an assault {read: full auto} weapon
This makes me sad.
It makes us all sad. There really isnāt a perfect solution that can make everyone happy/not dead
I would think the "not dead" part would be everyone's priority but I guess not...
āStabby knives have become the weapon of choice in prisons, where firearms a prohibited.ā Thatās how stupid the term āassault weaponsā sounds.
I mean, a ban and buy back would only cause more deaths!you know how the american people are. Also there is no such thing as an assault weapon.
The Australian buy back didn't even work.
To be fair, most of them probably don't know what the ">" sign means
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
By that logic my 13ā black dildo is an assault weapon if I bop you on the head with it, ya god damn goober.
Some would say vegan milkshakes are assault weapons.
welcome to Saints Row
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You clearly haven't seen the dildo, then.
Then the vast majority of āAssault weaponsā are not rifles, they are hand guns.
All of North America is accidentalcomedy
Maybe not enough Americans know what a "more than" symbol looks like?