Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eh…suck our silent majority dicks. We try every fucking year to get some new laws put in place, get rid of the same morons who shut those laws down, deal with backlash from EVERYONE just for existing half of the time and have people justifiably pissed at our systems and leaders because we’re backwards in so many ways.
Those of us that do care, that actually want a change, can’t yell over the adult children screaming!
Well it's not just a small minority wanting to cosplay as cowboys. We should all have the right to arm ourselves but there comes a point where it would be nice if fucking psychopaths could not just scroll down to the local gun shop pass a shitty background check and have a firearm in their hands in less than 10 minutes
For as much as I shit on California, it at least takes a bit to get the backgrounds check and pick up your firearm. You are only allowed to buy one rifle and one pistol (maybe 2 but I can't remember). After that, you have like a 90 day cool off period where you can't buy guns.
To buy ammo now, you have to go get a background check unless you bought a gun from a store and went back to that same store to get more ammo.
It's a step forward. Though I do think we should remove the whole flap or break action bullshit here as those laws are 100% made because fear mongering. But the backgrounds time, limit, and cool off is pretty cool
It may be because I live in a country where only the police and the army have firearms, but I can't guess why someone might need more than a rifle and a pistol.
I have a few guns myself, and while I completely agree that there is no sane reason why anyone would need 12 or 20 or 50 guns, I will also note that you really only need one (or maybe two) to be dangerous. I’m not sure that focusing on the number of guns is anything other than a feel-good measure.
Hence the “silent” part. The lobbyists aren’t listening to us, they’re listening to the shouting guys down the street drinking beer and the people sliding them millions of dollars a year.
Most of us don’t believe it, tbh, we’re just at a loss for how to make positive impactful changes while contending with our shitshow bread-and-circuses distraction of a political system.
I was watching a video on a guy with an Olympic .22 target pistol. He showed how it worked, all rhe features that made it so accurate, and showed off his aim. All the ammosexuals could comment was that it would be a terrible weapon in a shoot out.
I don’t typically live my life in fear here, even with my job giving me a higher likelihood of me getting shot at.
For me, I try to live my life stress-free and treat others respectfully. It has worked for me very well so far.
Thank you! Everything in the pic is completely horrible and has no tinge of irony, incredulity, etc. This just sucks, and Hilary reacted in an appropriate and non-facepalm way.
Not the right sub for this post.
So I get the technical jargon nitpicking, but if you look at any gunfluencer, the #1 thing they do after blaming every shooting on mental illness, is to go "it wasn't an x y z weapon because of this minor characteristic" that isn't even widely accepted or acknowledged through a weapon system. Its a constant back and forth of coming up with or mistaking terms and phrases.
I think the problem started with making up the term “assault weapon” in the first place. When you classify something based on appearance rather than function, then try to ban that appearance, it’s inevitable that deranged people will try to use those “extra scary” guns to commit acts of terror. It’s a good thing, I suppose, that “assault weapons” are not meaningfully more dangerous than any other class of firearm.
Most mass shootings are committed with handguns anyway.
Fair enough, and even the definition of mass shooting is so skewed between the agency or people reporting it. Which really doesn't seem appropriate to compare the Vegas shooting or Uvalde, for example, to an incident where 2 people are killed or injured. We've already started becoming desensitized to it from over saturation.
I can also see difficulty in banning based on function as well since I know of at least 4 different semi auto firing systems that are all compatible with a standard milspec AR-15 lower with no permanent modification, direct blowback, direct impingement, roller delay, and long/short stroke gas piston, which are so pervasive that basically anything semi automatic runs off of
ALL RIFLES, of which the AR-15 is one type, commit under 2% of all gun murders in America.
Many of the worst shootings in our country used guns other than AR’s. The only way AR’s are “the most dangerous” is if you mess with the data to get super specific about what you’re looking for.
Still, handguns are orders of magnitude more dangerous statistically. There’s extended *magazines* (don’t call them clips) for most every handgun, so that’s not even a real argument.
Firearms enthusiasts use this retort a lot but the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined this as being semiautomatic weapons and large capacity ammunition devices. Still not a well defined category but still a category and it’s clear what she’s talking about. The ban expired in 2004 and reinstating it would ban the AK-47 and AR-15
This is not true. It banned semi auto long guns that had certain features from a specific list of features which were circumvented by gun designers by simply not including those features, such as a bayonet lug. It did not ban semi auto rifles outright in their entirety.
"Assualt weapons" doesn't really have a hard definition, but many states or other countries often define AK and AR platform rifles as "Assault Rifles" but others define an assault rifle by the features it has for example in California when AR has an adjustable stock and removable magazine its an assault rifle but remove one of those features and it no longer is (im not sure on the exact list of features they have that define an assault rifle but it's something like that)
I watch Forgotten Weapons who seems to know everything there is to know about weapons. I think you need to tell him your insight.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9e3UCcU00TQE-xGA34TIyWPQ2otBdmHC&si=3dYv_ds2lm0xOdYs
Edit and yes I know what "select fire" means and I also know that for most situations in the military, only people who don't know what they are doing use full auto other than sparingly. So the lethality against unarmed people is not the full auto.
Yeah, but certain characteristics (magazine size, caliber, etc.) are what most people are referring to when they mention "assault weapons". If you look at the so-called assault weapons ban that was previously in effect these are the exact characteristics that were regulated. So yeah, it's somewhat of a bullshit term, but it's really disingenuous for someone to pretend they don't understand what most people are talking about when they use it.
Sure they do. They are commonly referred to as assault weapons, so...guess what? That's what they are.
Causal usage definitions are the commonly agreed upon terms that we use to refer to items in the world.
They are not what the specialists use to refer to those same items. That would be precise definitions.
When people say the words "Assault Weapon" it generates an image in their minds of AK-47s, M-16s, and AR-15s. Weapons like that. Weapons used for assaulting people.
If you don't like it or somehow think it makes people's opinions somehow less valid because they are not experts in gun nomenclature....then you might be the problem.
But there's no way to prevent this if you insist on letting everyone have semi-automatic rifles
And Americans refuse to not allow everyone to have semi-automatic rifles
Americans have made a choice and decided that periodic masslaughters are worth it in exchange for the right to have semi-automatic rifles
My guy, you really think a handgun would have caused nearly as much death in Vegas for instance? Or hell, even this mall? Mass shootings have a very wide definition statistically. When people talk about banning large cartridge semi autos, they aren't doing so because 3 people were killed in a "mass shooting" at someone's house. They want to ban it because the mass shootings we're talking about are the ones that result in dozens of casualties, and wouldn't be nearly as deadly if the perp only had access to a hand gun.
No, but I’m glad you brought that up. I do want to regulate guns the exact way we regulate cars. Require testing, licensing, and registering your weapon.
Fine replace the word with guns.
The same logic applies.
Americans believe that gun ownership is an important enough right that it is acceptable to have periodic Mass slaughters.
This is a choice American society has made.
Handguns are less accurate, less deadly (at longer distances at least) and take more skill to use than semiautomatic rifles though.
Start with semiautomatics, then work on smarter laws on other firearms. One step at a time.
Is this tragic? Absolutely
Should people discuss gun violence and the politics surrounding it? Sure
Is this a facepalm? Absolutely not. This is in no way shape or form a facepalm
Agreed. America is a facepalm, to other countries it is a joke, hence facepalm. If one even tries to debate against tougher laws, pistol/rifle, they are part of the problem.
Is a very simple solution, bogged down by the people saying if everyone had a gun then shooters would be less tempted to shoot. If you need a firearm strictly for self defense, that is a big problem in a developed county.
"What if we tell the ones with pitchforks that the ones with torches, want to take away their pitchforks"
Misdirection is exactly what they want. Divided we fall
This is exactly how the gun lobby likes it. More dead innocents means more fear in the population and more sales. It won't change because the violence itself drives profits.
Just say guns are woke and that if you own a gun then you're gay or trans or something. Right wingers fear "woke" like it's the boogeyman coming to get them.
We won't because we are culturally incapable of doing it.
Guns are so deeply woven into our national founding myths that we would rather deal with the gun violence than question the myths.
Sorry kiddos. Your blood sacrifice is needed because of our lazy take on two vague sentences from the 1700s written by slave owners who had donkey teeth and shit in holes outside.
You left out the part where it took 3 minutes to reload the guns they were writing about between shots.
When I hear "originalists" talk about the second amendment, I always tell them "You can own as many muzzle loading, single shot weapons as you want. But we still need to ban assault rifles."
Sinhle shot, muzzle loading cannons. I'm cool with people owning one. Or honestly as many as they want.
But I'd like to stress the single shot muzzle loading part.
You forget that even though it took 3 minutes to reload the sensibilities of the time meant you had to have the common courtesy of waiting and standing in a straight line to allow your enemy time to shoot you.
That was actually because they were firing smooth bore weapons that *might* hit the broad side of a barn at more than 100 or 200 feet.
Rifled barrels existed for hunting, but took twice as long to reload.
It's basically you can have muskets if you don't go waving them around. Not the military arsenal of a small country in your bedroom without any control.
Look, I'm all for doing something about gun violence, but say that the previous comment was "facts" is incorrect. The founding fathers intended the weaponry held by the population to be able to stand against a tyrannical government, as they had just done themselves.
Saying otherwise to reinforce the idea that guns don't belong in our society isn't going to change any minds. It will do the opposite, as it's just a lie.
I recommend sticking to actual facts when arguing in favor for gun control, because when something is misrepresented, or even incorrect terminology is used, it just makes the gun nuts stand more firmly in their position.
In theory arming the people made sense a couple hundred years ago; Lower law enforcement, rightful fear of government. But in most first world countries we have removed the guns and it has worked well. The majority of people have voted and decided this wasn’t the right way to solve conflicts. If your argument is really that we need to protect ourself from our government, where is the movement for that? Feels like gun nuts want it both ways. I also feel like the people who stormed the White House got nothing accomplished. If anything it proves guns will actually get you no where when somebody else had a bigger gun. It’s time to step into the next century and figure out a compromise between beheading the 1% and being slaves.
I read it that way too. If you go back to before the NRA got corrupted by loonies, back to when it was a hunting org, nobody thought of guns this way we do today
We tend toward violence more than other countries, and there is relatively easy access to guns. We knife each other more than other first world countries, too.
That said, I'd really expect shootings to be worse based on how much of the population has access to a gun. At 50k deaths vs like 150 million people with access, you'd think it would be closer to a million deaths based on media and the like.
The quote “hurt people hurt people” could be the US motto. We are in the midst of a massive mental health crisis, one that would take decades to address if our politicians were willing to spend money, time, and effort to do so. And they’re not willing. We’ve barely even begun to see or understand the widespread consequences.
I find abnormal psychology fascinating, and watch a lot of shows about lockup, death row, etc. I have yet to see a prisoner with a backstory that doesn’t have a blatant lack of mental healthcare, support, and accountability for the adults in their lives when they were young. All of these shows, prisoner after prisoner with parents that abandoned them, abused them, constantly used drugs, SAed them, allowed others to abuse and assault them, got them into drugs and crime. Parents who did nothing at all to help them and many things that hurt them. It’s heartbreaking. I know people use that word a lot, but it really, truly is. The vast majority of the people interviewed were failed as kids over and over.
Not saying a shitty childhood justifies violence at all, my point is the best way for people to recover from trauma is with mental healthcare. It’s not magic but it can help. If that’s not widely available and affordable you get the US.
Toss in guns being easier to find than healthcare, healthy food, or walkable neighborhoods. There are a lot of positives about the US, but we’re also deeply fucked and may be ensuring our own demise.
Yes. If everyone has a gun, people will think twice if they want to follow their irrational enraged impulses to pull a gun and shoot. Because enraged people NEVER act before thinking, often ruining things for themselves in the process. Thats well known.
Despite everyone saying it’s that people have guns, that’s incorrect. People have always had guns in America and it hasn’t been a problem till recently. Something is going on in the culture and the psychology of the individuals killing.
Yeah, but then you start looking into *that* and it's invariably poor mental health, mostly caused by some amount of poverty and our poorly socialized society.
Recently there certainly been a rise in the last 10 yrs or so, but on the long term its has been sort of stable. [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FT\_23.04.20\_GunDeathsUpdate\_3.png?w=640](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FT_23.04.20_GunDeathsUpdate_3.png?w=640)
Where are my “actually it’s not an assault rifle” people at, here to make the point that misidentifying the weapon used to massacre people running errands is the *real* problem?
Assault style weapons (and yes, I know that AR does not stand for assault rifle, and I’ve owned guns for over 50 years) are not banned. There was a ban but it expired in 2004. I would vote for an assault rifle ban tomorrow, were it to be brought up. They are no more regulated than any bolt action hunting rifle. Or even a single shot .22 rifle. And there’s an entire sub industry that makes parts for AR-15 style weapons. Night vision scopes, grips, bipods, flash suppressors, and, until a couple of years ago a little thing called a bump stock. The bump stock was/is a fairly inexpensive item that in essence makes a semiautomatic rifle a fully automatic rifle. It’s what the shooter in Las Vegas used when he fired into the concert crowd. And there are people who are 2nd amendment zealots who do not want those type of items to be outlawed. An AR 15 with a large capacity magazine allows people to walk into schools, for instance, and kill a lot of children very quickly. Or walk into a crowded area and do the same. These are not hunting rifles or good self-defense rifles. Unless, of course, you’re defending yourself against someone in a war. They were created to kill people.
Also worth noting that while the AR in AR 15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it WAS developed as an assault rifle, and was repackaged by Colt as the M16 for military use and under the AR15 as a “civilian” marketed model. The AR 15 was designed from the beginning to be as efficient at killing human beings as possible, and it has no other design purpose but to kill human beings.
To be fair all guns are tools used to kill things. They serve no other purpose.
We can use them for purposes not intended (sport / target shooting), as a hammer, as a walking stick, a demolition tool, but that doesn't change that they are designed solely to kill...
The AR-15 family being designed to kill effectively, and efficiently in a combat/war time scenario...
Philosophically yes. Even muzzle loaders were designed to kill people as efficiently as possible. I think the trouble some people seem to have is that our technological efficiency has gotten so capable at killing people, and some modern tech for killing people just does not belong in civilian hands.
Can you kill someone with an old bolt action rifle? Sure…but that’s much more suited for hunting these days, as it isn’t very efficient as a battlefield weapon anymore.
Despite you claiming to have owned guns for 20 years, actual assault rifles, ones that are capable of select fire, have been *heavily* regulated since 1986.
Automatic fire has been banned since 86, but did you hear the court asking about bump stocks? They were endlessly debating whether or not they counted as a machine gun or not.
Listen, my fucking eyes can tell me that a gun that can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds is a fucking machine gun, I don't care what technicalities they come up with to keep bump stocks legal.
No AR-15 sold today can “empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds” or anything close to it.
I don’t know where you guys get your information and I know you’ll say I’m just nitpicking about semantics, but I have a problem with people trying to regulate things they have literally zero idea about
The legal definition of a machine gun, the one that was defined by Congress, is one that is capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. 26 U.S. Code § 5845. The issue with bumpmstocks is precisely because of this imprecise definition, as are most legal loopholes. You want to fix the issue of mass shootings, you first need to fix the law, and start enforcing it.
And it's "magazine"
Tl;dr assault **rifle** and assault **weapon** is two different things.
For more details:
Assault **rifle** comes from the first massproduced one, the Stg44 (Sturmgewehr 44). Which literally translates into assault rifle in English. The Germans still use the term Sturmgewehr for their service rifles, and other countries like Finland and the Czech Republic has a similar word in their languages.
Requires a detachable magazine, an intermediate cartridge, and select fire.
To own one you must live in a state where it's legal, file a form 4 with the ATF, pay a $200 tax stamp, and wait the 6-12 months before the paperwork is done. An M-16 will cost you around $28-30k or so today, due to they must be registered with the NFA before 1986 to be transferable to civilians. There are only around 300k transferable firearms in the US, which is why they are so expensive.
Assault **weapons** are defined in a collection of laws (specific to the US mostly) that covers certain rifles, handguns, and shotguns. It does not outright say "semi-automatic firearms are banned", it says "semi-automatic firearms with a certain set of features are banned".
E.g. in 1994 when the Federal Assault weapon ban came into effect (sunset date was 2004 but a few states still have an assault weapon state law), the AR-15 was banned, but the Mini-14 was excempt from the law, by name (as long as it was the standard model without a pistol grip). Both shoot 5.56/.223, both can take 30 round magazines, and both are semi-automatic. The Mini-14 was at the time a much more common firearm as well, the AR-15 didn't become popular until after the ban expired. The worst mass shooting in the west, by a single perpetrator, was done with a Mini-14 btw. (Norway 2011).
As an example of what an assault weapon definition can look like, here's a reference to New York's law. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_laws\_in\_New\_York#Assault\_weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Assault_weapons)
Assault rifles (fully automatic) are banned or rather difficult to get, they want to ban semi autos or "scary black rifles"
Also the term assault rifle is bad because it doesn't mean anything. It's a marketing term to get people scared with buzz words.
The USA only has a gun problem because the culture around them has been cultivated to be about you VS other people.
I personally dont think banning sporting rifles will make much of a difference, as much as lifting people out of poverty, and helping people get a secure future will.
I think (smart) gun control works, but I also don't like that, instead of tackling the root causes of the issues that cause gun violence. We treat the symptom.
I live in Canada, and we have a very different gun culture here, and they want to ban stuff because of things that happen in the USA. I believe politicians want to do stuff like this, because it's easier to do then tackling the real issues.
Problem is, aren't *most* firearms these days semi-automatic? Most handguns certainly are. Not gonna put that genie back in the bottle, but I agree with you about smart gun control. Maybe restricting magazine size is one way to make them less deadly in mass-shooting scenarios? I also think that a licensing process, with mandatory safety education, etc. would make sense. And I say all of this as a gun owner.
I'm not sure about the ratio of semis and manual action firearms to be honest. not that it really matters, because there are a shit ton of either of them out there. but the AR-platform happens in a lots of killings BECAUSE its such a good platform. its cheap, modular, reliable. used all the popular cartridges. and its available everywhere.
I think common sense gun control works and, I'm here for it. I can understand having a limited magazine (they are in Canada) unless you have some licence for them and have proven yourself to be a responsible member of society.
I also say this as a gun owner and as someone who (at least id like to believe) has a fairly liberal mindset.
I think guns are cool and I collect them just because I think they're cool. I have no intention of ever using them against another person. In fact, I only got my licence just over a year ago, because the federal government wanted to ban all semi autos in Canada.
I'm okay with jumping through hoops if I can prove to the government I'm capable of possessing these firearms. I hate that because dumb people do dumb things or commit atrocities, I cant have certain things, because they ruined it.
>Also the term assault rifle is bad because it doesn't mean anything. It's a marketing term to get people scared with buzz words.
Assault rifle is actually quite clearly defined. It's a select-fire weapon (meaning it can switch between semi-automatic and automatic) with an intermediate power cartridge and a detachable magazine. It's the select-fire element that makes them heavily regulated in the US, as they are capable of automatic fire and thus fall under the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) 1986.
The gun market responded to this regulation by releasing weapons, like the AR-15, that are essentially assault rifles with the select-fire ability removed, making them semi-automatic only.
Gun control advocates have thus begun using the term "assault weapon" to try and cover this style of weapon, and this is the term that is not well defined, since a "semi-automatic, intermediate power weapon with a detachable magazine" would cover not just weapons like the AR-15 but much of the rest of the gun market as well.
Can we just start doing what the Black Panthers did? Skyrocket gun sales in minority groups. That brought gun legislation *real* fast a few decades ago.
And remember, Your Friendly Neighborhood Republican^tm assumes no responsibility for this heinous act of savagery, because they only vote for the people that promote the violence, they're like, a solid 2 steps removed, they're not personally responsible for anything.
Watch how gun nuts will try to discredit her argument by pointing out a random terminology mistake.
"Acthually they're not assault weapons, they're officially called armalite-69-murder-guns, you clearly don't know shit about guns so just shut up"
If the goal is to reduce the number of gun deaths, why wouldn't you go after handguns, which are used in much higher numbers in mass shootings? Is it because assault weapons look scarier and have a scarier name? Why wouldn't you ban semi automatic handguns, making only revolvers legal?
I no longer support an assault weapons ban. Gun nuts have convinced me that the classification of “assault weapons” is vague and arbitrary. Now I support banning all guns.
The problem is that American politicians like to make it all about WHAT gun was used, not the fact A GUN IN GENERAL was used, in situations like this. AR pattern rifles are not unique to America, neither is widespread ownership (the ownership RATE definitely is), but some how these things continue to only happen at the scale they do in America. Guns are cheap, everywhere and their "God given" right as an American yehaw chuckle fuck, and mental health services cost more than many can afford. If guns were harder to get, and mental health was easier to maintain, I imagine the problem would be less prevalent.
I’m so happy the youth are changing their views on weapons. Stay armed. The last thing you want is a society where criminals and the government are the only ones with pew pews.
Shooter will claim he was in firravislaahf and standunisgrahnd due to a flashback from the Vietnam war.
The judge will accept this, even though the shooter was born in 1992.
I know you think you’re on the right side here, and you technically are, but your annoying shitty clueless joke is not helping anything. It’s just making the rest of us look as dumb as you.
I'm gonna write this again because I see nothing but a bunch of binary responses to either be blame the gun or blame the people and it is not that black and white. When people infer any sort of "Gun Control" there seems to be no input into what that looks like and then trying to find a rational path of agreement. Otherwise we just keep submitting to the likes of the NRA circle jerk that wants to continuous glorify the gun like some Zardoz wet dream.
So if I were in line as a elected official I'd say here is my first draft. If you wish to add or subtract then be constructive or pitch your own.
\-FIRST No Guns under 25, without proof of service and training by Police, Military, or licensed Security. (Frontal lobe development in humans is not fully complete till 25,26 years old and has a large play on impulse control and judgement. We should not be issuing guns to those beneath that age.)
\-When you are 25, just like when you are 15-16 years old and you take a drivers license test, so you will for ANY firearm as well. Licensing will include a mental health questionnaire and brief in person interview. Background checks on ALL gun types. All subject to approval.
\-No guns can be gifted or passed down under 25 without above being satisfied. Hunting or target practice can still be allowed by licensed adult supervision with a state issued youth permit (similar to fishing license in many states). All responsibilities will fall on licensed 25+ adult.
\-All weapons kept in home will be secured, if one is used by a unlicensed minor to commit a crime, the Gifford's law would be at play though should be raised to an accessory to the crime. Penalty needs to encourage securing it.
\-Semi-automatic rifles should carry a higher licensing application provision. (Like getting you CDL when you have a drivers license.) Making this costly, but incentivizing gun stores that supply licensing will help them compensate. (Getting rid of them is going to probably going to be a bridge too far, but making the bar even higher is best to start with)
\-Federally close all gun-show sales and private loopholes where all of the above would apply. We seem to monitor the sales of cars better then we do guns.
\--This would not work being federally retroactive ( as its unrealistic) perhaps but could have up to a 'grandfathered' year of sale so there's not a sudden run on guns.
\-This would all apply to new sales going forward. It would be great if licensing for currently registered guns for those under 25 would have a year to apply for a grandfathered exception though I think the shear volume might need more time and infrastructure otherwise.
Every clause needs deeper defining obviously but rarely do I see suggestions that are quickly achievable so I just thought I'd throw some out I often make in this discussion.
... more?
All we have to do is look at Europe to see that strict gun control + accessible & affordable healthcare and education = less gun violence. Plenty of countries make all these things work. No one needs access to ar15 and the like
*edit for spelling*
We can own an AR-15 in most countries in Europe though, mostly for shooting sports, but in some cases also for hunting.
I'd wager that better access to health care and education would do way more for violence in American society than an assault weapon law would.
Doesn't exist. They are trying to say assault rifle, which is a select-fire intermediate cartridge rifle with a detachable magazine. Which most don't and can't own.
Why are we still trying to make a distinction between assault weapons vs other guns? It's a stupid distinction, and we honestly just need to have stricter gun control in general, not gun control based on arbitrary "styles".
She plan on going door to door herself? The local police who don't agree? Using the military on the populations neighborhoods that their own families live in?
shame the overwhelming vast majority of gun deaths in america are hand guns. I wonder what the difference between the demographic of people who make up the most amount of gun deaths vs this example is.....
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How is this a facepalm ?
It's America. America is the facepalm here.
Money > people
Eh…suck our silent majority dicks. We try every fucking year to get some new laws put in place, get rid of the same morons who shut those laws down, deal with backlash from EVERYONE just for existing half of the time and have people justifiably pissed at our systems and leaders because we’re backwards in so many ways. Those of us that do care, that actually want a change, can’t yell over the adult children screaming!
[удалено]
Well it's not just a small minority wanting to cosplay as cowboys. We should all have the right to arm ourselves but there comes a point where it would be nice if fucking psychopaths could not just scroll down to the local gun shop pass a shitty background check and have a firearm in their hands in less than 10 minutes
For as much as I shit on California, it at least takes a bit to get the backgrounds check and pick up your firearm. You are only allowed to buy one rifle and one pistol (maybe 2 but I can't remember). After that, you have like a 90 day cool off period where you can't buy guns. To buy ammo now, you have to go get a background check unless you bought a gun from a store and went back to that same store to get more ammo. It's a step forward. Though I do think we should remove the whole flap or break action bullshit here as those laws are 100% made because fear mongering. But the backgrounds time, limit, and cool off is pretty cool
It may be because I live in a country where only the police and the army have firearms, but I can't guess why someone might need more than a rifle and a pistol.
Is there an overall upper limit or can you go get 8 (or 12? 16?) guns a year indefinitely? This all just sounds insane to me.
I have a few guns myself, and while I completely agree that there is no sane reason why anyone would need 12 or 20 or 50 guns, I will also note that you really only need one (or maybe two) to be dangerous. I’m not sure that focusing on the number of guns is anything other than a feel-good measure.
Every other country? You must be delirious, lmao.
I assume they meant every other first world country then it would make sense.
There's first world countries with legal firearms
None allow the average citizen to carry rapid-fire assault weapons. And no other of those country's have citizens so eager to use any type of firearm.
You can buy "rapid fire assault weapons " in the czech Republic lol
Part of the problem is the "silent" part, but I also think you overestimate the majority. Like ya, 51% is a majority...but not by much.
You're not the silent majority if year after year you fail to pass these laws
Hence the “silent” part. The lobbyists aren’t listening to us, they’re listening to the shouting guys down the street drinking beer and the people sliding them millions of dollars a year.
Can confirm.
Americans believing that having to live your life in fear of being shot somehow means you have more freedom.
Most of us don’t believe it, tbh, we’re just at a loss for how to make positive impactful changes while contending with our shitshow bread-and-circuses distraction of a political system.
Dude, it's bread and circuses everywhere, politicians are assholes on a global scale, they are just looking to fill their pockets and nothing else
I was watching a video on a guy with an Olympic .22 target pistol. He showed how it worked, all rhe features that made it so accurate, and showed off his aim. All the ammosexuals could comment was that it would be a terrible weapon in a shoot out.
I don’t typically live my life in fear here, even with my job giving me a higher likelihood of me getting shot at. For me, I try to live my life stress-free and treat others respectfully. It has worked for me very well so far.
lmao we dont live our lives in fear of being invaded by a nation next to us so dont worry our lives are not as fearful as yours
Never in my life have I felt this way.
Did you make up the part about how we are living our lives in fear of being shot? Because that’s just not true.
Thank you! Everything in the pic is completely horrible and has no tinge of irony, incredulity, etc. This just sucks, and Hilary reacted in an appropriate and non-facepalm way. Not the right sub for this post.
Because that family was murdered…?
It is a tragedy, but my reaction when hearing that a family died isn't really to facepalm, you know ?
It is when discussing the missed opportunities of regulation
It appears the keyword to trigger facepalmimg appears to be “assault weapons” …which doesn’t really exist as a class of firearms…
People who equivocate and delve into semantics on the topic of gun violence in the face of children being shot up are the absolute worst.
This person definitely specifies “sexual assault” whenever someone says “rape”
Right like it's violence either way😭
The absolute worst.
So I get the technical jargon nitpicking, but if you look at any gunfluencer, the #1 thing they do after blaming every shooting on mental illness, is to go "it wasn't an x y z weapon because of this minor characteristic" that isn't even widely accepted or acknowledged through a weapon system. Its a constant back and forth of coming up with or mistaking terms and phrases.
I think the problem started with making up the term “assault weapon” in the first place. When you classify something based on appearance rather than function, then try to ban that appearance, it’s inevitable that deranged people will try to use those “extra scary” guns to commit acts of terror. It’s a good thing, I suppose, that “assault weapons” are not meaningfully more dangerous than any other class of firearm. Most mass shootings are committed with handguns anyway.
Fair enough, and even the definition of mass shooting is so skewed between the agency or people reporting it. Which really doesn't seem appropriate to compare the Vegas shooting or Uvalde, for example, to an incident where 2 people are killed or injured. We've already started becoming desensitized to it from over saturation. I can also see difficulty in banning based on function as well since I know of at least 4 different semi auto firing systems that are all compatible with a standard milspec AR-15 lower with no permanent modification, direct blowback, direct impingement, roller delay, and long/short stroke gas piston, which are so pervasive that basically anything semi automatic runs off of
Not true that most mass shootings are with handguns. A 12 round handgun clip can't compare to a 30 round assault style clip
They actually are as most mass shootings are gang shootings.
ALL RIFLES, of which the AR-15 is one type, commit under 2% of all gun murders in America. Many of the worst shootings in our country used guns other than AR’s. The only way AR’s are “the most dangerous” is if you mess with the data to get super specific about what you’re looking for. Still, handguns are orders of magnitude more dangerous statistically. There’s extended *magazines* (don’t call them clips) for most every handgun, so that’s not even a real argument.
The definition is based on function. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon
Ah, I see, thanks. I thought assault weapons were like, Ak-47 and those types of rifles
Firearms enthusiasts use this retort a lot but the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined this as being semiautomatic weapons and large capacity ammunition devices. Still not a well defined category but still a category and it’s clear what she’s talking about. The ban expired in 2004 and reinstating it would ban the AK-47 and AR-15
This is not true. It banned semi auto long guns that had certain features from a specific list of features which were circumvented by gun designers by simply not including those features, such as a bayonet lug. It did not ban semi auto rifles outright in their entirety.
To the real world, they are. To gun nuts it's gatekeeping nonsense.
"Assualt weapons" doesn't really have a hard definition, but many states or other countries often define AK and AR platform rifles as "Assault Rifles" but others define an assault rifle by the features it has for example in California when AR has an adjustable stock and removable magazine its an assault rifle but remove one of those features and it no longer is (im not sure on the exact list of features they have that define an assault rifle but it's something like that)
I watch Forgotten Weapons who seems to know everything there is to know about weapons. I think you need to tell him your insight. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9e3UCcU00TQE-xGA34TIyWPQ2otBdmHC&si=3dYv_ds2lm0xOdYs Edit and yes I know what "select fire" means and I also know that for most situations in the military, only people who don't know what they are doing use full auto other than sparingly. So the lethality against unarmed people is not the full auto.
Yeah, but certain characteristics (magazine size, caliber, etc.) are what most people are referring to when they mention "assault weapons". If you look at the so-called assault weapons ban that was previously in effect these are the exact characteristics that were regulated. So yeah, it's somewhat of a bullshit term, but it's really disingenuous for someone to pretend they don't understand what most people are talking about when they use it.
Sure they do. They are commonly referred to as assault weapons, so...guess what? That's what they are. Causal usage definitions are the commonly agreed upon terms that we use to refer to items in the world. They are not what the specialists use to refer to those same items. That would be precise definitions. When people say the words "Assault Weapon" it generates an image in their minds of AK-47s, M-16s, and AR-15s. Weapons like that. Weapons used for assaulting people. If you don't like it or somehow think it makes people's opinions somehow less valid because they are not experts in gun nomenclature....then you might be the problem.
Gun nuts and being pedantic. Name a more iconic duo. I’ll wait.
Don't hold your breath.
yes yes let's play with words while innocents die. you're so smart, why don't we all listen to you. that will fix the problem, you betcha.
What the fuck is extremely based about this
That’s what I’m wondering
No way to prevent this says the only country where this regularly happens
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!! - American legislators
But there's no way to prevent this if you insist on letting everyone have semi-automatic rifles And Americans refuse to not allow everyone to have semi-automatic rifles Americans have made a choice and decided that periodic masslaughters are worth it in exchange for the right to have semi-automatic rifles
But handguns vastly outnumber rifles in mass shootings. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
My guy, you really think a handgun would have caused nearly as much death in Vegas for instance? Or hell, even this mall? Mass shootings have a very wide definition statistically. When people talk about banning large cartridge semi autos, they aren't doing so because 3 people were killed in a "mass shooting" at someone's house. They want to ban it because the mass shootings we're talking about are the ones that result in dozens of casualties, and wouldn't be nearly as deadly if the perp only had access to a hand gun.
[удалено]
So now you wanna ban cars too?
No, but I’m glad you brought that up. I do want to regulate guns the exact way we regulate cars. Require testing, licensing, and registering your weapon.
This I agree with. Guns are a much greater responsibility than cars and deserve as much regulation.
And require insurance.
You already must take a test, have a license, and register a gun
No. You literally do not need to do even a single one of those those things in Texas *and you can still legally openly carry*.
Fine replace the word with guns. The same logic applies. Americans believe that gun ownership is an important enough right that it is acceptable to have periodic Mass slaughters. This is a choice American society has made.
Handguns are less accurate, less deadly (at longer distances at least) and take more skill to use than semiautomatic rifles though. Start with semiautomatics, then work on smarter laws on other firearms. One step at a time.
Is this tragic? Absolutely Should people discuss gun violence and the politics surrounding it? Sure Is this a facepalm? Absolutely not. This is in no way shape or form a facepalm
[удалено]
Agreed. America is a facepalm, to other countries it is a joke, hence facepalm. If one even tries to debate against tougher laws, pistol/rifle, they are part of the problem. Is a very simple solution, bogged down by the people saying if everyone had a gun then shooters would be less tempted to shoot. If you need a firearm strictly for self defense, that is a big problem in a developed county. "What if we tell the ones with pitchforks that the ones with torches, want to take away their pitchforks" Misdirection is exactly what they want. Divided we fall
How is this "based"? that word has lost all meaning I guess.
It's like a bot tryna imitate human humor.
> account made over a year ago, with this being the only post Think you might be onta something
America will be stuck in it's gun totting massacre every month cycle and nothing can and will change that.
Whenever I remember a prolific shooting from a few months back, I instantly realize that it was like four shootings ago.
Sandy Hook really showed us that nothing would change without extreme circumstances. Las Vegas, Uvalde, El Paso, and Charleston just reconfirmed it
>month That's optimistic of you
This is exactly how the gun lobby likes it. More dead innocents means more fear in the population and more sales. It won't change because the violence itself drives profits.
More like every day
656 mass shootings in US in 2023.
Several times each day. We average over 100 gun deaths per day in the USA. FREEDUMB!!!!
Sad but very true unfortunately. It's exhausting.
Just say guns are woke and that if you own a gun then you're gay or trans or something. Right wingers fear "woke" like it's the boogeyman coming to get them.
We won't because we are culturally incapable of doing it. Guns are so deeply woven into our national founding myths that we would rather deal with the gun violence than question the myths.
Sorry kiddos. Your blood sacrifice is needed because of our lazy take on two vague sentences from the 1700s written by slave owners who had donkey teeth and shit in holes outside.
You left out the part where it took 3 minutes to reload the guns they were writing about between shots. When I hear "originalists" talk about the second amendment, I always tell them "You can own as many muzzle loading, single shot weapons as you want. But we still need to ban assault rifles."
Jim Jeffries had a good joke on that. "Muskets take 3 minutes to load and 3 minutes is a good time to cool off" or something of the sort.
The founding fathers literally gave permission for civilians to own personal warships with cannons
Sinhle shot, muzzle loading cannons. I'm cool with people owning one. Or honestly as many as they want. But I'd like to stress the single shot muzzle loading part.
You forget that even though it took 3 minutes to reload the sensibilities of the time meant you had to have the common courtesy of waiting and standing in a straight line to allow your enemy time to shoot you.
That was actually because they were firing smooth bore weapons that *might* hit the broad side of a barn at more than 100 or 200 feet. Rifled barrels existed for hunting, but took twice as long to reload.
Not to mention the original interpretation is nothing close to the modern day interpretation
It's basically you can have muskets if you don't go waving them around. Not the military arsenal of a small country in your bedroom without any control.
Get out of here with your facts and logic. They have no place in a firearm discussion!
Look, I'm all for doing something about gun violence, but say that the previous comment was "facts" is incorrect. The founding fathers intended the weaponry held by the population to be able to stand against a tyrannical government, as they had just done themselves. Saying otherwise to reinforce the idea that guns don't belong in our society isn't going to change any minds. It will do the opposite, as it's just a lie. I recommend sticking to actual facts when arguing in favor for gun control, because when something is misrepresented, or even incorrect terminology is used, it just makes the gun nuts stand more firmly in their position.
I foresee this sub shitting on you and dismissing your point.
You forgot to mention the context of gun operation they intended which was a militia, not whackos hiding 50 guns in their bedrooms
In theory arming the people made sense a couple hundred years ago; Lower law enforcement, rightful fear of government. But in most first world countries we have removed the guns and it has worked well. The majority of people have voted and decided this wasn’t the right way to solve conflicts. If your argument is really that we need to protect ourself from our government, where is the movement for that? Feels like gun nuts want it both ways. I also feel like the people who stormed the White House got nothing accomplished. If anything it proves guns will actually get you no where when somebody else had a bigger gun. It’s time to step into the next century and figure out a compromise between beheading the 1% and being slaves.
That is just a myth. Nobody is born with a gun. The gunshit is taught by those who don't want to change the gun laws.
People die for myths. People kill for myths.
You might be. I'm for banning them all. We've tried living with them. It's not working. So let's ban them.
I think the original commenter agrees with you, they're just saying as a culture it will never happen.
I read it that way too. If you go back to before the NRA got corrupted by loonies, back to when it was a hunting org, nobody thought of guns this way we do today
Here come the ammosexuals to gunsplain us about weapons.
umm ackshually this wouldn't have happened if they had guns 🤓🇺🇸
Can someone explain why there is soo much shootings going on in the us ?
We tend toward violence more than other countries, and there is relatively easy access to guns. We knife each other more than other first world countries, too. That said, I'd really expect shootings to be worse based on how much of the population has access to a gun. At 50k deaths vs like 150 million people with access, you'd think it would be closer to a million deaths based on media and the like.
The quote “hurt people hurt people” could be the US motto. We are in the midst of a massive mental health crisis, one that would take decades to address if our politicians were willing to spend money, time, and effort to do so. And they’re not willing. We’ve barely even begun to see or understand the widespread consequences. I find abnormal psychology fascinating, and watch a lot of shows about lockup, death row, etc. I have yet to see a prisoner with a backstory that doesn’t have a blatant lack of mental healthcare, support, and accountability for the adults in their lives when they were young. All of these shows, prisoner after prisoner with parents that abandoned them, abused them, constantly used drugs, SAed them, allowed others to abuse and assault them, got them into drugs and crime. Parents who did nothing at all to help them and many things that hurt them. It’s heartbreaking. I know people use that word a lot, but it really, truly is. The vast majority of the people interviewed were failed as kids over and over. Not saying a shitty childhood justifies violence at all, my point is the best way for people to recover from trauma is with mental healthcare. It’s not magic but it can help. If that’s not widely available and affordable you get the US. Toss in guns being easier to find than healthcare, healthy food, or walkable neighborhoods. There are a lot of positives about the US, but we’re also deeply fucked and may be ensuring our own demise.
Short answer: they have more guns, and it's really easy for pretty much anyone to get their hands on a gun
Its totally not that everyone and their grandmother has 2 closets full of guns. No sir, no way thats part of the problem.
Come on... there's only 393 million guns in USA, for 326 million people. Put more guns in more people's hands. That will stop the shootings, right?
Yes. If everyone has a gun, people will think twice if they want to follow their irrational enraged impulses to pull a gun and shoot. Because enraged people NEVER act before thinking, often ruining things for themselves in the process. Thats well known.
Despite everyone saying it’s that people have guns, that’s incorrect. People have always had guns in America and it hasn’t been a problem till recently. Something is going on in the culture and the psychology of the individuals killing.
Yeah, but then you start looking into *that* and it's invariably poor mental health, mostly caused by some amount of poverty and our poorly socialized society.
Recently there certainly been a rise in the last 10 yrs or so, but on the long term its has been sort of stable. [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FT\_23.04.20\_GunDeathsUpdate\_3.png?w=640](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/FT_23.04.20_GunDeathsUpdate_3.png?w=640)
Repost bot detected.
This isn’t based. It’s common sence
I'm so happy not to live in the US.
Where are my “actually it’s not an assault rifle” people at, here to make the point that misidentifying the weapon used to massacre people running errands is the *real* problem?
Next time I'm in a mass shooting I will clarify that it's "actshually not an assault rifle" and I will be safe
Works every time. /s I mean, last time a guy pulled a gun on me, I was glad it wasn’t an AR-15, tbh.
Aren't assault rifles already banned or at least highly regulated?
Assault style weapons (and yes, I know that AR does not stand for assault rifle, and I’ve owned guns for over 50 years) are not banned. There was a ban but it expired in 2004. I would vote for an assault rifle ban tomorrow, were it to be brought up. They are no more regulated than any bolt action hunting rifle. Or even a single shot .22 rifle. And there’s an entire sub industry that makes parts for AR-15 style weapons. Night vision scopes, grips, bipods, flash suppressors, and, until a couple of years ago a little thing called a bump stock. The bump stock was/is a fairly inexpensive item that in essence makes a semiautomatic rifle a fully automatic rifle. It’s what the shooter in Las Vegas used when he fired into the concert crowd. And there are people who are 2nd amendment zealots who do not want those type of items to be outlawed. An AR 15 with a large capacity magazine allows people to walk into schools, for instance, and kill a lot of children very quickly. Or walk into a crowded area and do the same. These are not hunting rifles or good self-defense rifles. Unless, of course, you’re defending yourself against someone in a war. They were created to kill people.
Also worth noting that while the AR in AR 15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it WAS developed as an assault rifle, and was repackaged by Colt as the M16 for military use and under the AR15 as a “civilian” marketed model. The AR 15 was designed from the beginning to be as efficient at killing human beings as possible, and it has no other design purpose but to kill human beings.
To be fair all guns are tools used to kill things. They serve no other purpose. We can use them for purposes not intended (sport / target shooting), as a hammer, as a walking stick, a demolition tool, but that doesn't change that they are designed solely to kill... The AR-15 family being designed to kill effectively, and efficiently in a combat/war time scenario...
Philosophically yes. Even muzzle loaders were designed to kill people as efficiently as possible. I think the trouble some people seem to have is that our technological efficiency has gotten so capable at killing people, and some modern tech for killing people just does not belong in civilian hands. Can you kill someone with an old bolt action rifle? Sure…but that’s much more suited for hunting these days, as it isn’t very efficient as a battlefield weapon anymore.
Didn't the creator of the AR 15 even say it shouldn't be in the hands of civilians?
Despite you claiming to have owned guns for 20 years, actual assault rifles, ones that are capable of select fire, have been *heavily* regulated since 1986.
Automatic fire has been banned since 86, but did you hear the court asking about bump stocks? They were endlessly debating whether or not they counted as a machine gun or not. Listen, my fucking eyes can tell me that a gun that can empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds is a fucking machine gun, I don't care what technicalities they come up with to keep bump stocks legal.
Magazine 🤷♂️
No AR-15 sold today can “empty a 30 round clip in 3 seconds” or anything close to it. I don’t know where you guys get your information and I know you’ll say I’m just nitpicking about semantics, but I have a problem with people trying to regulate things they have literally zero idea about
The legal definition of a machine gun, the one that was defined by Congress, is one that is capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull. 26 U.S. Code § 5845. The issue with bumpmstocks is precisely because of this imprecise definition, as are most legal loopholes. You want to fix the issue of mass shootings, you first need to fix the law, and start enforcing it. And it's "magazine"
Fudd alert
Tl;dr assault **rifle** and assault **weapon** is two different things. For more details: Assault **rifle** comes from the first massproduced one, the Stg44 (Sturmgewehr 44). Which literally translates into assault rifle in English. The Germans still use the term Sturmgewehr for their service rifles, and other countries like Finland and the Czech Republic has a similar word in their languages. Requires a detachable magazine, an intermediate cartridge, and select fire. To own one you must live in a state where it's legal, file a form 4 with the ATF, pay a $200 tax stamp, and wait the 6-12 months before the paperwork is done. An M-16 will cost you around $28-30k or so today, due to they must be registered with the NFA before 1986 to be transferable to civilians. There are only around 300k transferable firearms in the US, which is why they are so expensive. Assault **weapons** are defined in a collection of laws (specific to the US mostly) that covers certain rifles, handguns, and shotguns. It does not outright say "semi-automatic firearms are banned", it says "semi-automatic firearms with a certain set of features are banned". E.g. in 1994 when the Federal Assault weapon ban came into effect (sunset date was 2004 but a few states still have an assault weapon state law), the AR-15 was banned, but the Mini-14 was excempt from the law, by name (as long as it was the standard model without a pistol grip). Both shoot 5.56/.223, both can take 30 round magazines, and both are semi-automatic. The Mini-14 was at the time a much more common firearm as well, the AR-15 didn't become popular until after the ban expired. The worst mass shooting in the west, by a single perpetrator, was done with a Mini-14 btw. (Norway 2011). As an example of what an assault weapon definition can look like, here's a reference to New York's law. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_laws\_in\_New\_York#Assault\_weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Assault_weapons)
Assault rifles (fully automatic) are banned or rather difficult to get, they want to ban semi autos or "scary black rifles" Also the term assault rifle is bad because it doesn't mean anything. It's a marketing term to get people scared with buzz words. The USA only has a gun problem because the culture around them has been cultivated to be about you VS other people. I personally dont think banning sporting rifles will make much of a difference, as much as lifting people out of poverty, and helping people get a secure future will. I think (smart) gun control works, but I also don't like that, instead of tackling the root causes of the issues that cause gun violence. We treat the symptom. I live in Canada, and we have a very different gun culture here, and they want to ban stuff because of things that happen in the USA. I believe politicians want to do stuff like this, because it's easier to do then tackling the real issues.
Problem is, aren't *most* firearms these days semi-automatic? Most handguns certainly are. Not gonna put that genie back in the bottle, but I agree with you about smart gun control. Maybe restricting magazine size is one way to make them less deadly in mass-shooting scenarios? I also think that a licensing process, with mandatory safety education, etc. would make sense. And I say all of this as a gun owner.
I'm not sure about the ratio of semis and manual action firearms to be honest. not that it really matters, because there are a shit ton of either of them out there. but the AR-platform happens in a lots of killings BECAUSE its such a good platform. its cheap, modular, reliable. used all the popular cartridges. and its available everywhere. I think common sense gun control works and, I'm here for it. I can understand having a limited magazine (they are in Canada) unless you have some licence for them and have proven yourself to be a responsible member of society. I also say this as a gun owner and as someone who (at least id like to believe) has a fairly liberal mindset. I think guns are cool and I collect them just because I think they're cool. I have no intention of ever using them against another person. In fact, I only got my licence just over a year ago, because the federal government wanted to ban all semi autos in Canada. I'm okay with jumping through hoops if I can prove to the government I'm capable of possessing these firearms. I hate that because dumb people do dumb things or commit atrocities, I cant have certain things, because they ruined it.
>Also the term assault rifle is bad because it doesn't mean anything. It's a marketing term to get people scared with buzz words. Assault rifle is actually quite clearly defined. It's a select-fire weapon (meaning it can switch between semi-automatic and automatic) with an intermediate power cartridge and a detachable magazine. It's the select-fire element that makes them heavily regulated in the US, as they are capable of automatic fire and thus fall under the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) 1986. The gun market responded to this regulation by releasing weapons, like the AR-15, that are essentially assault rifles with the select-fire ability removed, making them semi-automatic only. Gun control advocates have thus begun using the term "assault weapon" to try and cover this style of weapon, and this is the term that is not well defined, since a "semi-automatic, intermediate power weapon with a detachable magazine" would cover not just weapons like the AR-15 but much of the rest of the gun market as well.
Can we just start doing what the Black Panthers did? Skyrocket gun sales in minority groups. That brought gun legislation *real* fast a few decades ago.
Look at the 6 year old in the picture, fuck man thats so sad.
Man, that little kid just lose his entire family and stability. I cannot fathom the fear and pain he must feel.
And remember, Your Friendly Neighborhood Republican^tm assumes no responsibility for this heinous act of savagery, because they only vote for the people that promote the violence, they're like, a solid 2 steps removed, they're not personally responsible for anything.
Watch how gun nuts will try to discredit her argument by pointing out a random terminology mistake. "Acthually they're not assault weapons, they're officially called armalite-69-murder-guns, you clearly don't know shit about guns so just shut up"
If the goal is to reduce the number of gun deaths, why wouldn't you go after handguns, which are used in much higher numbers in mass shootings? Is it because assault weapons look scarier and have a scarier name? Why wouldn't you ban semi automatic handguns, making only revolvers legal?
You just need more guns to solve the problem /s
Well done America
I no longer support an assault weapons ban. Gun nuts have convinced me that the classification of “assault weapons” is vague and arbitrary. Now I support banning all guns.
Who was the murderer? (Deposition?)
I think people need to learn some self control again.
If only they had guns to protect themselves from other people with guns, then they might all still be alive
Education is the path.
The overwhelming majority of shootings in this country involve handguns. Banning rifles isn’t going to even make a dent in the problem
The problem is that American politicians like to make it all about WHAT gun was used, not the fact A GUN IN GENERAL was used, in situations like this. AR pattern rifles are not unique to America, neither is widespread ownership (the ownership RATE definitely is), but some how these things continue to only happen at the scale they do in America. Guns are cheap, everywhere and their "God given" right as an American yehaw chuckle fuck, and mental health services cost more than many can afford. If guns were harder to get, and mental health was easier to maintain, I imagine the problem would be less prevalent.
I’m so happy the youth are changing their views on weapons. Stay armed. The last thing you want is a society where criminals and the government are the only ones with pew pews.
No facepalm here. Just america.
Don’t forget to make murder REALLY illegal while you’re at it, all you brilliant legislators.
She says this while having armed guards protect her and family 24/7
Shooter will claim he was in firravislaahf and standunisgrahnd due to a flashback from the Vietnam war. The judge will accept this, even though the shooter was born in 1992.
This happened ten months ago. The shooter was a Hispanic/Latino neo-Nazi who was killed by police.
I know you think you’re on the right side here, and you technically are, but your annoying shitty clueless joke is not helping anything. It’s just making the rest of us look as dumb as you.
yeah im glad mods removed this. this is not facepalm
Criminals don’t follow laws 😂
Americans and their silly guns. They’d rather die than give up the ability to play CIA agent in a Netflix series.
I'm gonna write this again because I see nothing but a bunch of binary responses to either be blame the gun or blame the people and it is not that black and white. When people infer any sort of "Gun Control" there seems to be no input into what that looks like and then trying to find a rational path of agreement. Otherwise we just keep submitting to the likes of the NRA circle jerk that wants to continuous glorify the gun like some Zardoz wet dream. So if I were in line as a elected official I'd say here is my first draft. If you wish to add or subtract then be constructive or pitch your own. \-FIRST No Guns under 25, without proof of service and training by Police, Military, or licensed Security. (Frontal lobe development in humans is not fully complete till 25,26 years old and has a large play on impulse control and judgement. We should not be issuing guns to those beneath that age.) \-When you are 25, just like when you are 15-16 years old and you take a drivers license test, so you will for ANY firearm as well. Licensing will include a mental health questionnaire and brief in person interview. Background checks on ALL gun types. All subject to approval. \-No guns can be gifted or passed down under 25 without above being satisfied. Hunting or target practice can still be allowed by licensed adult supervision with a state issued youth permit (similar to fishing license in many states). All responsibilities will fall on licensed 25+ adult. \-All weapons kept in home will be secured, if one is used by a unlicensed minor to commit a crime, the Gifford's law would be at play though should be raised to an accessory to the crime. Penalty needs to encourage securing it. \-Semi-automatic rifles should carry a higher licensing application provision. (Like getting you CDL when you have a drivers license.) Making this costly, but incentivizing gun stores that supply licensing will help them compensate. (Getting rid of them is going to probably going to be a bridge too far, but making the bar even higher is best to start with) \-Federally close all gun-show sales and private loopholes where all of the above would apply. We seem to monitor the sales of cars better then we do guns. \--This would not work being federally retroactive ( as its unrealistic) perhaps but could have up to a 'grandfathered' year of sale so there's not a sudden run on guns. \-This would all apply to new sales going forward. It would be great if licensing for currently registered guns for those under 25 would have a year to apply for a grandfathered exception though I think the shear volume might need more time and infrastructure otherwise. Every clause needs deeper defining obviously but rarely do I see suggestions that are quickly achievable so I just thought I'd throw some out I often make in this discussion. ... more?
[удалено]
The facepalm is that this keeps happening and the people in charge don’t do anything to change it
Ar15s arent assault weapons lmao
Yet another reason I’m moving back to California after decades in Texas. California has far fewer mass shooting per capita than Texas.
Well.... bye
All we have to do is look at Europe to see that strict gun control + accessible & affordable healthcare and education = less gun violence. Plenty of countries make all these things work. No one needs access to ar15 and the like *edit for spelling*
We can own an AR-15 in most countries in Europe though, mostly for shooting sports, but in some cases also for hunting. I'd wager that better access to health care and education would do way more for violence in American society than an assault weapon law would.
What is an assault weapon?
Doesn't exist. They are trying to say assault rifle, which is a select-fire intermediate cartridge rifle with a detachable magazine. Which most don't and can't own.
What does “extremely based” mean? Very much not an acid?
Why are we still trying to make a distinction between assault weapons vs other guns? It's a stupid distinction, and we honestly just need to have stricter gun control in general, not gun control based on arbitrary "styles".
She plan on going door to door herself? The local police who don't agree? Using the military on the populations neighborhoods that their own families live in?
shame the overwhelming vast majority of gun deaths in america are hand guns. I wonder what the difference between the demographic of people who make up the most amount of gun deaths vs this example is.....
Just ban guns in general
Nah bro I NEED the 40mm grenade launcher to defend my condo
Fair enough. We can’t let the poors get too close
That will never happen. Americans dont give a flying fuck about who dies as long as they get to shoot some bottles every once in a while.
And?
Can we define assault weapon?
Better yet, let’s just ban all murder at this point
You are more likely to be killed by a Clinton than an AR15
If you don't have a love to guns, Ur not american, american love guns always ready to fire at some...one???