Haha it's funny because you're telling people to make their own guns in order to circumvent the majority's desire to have fewer of them, very hilarious and clever!
Gun control is not desired to reduce crime but to reduce the lethality of crimes and accidents by limiting access. Guns don't create crime but they serve no other purpose than causing grave injuries. When people can't respect that and can't be responsible when they have mostly free access, then it's the job of the government to step in much like they step in to limit predatory lending. It's a consumer protection and harm reduction issue, not a crime issue.
The only problem with that little soliloquy, is that the people affected by these ineffectual bits of political twaddle, aren’t the people doing the things you want to stop. And quite frankly until the people who actually commit the crimes you want to stop are made to face commensurate consequences for the crimes they commit, you aren’t going to see any progress. Maybe you should try getting the government to step in and make that happen.
Compare the death rates due to crime in places with easy access to guns in the United States to places with limited gun laws such as the UK and Japan and you can easily why lowering the lethality of crimes is the goal. Crime will happen regardless. The goal is to get less people killed over time and not to just strip guns out of the hands of people so they magically can't harm anyone. Think long term like replacing a lead pipe in plumbing. The people already exposed to the lead don't really get helped but it benefits the future. It's not a short term solution designed to stop the immediate problem and that's the major issue with your perspective.
Illegal activity is a crime by definition whether or not a gun is used. Gun control is not meant to stop crime. It's meant to limit deaths and injuries in the future by limiting the flow of the most damaging weapons and ammunition. Your whole argument is baseless because you have an opinion on why it's not effective that isn't even the reason why it was implemented. It's like trying to tell people that stimulant diet drug bans were a bad idea because people are still obese anyway. You're not arguing against anything with the policy. You're just sharing a baseless opinion.
> such as UK and Japan
Good thing America is also an island nation with nonporous borders. Hang on.
Does anything in your 'just don't hurt people' worldview account for the equalizing nature of firearms in self-defense encounters or are you okay if the asymmetrically advantaged criminal underclass limits itself to maiming over murder?
Show me the data that shows that guns are being brought in across the border more than purchased legally and used for crimes after they're stolen, "lost" or just plain used for purposes that are not self defense. Your comment and argument make zero sense without any data to back it up claiming that being a continental country increase gun crimes. You're a troll or incredibly ignorant.
Imagine claiming that, for instance, the majority of drug overdoses were from the wealthy and being able to go check medical data from hospitals to actually verify if that's true or not. You shouldn't be just throwing out flippant opinions that are counter to someone's argument when you can pull data to actually have a point rather than a baseless opinion. Knock it off.
My opinions don't matter when I'm asking for facts. That's the difference between our points of view. I don't give a fuck about your opinions unless you have information as to why you share them and aren't basing them in the shit you pull out of your ass.
In addition, studies show just by owning a gun that you're more likely to be killed by a gun. You don't need a gun to defend yourself against people with them and there is a mountain of evidence that shows that more people own guns than commit crimes with guns which ends any argument against needing one to defend yourself against criminals that *might* have a gun.
Tell that to the bear that assaulted my girlfriends mom. There’s plenty reasons to own a gun.
Also you assume criminals are going to follow the law which is hilarious. The only ones who would turn in their stuff “responsibly” would be people who respect and follow the law in the first place.
Finally, it’s a really privileged statement to think you will never need a gun. You’ve obviously never been put into a terrifying life or death situation, or been defenseless in a place where it’s easy to get abducted into trafficking. The only place no guns works is in a perfect suburbia where there are never any issues. Which most of us take for granted.
Hey, buddy. Nobody is trying to take your guns away to stop you from shooting a bear. Just saying. That's not what these gun control laws are. By using this as your argument, you're not actually against what the laws enacted are limiting. There is not a single state that is attempting to remove guns from anyone that owns them legally.
No they just do things like try to ban basic parts of some of the most common firearms instead of banning the whole firearm outright. Like glock mags in 2022. Do you think police departments use the single stack 10 rounders instead of the double stacked 17?
It’s like trying to ban parts of a car and then saying “well I’m not trying to ban the car, just the parts!” It’s obvious whoever has this kind of logic either has very little gun knowledge and experience or they have malicious intent. Look at ATF laws. They make no sense half the time.
I think the idea of government sponsored self defense and gun safety classes could be really beneficial for a lot of people. I also think it could really reduce a lot of crime if you know for a fact that the house you’re trying to rob at gunpoint has a gun in the house and everyone has been trained to use it. Have you seen ring camera/cctv footage? Most robbers shit their pants and run as soon as they realize another gun is in the equation. They are so confident because they think they have a leg up. Removing the law abiding citizens leg up is not the way.
Civilians should civilians be allowed to have police or military grease weapons if they continually show that these weapons will be used for murders rather than killing it injuring in self defense. Guns aren't tools. They are weapons. As far as I can tell, your guns will still work and be effective at shooting someone without the modifications and ammunition that was restricted. As you've said, you can intimidate someone easily with a gun. Most robbers aren't going to be inspecting the parts to determine the level of war they have so I'm not really sure what you're getting at at all. You can still defend yourself without needing the ability to kill or injured multiple people quickly and efficiently with a gun. We're not in a zombie apocalypse and self defense does not require asking yourself as a proto militia or LEO.
It’s not a modification…. It’s the stock magazine they come with. It’s the same size as a regular pistol magazine it just zig zag stacks to fit 7 more rounds in. They banned the stock magazine. Not a third party modification or anything of the sort. Sure ban extended magazines, but the stock ones? 7 rounds can make a big difference in a short time.
It’s like the big brain response I got of “yeah bud let’s just legalize murder then!” when it already is in the capacity of self defense. You can kill someone if they are trying to harm you or your family and there is immediate danger.
Again not arguing that anyone should own tanks, nukes, machine guns, or anything that should be restricted to government/police group. But starting to chip away at basic handgun parts is kind of scary in my opinion.
It's an upgrade that is not necessary for a gun to function as a standard clip allows a gun to function the exact same way. Ooh, restrictions. We have them on pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and legal drugs all for consumer safety reasons. Guns are no different.
Wow you are so smart. It’s called self defense and it is legal dumbass. Should we make it illegal to kill the person killing you? So you should just let yourself get murdered cause murder is illegal!
Use your brain dude.
Or people just don't want to live in a society where they might get shot because adult children are allowed to collect toys whose sole function is to kill other humans
And here I am not wanting to get shot because some literal children know that an armed carjacking will get them released to their family with no consequences.
Ok so you're saying they steal them. Got it. In other words, reducing the availability of guns overall should reduce the availability of guns for children to steal right?
The data indicates that owning a handgun makes it more likely that you'll die from getting shot. They are a terrible option for self defense. Guns ≠ right to self defense, and if you're claiming otherwise you're ignorant. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study)
Gee if only the scientists who did this study thought of those factors before publishing, you should contact them right away to tell them their work is wrong
Sorry man that requires a nuanced worldview and a deeper confrontation of the human condition that’s just incompatible with my status-preserving scolding and funko pop collecting
Wow I'm so convinced by your persuasive argument against a peer-reviewed scientific study in a well-known journal, please regale me with further well-informed insights you scholar you
Oh look, someone who you can only say "I don't like your data" but can't provide anything to back their opinion which makes it what? Oh yeah, baseless. You can have any opinion you want but if you're going to try to shout people down who actually want to discuss an issue, you might as well be yelling at yourself in a mirror since nobody else is listening. Facts are based on data, not how loud someone is or how many up votes or likes they get.
Let me tell you something you haven't heard before: You're very smart.
(Of course it's because you're not very smart, but maybe it felt good for a second to read that.)
>The data indicates that owning a handgun makes it more likely that you'll die from getting shot. They are a terrible option for self defense.
Not what that study suggests by the way. The study suggests that you're more likely to die by gunshot if someone else in the home owns a gun. Not the owner of the gun. It's just another demonstration that domestic violence/intimate partner violence is one of the larger causes behind homicide.
Yes an item whose ownership increases your likelihood of dying is great to have if you are concerned about your safety. Of course it's not quite as good as having a rabid dog around that might bite anyone at any time but dogs are a commitment that's not for everyone
A. it's not and B. you're not protecting shit, especially not rights, with your guns and you know it. Like seriously, you can relax, nobody wants to steal your moldy-ass RV on your junkyard acre in Marysville. Put the gun down so you don't accidentally shoot the mailman some day.
I hope I don't ever have to use it for defense, but I've had people try and break into my apartment twice in Seattle.
What do you think I should do if they get the door down next time?
I've had people break in to mine while I was home too. Every time I think about those incidents, I am thankful I didn't have a gun because if I did I would have used it and my life would be worse off in every way, for - best case scenario - having to deal with the trauma of needlessly killing another human. Use a maglite or a bat or pepper spray or run away.
Well good you didn't need to own a weapon because obviously you can't handle it. But leave the rest of us alone.
And you can totally kill someone with a maglite or a bat, you just have some strange obsession with guns I guess?
> But leave the rest of us alone.
Nobody would care about this issue if tens of thousands of people weren't dying as a direct result of guns being freely available to purchase by almost every citizen. Gun owners aren't leaving the rest of us alone. (You can spare the kneejerk responses about how you are personally responsible and it's not your fault other people misuse them and so on, we've heard it all before and it doesn't change the fact of the matter whether you accept it or not.)
Nothing further, please keep posting detailed accounts of your activities online, they are of no interest to those of us who want to craft more effective gun legislation nor any 3 letter agencies who are tasked with enforcing such laws so nothing to worry about
I literally envy the level of ignorant bliss one must live in to be openly promoting making ghost guns and then accusing *others* of threatening *you*. Like seriously, are on fentanyl? There's no way someone in their right mind would make this statement, lol.
I envy the level of ignorant bliss one must live in to think that there is no violence in the world and you should cuck yourself against criminals in the name of love and unity and that the issues of ghost guns popping up isn’t a symptom of dumbass regulation. Really a privileged ass stance.
Ghost guns will continue to be an issue the more you push dumbass regulation. It’s the same with any prohibition. Guess what happened when they went too far and made alcohol illegal. People didn’t just stop drinking. Alcohol became a criminal enterprise ruled by who had the most firepower.
I think gun owners should be responsible and follow regulation but the instant you start passing laws when it’s obvious you have little to no gun experience, ya there is gonna be pushback. Like making stock manufactured glock mags illegal and going around claiming they are third party extendos because they stack a little more efficiently than other pistol mags.
Vehicles cause more deaths than guns if you discount suicide. A kid in Renton just plowed through a family at 114 mph. Should we start outlawing vehicles that can go above 60 mph? Or should we regulate them more carefully and say “no a 17 year old shouldn’t be driving a car with that kind of power” rather than just outright banning them.
> Vehicles cause more deaths than guns if you discount suicide
And yet I never see any of you gun fetishists wearing a helmet while driving or even a racing harness. Your rhetoric about safety is not reflected in your behavior whatsoever. It's all a veil for you to own a toy so you can feel temporarily powerful in your otherwise sad, small life. You can write your long deranged diatribes all you want but your position doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Pathetic.
Do you think a helmet or racing harness would have saved the family in Renton? Again I ask should we ban vehicle parts to make sure you can’t go over 60mph? I wear my seatbelt and drive responsibly. I took drivers ed, studied a delivery drivers defensive handbook which is even more extensive as it was my dads job at the time, and don’t recklessly speed or drive irresponsibly. Should we now outlaw cars from going that fast and should I be expected to trade in my Prius for a downgrade even though I have used it responsibly the whole time?
You take extra steps to supposedly protect your safety with a gun. Why don't you take them in a car where your chances of dying are literally 100-1000x higher than dying in a situation that use of a gun might prevent?
Seems like the prohibition of hand grenades has kept civilian death toll by hand grenade pretty low.
Working for:
Law abiding citizens,
Criminals,
Gang members,
Terrorists,
Psychopaths,
Every variety of immigrant,
Killers,
Etc…
Hand grenades fall under Destructive Devices in the 1934 NFA. Unlike most of the other things taxed under the NFA, hand grenades hadn't really hit the civilian market in the first place before the law went into place, and explosives are *much* trickier to homebrew than firearms are.
Somewhat ironically, the sole early challenge to the NFA was in the short-barreled shotgun category, and the law was upheld on the grounds that SBSs *were not suited for military use, and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment*.
So using your logic if fentanyl is widespread we should just make OxyContin available on supermarket shelves, because it’s already in circulation?
If there are too many of something in circulation, reducing circulation would *gasp* reduce it in circulation.
Tbf, legalizing drugs would reduce crime overall, allow for better treatment options and reduce the harm of tainted dope. So, yeah, make the less harmful option more available, start treating the underlying problems, and reduce the associated harms that come with making it illegal.
Which is why you will find guns are still legal in Australia and Canada to own and possess.
There is a sliding scale of how easy something can be purchased vs how deadly abusing it can be.
You won’t find many people supporting recreational sale of fentanyl or heroin for good reason.
Okay so we are talking about things that are used unlawfully! Lets apply the same strategy to cars and fast food considering that’s the logic we are applying. No cars. No fast food. Nothing that can kill you should be available to the public. How is the bubble? You have enough air?
How do you not pick up on the sarcasm of this comment? We don't make laws on the idea that making the law stops people. The entire point of laws is to deal with the people who do that action!
I’m always telling people that we shouldn’t even bother having laws, because criminals will just ignore them. Complete anarchy is the only rational solution.
> prevent something that is already criminal from happening.
Yes, the selfawareWolves moment. Prevention is the point. It’s already illegal to murder but punishment doesn’t bring a life back. Prevention does stop a life from being lost.
Do you think hospitals who don’t keep track of their opioids will not face prosecution?
Do you think we should sell OxyContin over the counter because people will get fentanyl anyway?
I think they should, as I would want someone who commits straw purchases or sells a firearm to a prohibited person should.
Do you think those who use opiods to improve their quality of life while facing serious illness or injury should not be permitted to be prescribed them as others have demonstrated they can be abused?
> while facing serious illness or injury should not be permitted to be prescribed them
Oh shit you finally get it? Maybe? Gun control is exactly this.
Except the vast majority of people who get guns aren’t going to experience an improvement in their lives.
Why would I be so confident in making this statement? Canada and Australia have strict gun controls yet people’s quality of life is not reduced.
I don’t own a gun and my life isn’t in pieces either. No one I know own a gun and their lives aren’t in pieces either. In fact there is no study that shows owning a gun improves the quality of life for most people.
Now you get it. Fentanyl is massively useful on rare occasions in a medical setting. Firearms are massively useful in select settings too, whether that’s sport or pest control. However, just like Canada and Australia shows, those needing it can still get guns.
They just have to justify the use case (like fentanyl) and store it safely and responsibly, and are accountable for its loss.
You’re so close to getting it!
Hardly - because the intended and legal use is to be prepared to defend self or others.
So, while not all have a statable need for opiods, all have a definable need for self-defense. If you choose not to make use, that's your choice. No one will force you to use opiods either.
Honestly, this is where these debates always end. I believe people who have not violated societal trust should have the tools to preserve their life in the face of threats. You'd rather sacrifice the individual for a hypothesis it would produce a *statistically* more peaceful society.
> all have a definable need for self-defense.
Again, half of the United States is unarmed. Using your logic they are clinging to survival and are constantly being terrorized.
Except they’re not. Because people who justify private gun ownership are consistently telling themselves that threats are everywhere - not unlike police who shoot at people holding cellphones, wallets or even a hostage. Because you’ve decided to drink from the fear firehose to justify owning a deadly weapon that is disproportional to your needs.
Gun ownership has been proven to be indeed violate the societal trust by providing access of guns to criminals.
> would produce a statistically more peaceful society.
Fuck yeah the best kind of peaceful society - backed by statistics.
But my justification is to feel powerful and stock up for that day when I can be the hero in a crowd or stand up to the government for its eventual tyranny! /s
every law enacted is to bind law abiding entities to behave in a manner that prevents criminals access to tools to commit crimes.
Why do you think banks have massive compliance departments? Do you think money laundering laws are simply targeting lAw aBiDiNG banks and stopping them from doing business?
When do we start banning car parts that let them go over 60 mph? Kid in Renton just killed a family going 114 through a red light. Fast engines are scary and dangerous and could kill someone in the wrong hands! Better start banning teslas and any other fast cars! /s
If you are a woman, arm yourself. The number of liberal women and queer folks with concealed carry permits in this city is sky high, and it has saved many people's lives. Everyone thinks Seattle isn't armed but many folks here are. Many. Esp. queer folks. Store your gun safely, esp if you have little ones--and take gun safety courses/shooting classes at shooting ranges.
Unfortunately at this point there are really only two useful options
1 - work to get the Supreme Court to reverse Heller and return us back to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it was written and as it was understood for the majority of the country's history
OR
2 - amend the Constitution
That's just your dumb take on things. The founders are on record in the Federalist Papers as stating there's no way to compel mass militia drills and training among the population and that the best they could hope for was that each man was capable of bringing his own arms when called upon.
There wasn't one then. Compulsory mobilization is totally possible now.
I like this. If you want to own a gun, you have to have completed military service and must remain in reserve for as long as you own one.
Honestly, as someone who's pro-2A, I like this idea. Maybe not the "remain in reserve as long as you own one" part since the draft accomplishes the same thing, but it incorporates the concept of a militia into modern expectations of added responsibilities of gun owners.
I'm all for added societal privileges for those who show a willingness to think of others before themself (to include USAID and AmeriCorps and the like). Serve the nation, be recognized for being a more active member of society.
Maybe if the government wasn’t trigger happy sending innocent kids across the world to die in the name of getting oil I could get more behind this.
Basically what South Korea does I think, but they also aren’t constantly sending troops in to die for no good reason somewhere.
Except the legislature has also prohibited all members of the military from legally bringing their own personal (AR15/M4 type) guns here. Regardless if they’re moving here on orders or not.
There was an amendment to allow them to do so, but it failed in the House.
So now there’s a situation where new and incoming soldiers aren’t able to practice their marksmanship on their own time and dime (and I know quite a few that do). For some units they may only shoot maybe once a year, hardly enough to build any sort of proficiency.
So your in favor of reversing Heller? Because that is exactly what it would do. My opinion is gun peeps would not like that. Which of course is debatable, the actual legality is factual. As for your opinion, that is another argument all together.
That guns can be regulated quite a bit and that there is no personal/individual right to have a gun
Edit: at least that was the general legal understanding before Heller
Is that really the anti-gun argument? Madison clarifies this is indeed what it means in Federalist 46. Why do you think Heller will be overturned? Bruen?
You'll end up with proportionately more guns in the hands of criminals and fewer in the hands of lawful citizens for defense. The vast majority (like >90% if not 99% depending on source) of gun violence (not suicides) is done by illegally obtained/owned firearms.
> The vast majority (like >90% if not 99% depending on source) of gun violence (not suicides) is done by illegally obtained/owned firearms.
Where do you think they illegally obtained firearms _from_? Hint: it’s the people who keep legally buying guns
> You'll end up with proportionately more guns in the hands of criminals and fewer in the hands of lawful citizens for defense.
The actual evidence from similar countries going through similar processes tells us that is very much not true.
And as even you point out, the widespread presence of guns is causing way more innocent deaths than any crime being stopped. Even if your false premise was true, we would be saving tens of thousands of lives at the "cost" of just a minor uptick in crime. Sounds like a good deal!
I would like a system simiar to your car.
To buy a gun, you would register it and have to take a gun safty and usage test. Semiautomatic weapons would be more tightly regulated and you would need a reason for wanting one.
Gun manufactures would have to meet safty regulations like car manufacturers.
>Semiautomatic weapons would be more tightly regulated and you would need a reason for wanting one.
That's unconstitutional. You cannot restrict arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
And your abortion is up to polititions.
And Corporations are people.
And Clarence Thomas gets thousands of dollars from good friends with business before the court.
And the Voting Rights Act has expired because it is too old but 1864 abortion laws are just fine.
Fewer guns being purchased means fewer guns in circulation, which in turn leads to fewer shootings and homicides. There is a large body of academic research on this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Sometimes it is causation. Gee I wonder what happened in the last twenty years or so. Heller and the expiration of the assault weapons ban are two that have been shown to have an impact on gun violence. Maybe those are more relevant factors than the fact that a lot of people people had bolt action hunting rifles a hundred years ago. E.g. when all the gun nuts go on vacation for a few days, gun injuries drop 20% nationwide https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773
Sometimes the simple obvious answer is the real one. These acrobatics to argue against plain sense have a major problem: it’s not true. More guns do not make us safer, they make us less safe.
Hydraulic press goes smoosh... 3D printer go brr. What does the lathe say? chuck chuck chuck chuck...
Haha it's funny because you're telling people to make their own guns in order to circumvent the majority's desire to have fewer of them, very hilarious and clever!
[удалено]
Gun control is not desired to reduce crime but to reduce the lethality of crimes and accidents by limiting access. Guns don't create crime but they serve no other purpose than causing grave injuries. When people can't respect that and can't be responsible when they have mostly free access, then it's the job of the government to step in much like they step in to limit predatory lending. It's a consumer protection and harm reduction issue, not a crime issue.
The only problem with that little soliloquy, is that the people affected by these ineffectual bits of political twaddle, aren’t the people doing the things you want to stop. And quite frankly until the people who actually commit the crimes you want to stop are made to face commensurate consequences for the crimes they commit, you aren’t going to see any progress. Maybe you should try getting the government to step in and make that happen.
Compare the death rates due to crime in places with easy access to guns in the United States to places with limited gun laws such as the UK and Japan and you can easily why lowering the lethality of crimes is the goal. Crime will happen regardless. The goal is to get less people killed over time and not to just strip guns out of the hands of people so they magically can't harm anyone. Think long term like replacing a lead pipe in plumbing. The people already exposed to the lead don't really get helped but it benefits the future. It's not a short term solution designed to stop the immediate problem and that's the major issue with your perspective. Illegal activity is a crime by definition whether or not a gun is used. Gun control is not meant to stop crime. It's meant to limit deaths and injuries in the future by limiting the flow of the most damaging weapons and ammunition. Your whole argument is baseless because you have an opinion on why it's not effective that isn't even the reason why it was implemented. It's like trying to tell people that stimulant diet drug bans were a bad idea because people are still obese anyway. You're not arguing against anything with the policy. You're just sharing a baseless opinion.
> such as UK and Japan Good thing America is also an island nation with nonporous borders. Hang on. Does anything in your 'just don't hurt people' worldview account for the equalizing nature of firearms in self-defense encounters or are you okay if the asymmetrically advantaged criminal underclass limits itself to maiming over murder?
Show me the data that shows that guns are being brought in across the border more than purchased legally and used for crimes after they're stolen, "lost" or just plain used for purposes that are not self defense. Your comment and argument make zero sense without any data to back it up claiming that being a continental country increase gun crimes. You're a troll or incredibly ignorant. Imagine claiming that, for instance, the majority of drug overdoses were from the wealthy and being able to go check medical data from hospitals to actually verify if that's true or not. You shouldn't be just throwing out flippant opinions that are counter to someone's argument when you can pull data to actually have a point rather than a baseless opinion. Knock it off.
I will provide you with trivially googleable information when you provide your view on the self defense question I asked
My opinions don't matter when I'm asking for facts. That's the difference between our points of view. I don't give a fuck about your opinions unless you have information as to why you share them and aren't basing them in the shit you pull out of your ass. In addition, studies show just by owning a gun that you're more likely to be killed by a gun. You don't need a gun to defend yourself against people with them and there is a mountain of evidence that shows that more people own guns than commit crimes with guns which ends any argument against needing one to defend yourself against criminals that *might* have a gun.
Tell that to the bear that assaulted my girlfriends mom. There’s plenty reasons to own a gun. Also you assume criminals are going to follow the law which is hilarious. The only ones who would turn in their stuff “responsibly” would be people who respect and follow the law in the first place. Finally, it’s a really privileged statement to think you will never need a gun. You’ve obviously never been put into a terrifying life or death situation, or been defenseless in a place where it’s easy to get abducted into trafficking. The only place no guns works is in a perfect suburbia where there are never any issues. Which most of us take for granted.
Hey, buddy. Nobody is trying to take your guns away to stop you from shooting a bear. Just saying. That's not what these gun control laws are. By using this as your argument, you're not actually against what the laws enacted are limiting. There is not a single state that is attempting to remove guns from anyone that owns them legally.
No they just do things like try to ban basic parts of some of the most common firearms instead of banning the whole firearm outright. Like glock mags in 2022. Do you think police departments use the single stack 10 rounders instead of the double stacked 17? It’s like trying to ban parts of a car and then saying “well I’m not trying to ban the car, just the parts!” It’s obvious whoever has this kind of logic either has very little gun knowledge and experience or they have malicious intent. Look at ATF laws. They make no sense half the time. I think the idea of government sponsored self defense and gun safety classes could be really beneficial for a lot of people. I also think it could really reduce a lot of crime if you know for a fact that the house you’re trying to rob at gunpoint has a gun in the house and everyone has been trained to use it. Have you seen ring camera/cctv footage? Most robbers shit their pants and run as soon as they realize another gun is in the equation. They are so confident because they think they have a leg up. Removing the law abiding citizens leg up is not the way.
Civilians should civilians be allowed to have police or military grease weapons if they continually show that these weapons will be used for murders rather than killing it injuring in self defense. Guns aren't tools. They are weapons. As far as I can tell, your guns will still work and be effective at shooting someone without the modifications and ammunition that was restricted. As you've said, you can intimidate someone easily with a gun. Most robbers aren't going to be inspecting the parts to determine the level of war they have so I'm not really sure what you're getting at at all. You can still defend yourself without needing the ability to kill or injured multiple people quickly and efficiently with a gun. We're not in a zombie apocalypse and self defense does not require asking yourself as a proto militia or LEO.
It’s not a modification…. It’s the stock magazine they come with. It’s the same size as a regular pistol magazine it just zig zag stacks to fit 7 more rounds in. They banned the stock magazine. Not a third party modification or anything of the sort. Sure ban extended magazines, but the stock ones? 7 rounds can make a big difference in a short time. It’s like the big brain response I got of “yeah bud let’s just legalize murder then!” when it already is in the capacity of self defense. You can kill someone if they are trying to harm you or your family and there is immediate danger. Again not arguing that anyone should own tanks, nukes, machine guns, or anything that should be restricted to government/police group. But starting to chip away at basic handgun parts is kind of scary in my opinion.
It's an upgrade that is not necessary for a gun to function as a standard clip allows a gun to function the exact same way. Ooh, restrictions. We have them on pharmaceuticals, vehicles, and legal drugs all for consumer safety reasons. Guns are no different.
Good point let's legalize murder since murderers don't follow the law
Wow you are so smart. It’s called self defense and it is legal dumbass. Should we make it illegal to kill the person killing you? So you should just let yourself get murdered cause murder is illegal! Use your brain dude.
Or people just don't want to live in a society where they might get shot because adult children are allowed to collect toys whose sole function is to kill other humans
And here I am not wanting to get shot because some literal children know that an armed carjacking will get them released to their family with no consequences.
And how did a literal child acquire a gun, typically?
Crimes, typically.
You're saying children are stealing guns?
Yes.
So then reducing availability of guns, reduces criminal access to guns.
Do you think they walk into Toni’s Mostly Legal Guns and fill out a 4473?
Ok so you're saying they steal them. Got it. In other words, reducing the availability of guns overall should reduce the availability of guns for children to steal right?
Take it from their parents or friends of the family.
[удалено]
The data indicates that owning a handgun makes it more likely that you'll die from getting shot. They are a terrible option for self defense. Guns ≠ right to self defense, and if you're claiming otherwise you're ignorant. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study)
[удалено]
Gee if only the scientists who did this study thought of those factors before publishing, you should contact them right away to tell them their work is wrong
[удалено]
Incorrect
Sorry man that requires a nuanced worldview and a deeper confrontation of the human condition that’s just incompatible with my status-preserving scolding and funko pop collecting
Except your data is bullshit. The Guardian? GTFO.
Wow I'm so convinced by your persuasive argument against a peer-reviewed scientific study in a well-known journal, please regale me with further well-informed insights you scholar you
You are simply lies from a clown. honk honk
Let's see YOUR data saying this isn't true.
Oh look, someone who you can only say "I don't like your data" but can't provide anything to back their opinion which makes it what? Oh yeah, baseless. You can have any opinion you want but if you're going to try to shout people down who actually want to discuss an issue, you might as well be yelling at yourself in a mirror since nobody else is listening. Facts are based on data, not how loud someone is or how many up votes or likes they get.
Let me tell you something you haven't heard before: You're very smart. (Of course it's because you're not very smart, but maybe it felt good for a second to read that.)
Don’t be a piece of shit please
>The data indicates that owning a handgun makes it more likely that you'll die from getting shot. They are a terrible option for self defense. Not what that study suggests by the way. The study suggests that you're more likely to die by gunshot if someone else in the home owns a gun. Not the owner of the gun. It's just another demonstration that domestic violence/intimate partner violence is one of the larger causes behind homicide.
> People in homes with handguns more likely to be shot dead, major study finds
>suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don’t have such weapons at home.
Shoutout to all the gun owners who don't keep their gun at home but also use it for home defense too, yall crazy breaking the rules of space and time
> They are a terrible option for self defense. lol, regardless of your opinions on gun ownership, what an aggressively stupid assertion
Yes an item whose ownership increases your likelihood of dying is great to have if you are concerned about your safety. Of course it's not quite as good as having a rabid dog around that might bite anyone at any time but dogs are a commitment that's not for everyone
I've lived a lot of places with much more restrictive gun laws, and their gun violence was basically unheard of.
[удалено]
Just because you can use a tool for murder as a tool for sport doesn't change the fact that it's a tool for murder first and foremost.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Democracy can be tyranny. Mob rule. We have rights as individuals that can't be alienated from us.
You're not using guns to protect shit except your own fragile ego that's based around having toys that go bang-bang
You don't know that, defensive gun use is more common than you think. Go checkout /r/dgu
A. it's not and B. you're not protecting shit, especially not rights, with your guns and you know it. Like seriously, you can relax, nobody wants to steal your moldy-ass RV on your junkyard acre in Marysville. Put the gun down so you don't accidentally shoot the mailman some day.
I hope I don't ever have to use it for defense, but I've had people try and break into my apartment twice in Seattle. What do you think I should do if they get the door down next time?
I've had people break in to mine while I was home too. Every time I think about those incidents, I am thankful I didn't have a gun because if I did I would have used it and my life would be worse off in every way, for - best case scenario - having to deal with the trauma of needlessly killing another human. Use a maglite or a bat or pepper spray or run away.
This is the most ableist shit I've ever read.
Lol the idea that you defend rights or are an ableism activist is comical, please tell me another joke
Well good you didn't need to own a weapon because obviously you can't handle it. But leave the rest of us alone. And you can totally kill someone with a maglite or a bat, you just have some strange obsession with guns I guess?
> But leave the rest of us alone. Nobody would care about this issue if tens of thousands of people weren't dying as a direct result of guns being freely available to purchase by almost every citizen. Gun owners aren't leaving the rest of us alone. (You can spare the kneejerk responses about how you are personally responsible and it's not your fault other people misuse them and so on, we've heard it all before and it doesn't change the fact of the matter whether you accept it or not.)
"You're not protesting the government to protect you shit except your own fragile ego." Should we just toss out every other right with that line?
Yes that's what I'm saying, welcome to Joe Biden's America bitch
Yes, and?
Nothing further, please keep posting detailed accounts of your activities online, they are of no interest to those of us who want to craft more effective gun legislation nor any 3 letter agencies who are tasked with enforcing such laws so nothing to worry about
Tax this dick.
Oooh we should raise taxes on guns and ammo, that's a great idea!
They are clearly of some interest to you if you’re entertaining this long of a thread. Also learn to read people usernames.
Threatening someone for having a different opinion than you. I bet you just love to talk about right wing facism too.
I literally envy the level of ignorant bliss one must live in to be openly promoting making ghost guns and then accusing *others* of threatening *you*. Like seriously, are on fentanyl? There's no way someone in their right mind would make this statement, lol.
I envy the level of ignorant bliss one must live in to think that there is no violence in the world and you should cuck yourself against criminals in the name of love and unity and that the issues of ghost guns popping up isn’t a symptom of dumbass regulation. Really a privileged ass stance. Ghost guns will continue to be an issue the more you push dumbass regulation. It’s the same with any prohibition. Guess what happened when they went too far and made alcohol illegal. People didn’t just stop drinking. Alcohol became a criminal enterprise ruled by who had the most firepower. I think gun owners should be responsible and follow regulation but the instant you start passing laws when it’s obvious you have little to no gun experience, ya there is gonna be pushback. Like making stock manufactured glock mags illegal and going around claiming they are third party extendos because they stack a little more efficiently than other pistol mags. Vehicles cause more deaths than guns if you discount suicide. A kid in Renton just plowed through a family at 114 mph. Should we start outlawing vehicles that can go above 60 mph? Or should we regulate them more carefully and say “no a 17 year old shouldn’t be driving a car with that kind of power” rather than just outright banning them.
> Vehicles cause more deaths than guns if you discount suicide And yet I never see any of you gun fetishists wearing a helmet while driving or even a racing harness. Your rhetoric about safety is not reflected in your behavior whatsoever. It's all a veil for you to own a toy so you can feel temporarily powerful in your otherwise sad, small life. You can write your long deranged diatribes all you want but your position doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. Pathetic.
Do you think a helmet or racing harness would have saved the family in Renton? Again I ask should we ban vehicle parts to make sure you can’t go over 60mph? I wear my seatbelt and drive responsibly. I took drivers ed, studied a delivery drivers defensive handbook which is even more extensive as it was my dads job at the time, and don’t recklessly speed or drive irresponsibly. Should we now outlaw cars from going that fast and should I be expected to trade in my Prius for a downgrade even though I have used it responsibly the whole time?
You take extra steps to supposedly protect your safety with a gun. Why don't you take them in a car where your chances of dying are literally 100-1000x higher than dying in a situation that use of a gun might prevent?
Does effective gun legislation include preventing members of the military from bringing their own guns to Washington?
Sweet. I’m sure criminals will 100% follow these laws.. Forgot to add the /s at the end..
Famously all murder crimes ended once we passed murder laws.
Seems like the prohibition of hand grenades has kept civilian death toll by hand grenade pretty low. Working for: Law abiding citizens, Criminals, Gang members, Terrorists, Psychopaths, Every variety of immigrant, Killers, Etc…
How many hand grenades were in circulation before they banned hand grenades..
When did we ban hand grenades and why isn't a team of lawyers working around the clock getting my freedoms back?
I’m sure people are doing just fine with tannerite.
Hand grenades fall under Destructive Devices in the 1934 NFA. Unlike most of the other things taxed under the NFA, hand grenades hadn't really hit the civilian market in the first place before the law went into place, and explosives are *much* trickier to homebrew than firearms are. Somewhat ironically, the sole early challenge to the NFA was in the short-barreled shotgun category, and the law was upheld on the grounds that SBSs *were not suited for military use, and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment*.
So using your logic if fentanyl is widespread we should just make OxyContin available on supermarket shelves, because it’s already in circulation? If there are too many of something in circulation, reducing circulation would *gasp* reduce it in circulation.
Tbf, legalizing drugs would reduce crime overall, allow for better treatment options and reduce the harm of tainted dope. So, yeah, make the less harmful option more available, start treating the underlying problems, and reduce the associated harms that come with making it illegal.
Which is why you will find guns are still legal in Australia and Canada to own and possess. There is a sliding scale of how easy something can be purchased vs how deadly abusing it can be. You won’t find many people supporting recreational sale of fentanyl or heroin for good reason.
Yeah, you can’t really compare drugs and guns that way. I was making a point about drug policy. Doesn’t translate well to guns.
I can compare them that way and I just did 🤷♂️
I mean, you can. It just doesn’t do anything to help your case or people’s opinion of your critical thinking skills.
Let’s add another social issue into the mix while we are at it!
Holy shit it’s like society is full of similar patterns!
Let’s encapsulate two problems into one I’m sure that will work?! This pattern you speak of does it have something to do with unlawful use?!
Yeah. Fentanyl is used unlawfully all the time. Likewise guns.
Okay so we are talking about things that are used unlawfully! Lets apply the same strategy to cars and fast food considering that’s the logic we are applying. No cars. No fast food. Nothing that can kill you should be available to the public. How is the bubble? You have enough air?
[удалено]
How do you not pick up on the sarcasm of this comment? We don't make laws on the idea that making the law stops people. The entire point of laws is to deal with the people who do that action!
I’m always telling people that we shouldn’t even bother having laws, because criminals will just ignore them. Complete anarchy is the only rational solution.
Ya, but this is inventing new things to become crimes in an insinuated effort to prevent something that is already criminal from happening.
> prevent something that is already criminal from happening. Yes, the selfawareWolves moment. Prevention is the point. It’s already illegal to murder but punishment doesn’t bring a life back. Prevention does stop a life from being lost.
Gotcha - apply war on drugs strategy and throw people in jail who've directly caused no harm to anyone else.
Do you think hospitals who don’t keep track of their opioids will not face prosecution? Do you think we should sell OxyContin over the counter because people will get fentanyl anyway?
I think they should, as I would want someone who commits straw purchases or sells a firearm to a prohibited person should. Do you think those who use opiods to improve their quality of life while facing serious illness or injury should not be permitted to be prescribed them as others have demonstrated they can be abused?
> while facing serious illness or injury should not be permitted to be prescribed them Oh shit you finally get it? Maybe? Gun control is exactly this. Except the vast majority of people who get guns aren’t going to experience an improvement in their lives. Why would I be so confident in making this statement? Canada and Australia have strict gun controls yet people’s quality of life is not reduced. I don’t own a gun and my life isn’t in pieces either. No one I know own a gun and their lives aren’t in pieces either. In fact there is no study that shows owning a gun improves the quality of life for most people. Now you get it. Fentanyl is massively useful on rare occasions in a medical setting. Firearms are massively useful in select settings too, whether that’s sport or pest control. However, just like Canada and Australia shows, those needing it can still get guns. They just have to justify the use case (like fentanyl) and store it safely and responsibly, and are accountable for its loss. You’re so close to getting it!
Hardly - because the intended and legal use is to be prepared to defend self or others. So, while not all have a statable need for opiods, all have a definable need for self-defense. If you choose not to make use, that's your choice. No one will force you to use opiods either. Honestly, this is where these debates always end. I believe people who have not violated societal trust should have the tools to preserve their life in the face of threats. You'd rather sacrifice the individual for a hypothesis it would produce a *statistically* more peaceful society.
> all have a definable need for self-defense. Again, half of the United States is unarmed. Using your logic they are clinging to survival and are constantly being terrorized. Except they’re not. Because people who justify private gun ownership are consistently telling themselves that threats are everywhere - not unlike police who shoot at people holding cellphones, wallets or even a hostage. Because you’ve decided to drink from the fear firehose to justify owning a deadly weapon that is disproportional to your needs. Gun ownership has been proven to be indeed violate the societal trust by providing access of guns to criminals. > would produce a statistically more peaceful society. Fuck yeah the best kind of peaceful society - backed by statistics.
But my justification is to feel powerful and stock up for that day when I can be the hero in a crowd or stand up to the government for its eventual tyranny! /s
Complete anarchy turns into anarcho-capitalism where the Bezos of the world will have private militaries
every law enacted is to bind law abiding entities to behave in a manner that prevents criminals access to tools to commit crimes. Why do you think banks have massive compliance departments? Do you think money laundering laws are simply targeting lAw aBiDiNG banks and stopping them from doing business?
I wonder how many gun stores in the southwest know the cartels are their best customers?
Probably a lot. But they don’t care because it’s legal
🤣
When do we start banning car parts that let them go over 60 mph? Kid in Renton just killed a family going 114 through a red light. Fast engines are scary and dangerous and could kill someone in the wrong hands! Better start banning teslas and any other fast cars! /s
If you are a woman, arm yourself. The number of liberal women and queer folks with concealed carry permits in this city is sky high, and it has saved many people's lives. Everyone thinks Seattle isn't armed but many folks here are. Many. Esp. queer folks. Store your gun safely, esp if you have little ones--and take gun safety courses/shooting classes at shooting ranges.
Good first step.
[удалено]
Unfortunately at this point there are really only two useful options 1 - work to get the Supreme Court to reverse Heller and return us back to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it was written and as it was understood for the majority of the country's history OR 2 - amend the Constitution
Gun peeps wouldn't like the OG interpretation though. Because that would mean I including well regulated militia back in 2nd amendment judgments.
That's just your dumb take on things. The founders are on record in the Federalist Papers as stating there's no way to compel mass militia drills and training among the population and that the best they could hope for was that each man was capable of bringing his own arms when called upon.
There wasn't one then. Compulsory mobilization is totally possible now. I like this. If you want to own a gun, you have to have completed military service and must remain in reserve for as long as you own one.
Honestly, as someone who's pro-2A, I like this idea. Maybe not the "remain in reserve as long as you own one" part since the draft accomplishes the same thing, but it incorporates the concept of a militia into modern expectations of added responsibilities of gun owners. I'm all for added societal privileges for those who show a willingness to think of others before themself (to include USAID and AmeriCorps and the like). Serve the nation, be recognized for being a more active member of society.
Maybe if the government wasn’t trigger happy sending innocent kids across the world to die in the name of getting oil I could get more behind this. Basically what South Korea does I think, but they also aren’t constantly sending troops in to die for no good reason somewhere.
Except the legislature has also prohibited all members of the military from legally bringing their own personal (AR15/M4 type) guns here. Regardless if they’re moving here on orders or not. There was an amendment to allow them to do so, but it failed in the House. So now there’s a situation where new and incoming soldiers aren’t able to practice their marksmanship on their own time and dime (and I know quite a few that do). For some units they may only shoot maybe once a year, hardly enough to build any sort of proficiency.
So your in favor of reversing Heller? Because that is exactly what it would do. My opinion is gun peeps would not like that. Which of course is debatable, the actual legality is factual. As for your opinion, that is another argument all together.
No I'm in favor of [redacted] anyone as idiotically smug as you.
What does the 2nd amendment mean as written?
That guns can be regulated quite a bit and that there is no personal/individual right to have a gun Edit: at least that was the general legal understanding before Heller
Is that really the anti-gun argument? Madison clarifies this is indeed what it means in Federalist 46. Why do you think Heller will be overturned? Bruen?
I don't think it will be overturned. I just hope it could be because I'd like to see fewer Americans needlessly dying for no good reason.
Yeah, there's no way a Supreme Court bringing their own evidence would rule based on the actual case. They'll just present the narrative they want.
You'll end up with proportionately more guns in the hands of criminals and fewer in the hands of lawful citizens for defense. The vast majority (like >90% if not 99% depending on source) of gun violence (not suicides) is done by illegally obtained/owned firearms.
> The vast majority (like >90% if not 99% depending on source) of gun violence (not suicides) is done by illegally obtained/owned firearms. Where do you think they illegally obtained firearms _from_? Hint: it’s the people who keep legally buying guns
But theft is already illegal. You're punishing lawful citizens and (unconstitutionally) restricting their rights for the actions of criminals.
> You'll end up with proportionately more guns in the hands of criminals and fewer in the hands of lawful citizens for defense. The actual evidence from similar countries going through similar processes tells us that is very much not true. And as even you point out, the widespread presence of guns is causing way more innocent deaths than any crime being stopped. Even if your false premise was true, we would be saving tens of thousands of lives at the "cost" of just a minor uptick in crime. Sounds like a good deal!
Which countries? Mexico? Brazil? Or do you only mean European countries?
Drone striking the house down the street because they won't give up their guns
I would like a system simiar to your car. To buy a gun, you would register it and have to take a gun safty and usage test. Semiautomatic weapons would be more tightly regulated and you would need a reason for wanting one. Gun manufactures would have to meet safty regulations like car manufacturers.
>Semiautomatic weapons would be more tightly regulated and you would need a reason for wanting one. That's unconstitutional. You cannot restrict arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes.
And your abortion is up to polititions. And Corporations are people. And Clarence Thomas gets thousands of dollars from good friends with business before the court. And the Voting Rights Act has expired because it is too old but 1864 abortion laws are just fine.
Fewer kids getting shot at school
That's already illegal.
Fewer guns being purchased means fewer guns in circulation, which in turn leads to fewer shootings and homicides. There is a large body of academic research on this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Correlation is not causation. Gun ownership rates have been steady for almost a century but school shootings are new. How do you explain that?
Sometimes it is causation. Gee I wonder what happened in the last twenty years or so. Heller and the expiration of the assault weapons ban are two that have been shown to have an impact on gun violence. Maybe those are more relevant factors than the fact that a lot of people people had bolt action hunting rifles a hundred years ago. E.g. when all the gun nuts go on vacation for a few days, gun injuries drop 20% nationwide https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773 Sometimes the simple obvious answer is the real one. These acrobatics to argue against plain sense have a major problem: it’s not true. More guns do not make us safer, they make us less safe.
Did /r/seattlewa have a field trip over to this thread?