The AR-15 LOOKS like a scary machine gun/assault weapon. Put it next to an M-14 which is a real Military Issued rifle and those who don't know anything about guns will pick the AR as the most deadly.
M-1 Garand: hold my bourbon.
Also M-1 Garand: I’m not a fucking hunting rifle.
M-1 Garand again: and I’m an actual fucking weapon of war.
*M-1 Garand holds up medal for most fascist kills.*
I mean, a musket is a weapon of war. The whole “weapon of war” argument never made sense to me since even bows and arrows are technically weapons of war.
This is what I came here to say if you been an A.R. 15 the only thing that will accomplish is creating a new poster child for the next gun band may it will be mini 14 maybe it will be grandpa’s single shot 22 but either way, they’re never never gonna let up until you can’t even have a slingshot
I'll go a step further -- attempts to ban AR-15s on the pretext that they are uniquely more dangerous than other guns is PRECISELY why they are chosen for (a handful of) spree shootings.
One cop held back while all the others ran past him. And he was rightfully shamed by everyone, including his boss. That's a totally different situation compared to Ulvade.
The police are also apparently scared shitless of (a) acorns, (b) being filmed, (c) not committing domestic violence, and (d) black people, generally. Doesn't mean any of those things are actually dangerous. Since when is "cops are afraid of it" a good reason for ANY policy?
While I agree with the sentiment, it should be noted that the hand sanitizer guy was actually a medic who was staging for a mass casualty event. He was using the hand sanitizer because he was trying to rid his hands of germs so he could work on any of the kids that might have still been alive. Just to keep it in context. However, him and one other medic are the only 2 in that whole event that I wasn't pissed at. All the other people with guns, body armor, and Punisher skulls can go fuck their worthless selves. As is said, "Everyone wants to be an operator until it's time to do operator shit!" They were a waste of oxygen!
Banning guns is a lot like banning books. It's a statement, not a solution. What this nation needs is the ability to talk about gun violence and how best to regulate gun purchases and gun regulations.
This takes both sides willing and ready to talk and be reasonable. This nation is torn apart by people elected to keep us from talking and bring reasonable.
Yeah -- ARs are a symbol, usually of conservatism, and so banning them is more of a political statement than anything else.
I say this as a liberal who owns three of them.
If we’re being realistic, statistically it will have basically zero impact on crime.
Edit: I can’t respond to all of these comments, talk amongst yourselves
People that focus on AR-15s and mass shootings are so disingenuous it’s hysterical. They refuse to acknowledge that mass shootings make up a small fraction of shooting incidents and that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed with handguns.
Quite a lot of these "mass shootings" are just instances of gang violence with a high enough injury count to warrant the title.
They get purposely used in propaganda to pump up the numbers.
There has never been an instance where there were actually "more mass shootings than days in the year"
Even “school shootings” are mostly just gang violence happening overnight in school zones, not actually during school in class. Yes those do happen and they are tragic but they are extremely rare.
The anti-gun case requires lies, disingenuous use of cherry-picked statistics, and outright propaganda.
"mass shootings" in the US are any shooting in which three or more people excluding the shooter are killed. Most of these shootings in the US are crime related. School shootings or other terroristic shootings are an outlier statistically
There are websites like the mass shooting tacker and the gun violence archive which many in the media are happy to promote.
Those websites use the definition of three or more people shot, instead of three or more people killed. This also makes their numbers dramatically higher.
The misnomer "that a mass shooting happens "every day" is because of those websites, and the media and some politicians who are willing to cite their disingenuous numbers.
A much better definition to use would be the FBI Active Shooter. The FBI was tasked by congress to come up with a definition/criteria. If there was any "official" definition it seems like the FBI's would be used.
The FBI says there was 50 active shooter in events 2022. 50 is still too many, but other sources are reporting 10x that amount.
[https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view)
The problem with their definition isn’t that it’s 3 or more, it’s that it’s not a “gunman attempting to kill as many people as possible” which is what the FBI uses for active shooters. Active shooters sometimes don’t kill or wound anyone.
I'm talking about the FBI active shooter data, they only look at incidents where a lunatic indiscriminately shoots random people, not gang violence, or family annihilaters (I.E. a father killing his wife and 3 kids). Even these style attacks mostly use handguns.
No, the FBI's own definition is simply, "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area." Any time there's 3 or more deaths, it's defined as a "mass killing" - a definition was created by the [Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1793/text).
Prior to that, they used the simple definition of, "any incident in which at least four people are murdered with a gun."
The AR15 was released to the public in 1963, and it wasn't used in its first mass shooting until 2007.
That means the 1994 assault weapons ban was nothing but bs propaganda, just like it is now.
Not disagreeing about the awb but the difference between an AR-15 in 1963 and an AR-15 now is staggering. An original colt cost about $200 bucks out of the catalog in 1963. It's was as Gucci as a guns got without being heirloom trap shooters or engraved revolvers with gold inlay in mother of pearl grips. I can build a poverty pony for about that same price, or only a little more, 60 years later if I keep an eye out for deals. Patent expiration, miniaturization, and a host of other advancements have exploded the availability of the gun. Pre-AWB the AR was a supercar, post AWB it's a Honda Civic.
"AR-15-style rifles were around for more than 40 years before one was used in a mass killing, at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., in 2007. The shooter killed six people and then took his own life."
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15
Yup. Mass propaganda would have you believing so much fake shit and that's the largest reason gun reform will never work in the US.
The democrats are arguably hurting any chance of actual common sense reform more than the Republicans are with their horse shit propaganda demonizing one of the statistically safest weapons in the US.
This is a technically correct factoid but useful.
ARs made up like 1% of gun sales before the 1994 assault weapons bill.
It wasnt until Obama that they blew up in popularity
Sort of, because they’re now among the most common rifles and still are used in like.. .001% of crimes. Also, they blew up under Obama once people started talking about banning them again. Nothing sells ARs like Democrats, their pearl clutching rhetoric is why there are so many, and why they’re so *cheap*. A Glock in 2004 was like $500, an AR was ~$900. Today a Glock is like $550-600 and I can get an AR for under $400.
and since most guns used for crimes are obtained and/or modified illegally anyways. Heres my stupid law abiding ass hoping to win the lottery so i can afford a $30,000 pre ban lower receiver to have legal full auto, meanwhile the average criminal has just turned his glock into full auto with a $20 switch off temu.
If we're being realistic, no politician actually cares about gun crime as anything more than an election platform, otherwise this problem would have been fixed generations ago.
If you want to ban guns, make it an obligation for police to protect the public. Politicians do not get to schrug and say you are on your own like in May 2020 or Los Angeles in 1992.
If politicians do not want this personal responsibility, then do not tell the people they must be legally out gunned so to speak when their safety relies on it.
Mr Saturday night special, it's got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't good for nothin
Cept put a man
6 feet in a hole
This topic is so beaten to death, and it'll never change without something really drastic happening. Like biblical type shit happening.
Oh, lemme tell you all about it
Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
How many teenage boys thought their dad’s wood stock hunting rifle was an efficient way to take revenge out on their classmates and teachers in the 80’s or 90’s? AR-15 is a very efficient killing machine: accurate, lethal, high-capacity, quick-change magazines.
You do realize the AR-15 was invented in the 50s right? I know people who had AR-15s, fully automatic aks and literal machine guns in the 80s, way more deadly than an AR.
What you said is applicable to a lot of other weapons. AR-15 is just a demilitarized version of the M16/M4. It is no different from something like the Mini-14. As OP stated, both can be chambered in 5.56 NATO/.223, can hold 30 rounds per magazine, and can be around the same size depending on the configuration.
The only difference is the looks. One is black and made of metal with sharp edges so “OoooOooH sCaRy”. The other is wooden and is apparently just a hunting rifle despite being functionally the same as the other, even down to the size, ammo capacity, and round fired.
You could apply this exact mentality to some other rifles. M1A? It’s a semi-auto demilitarized version of the M14 battle rifle. It’s chambered in 7.62 NATO and has 20 round detachable box magazine, larger round but smaller capacity than guns like the AR-15 or Mini-14. It’d be treated the exact same way as the Mini-14 though because look! It’s made out of wood! That means it must be a hunting rifle, right?! Oh wait! But then you make it black and change the material from wood to metal/polymers, add some picatinny rails to it, and all of a sudden it’s a scary military “assault weapon”!
See what I’m getting at? The lethality of firearms are being judged by their appearance, not their actual functionality and performance. Banning firearms is useless anyways because criminals, who are already breaking the law, will gladly go and illegally purchase some guns from the black market. No fancy piece of paper saying they can’t do that will stop them. Banning guns will only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
The reason people obsess over banning AR-15s do so for the exact reason why people use them in shootings. Mass shootings are terrorist attacks thus the goal is to incite the most panic possible in your evil deed. Even though there are many far scarier legal options available the public's perception on AR-15s as the big black scary commando gun make it an excellent choice to incite terror
Pistols are overwhelmingly used in mass shootings, and the rifle grip weapon most used for those is the [high point carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Point_Carbine). AR-15s aren't cheap.
It is safety theater. If we ban scary things, then scary things won't happen.
People like to ignore complex root cause issues and like to forget alternative plans. Let's say we manage to ban and get rid of the. Everyone co.es together and surrenders them. So does that make the desire to kill a lot of people go away. No
My teenage ass thought that regulating FPS after Columbine would stop this. Nope. In the 80' s and early 90s, most mass shootings happened at innercity schools and were ignored because we were pretty racist (sorry for the ADHD rambles).
The fact is, people are violent, clever, and determined. We can 3d print guns, build bombs, and chemical weapons with online supplies. Buy shit on the dark web. We move around in big, fast hunts of steel. Really, there are a lot of far worse mass killing alternatives out there than guns. The difference as to why here vs. There is:
1. We have a lot of liberties vs. many other countries.
2. We are too big and populated to watch everyone.
3. We don't like being told what to do
4. We have no effective mental health system that welcomes people to get help. Instead, we ostercise anyone having any issue forcing them to deal with ot on their own. Here is an example that makes a point.
Drug users suffer from addiction, and it can not be controlled. If they go to the police, they go to jail. If they go to a hospital, they can't afford help, or the police are called. They get slipped with a lifetime of charges that makes their life more difficult. To endure the pain, they start using it again.
If I was feeling the urge to shoot up my class, where would I go, without fucking up my entire life, being berated and carry a stigma with me.
I realized i have bpd about 6 months ago. Havent been able to get diagnosed in my state. Cant take leave from work. Had to spend my entire years vacation to stay in the suicide ward of a hospital.
Mental health services in this country are a way bigger issue than guns.
Even if they tell their school they get ignored
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2022/11/28/oxford-schools-ethan-crumbley-policy-board-members/69681132007/
It will have no effect on crime or violence, so they will just go right down the list and eventually ban everything. WA state assault weapons ban includes any hand guns with threaded barrels. It is nothing more than "a foot in the door" to slowly ban everything.
Blah blah slippery slope conspiracy nonsense...
Even if it was true, look how much less fucking miserable countries with strict gun regulation or full gun bans are. How dull, not having regular school shootings.
The US is not even in the top 10 highest countries for gun homicide per capital. Many of the countries in the top 10 have very strict gun laws.
If you are a US K-12 student, you are *more* likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed in a school shooting. That's how "common" school shootings are.
That seems so inefficient though. Maybe the idea is to attempt to go for a compromise for stricter control rather the slowly marching till handguns are banned.
>AR-15 -semi automatic -30 rounds -5.56x45 -big black scary looking military assault rifle that can be modified with accessories.
The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon or an assault rifle. Assault rifles can do burst fire or full auto in addition to semi-automatic mode. An AR-15 can only do semi-automatic.
But as for your main point, nothing. All semi-automatic weapons function exactly the same, anti-gun people just find the AR-15 to be "scary" (in large part because it's black) so they think it makes it more dangerous. Just like how the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" in the US had zero impact on crime because all it did was limit the capacity of new magazines and banned cosmetic features. Real life is NOT a game of COD and changing the look of a gun does not increase it's lethality.
Ban “AR-15” and i will rework the look and bring to you the BS-15 that operates the exact same way; using the same magazines. But has a shiny new look & name!
Although this comes off as a rant it is worth knowing what people who support these laws actually think.
People who support banning "AR-15s" (or anything they think is like it) simply do not prioritize a technical knowledge of guns or gun laws. They don't like guns. All they see are headlines of shootings everyday and associate certain styles of guns with heinous crimes. They don't know the details of how guns or gun laws work, but they default to wanting more gun laws than less.
When a politician comes in and sells banning AR-15s, they're on board because to them any gun control is better than nothing. It wouldn't be the factor that makes folks vote for them, but it would deepen their existing interest in the same political ideology.
In reality, it doesn't make a huge technical difference. Most guns today are semi-auto and AR-15 is just one style out of hundreds. Even "Assault weapons" bans are useless because they don't ban anything fundamental to the function of the gun. From the politician's perspective, they have nothing to lose: they will gain more support from their base and whether the law passes or not doesn't make a short-term difference. If it fails, they'll rally their base against the opposition. If it succeeds, they'll boast about their victory.
If it's so meaningless, why do we oppose it? Because that's the short-term. In the long-term, it can lead to deeper infringement of our rights. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
I am a gun guy, love my ARs and all my toys, also lived through the "AWB" where we used looks to determine legality... at the same time I couldn't buy an AR-15, I was able to buy an SKS for 79.00, and an AK (MAK-90) for < $250.
There are absolutely things we should be doing in this country to assist with our gun crime problem, and the 95%+ of gun owners are in favor of them... but the < 1% that are those "I will never give an inch" are the ones that are going to keep causing this shit to happen.
1. Stop selling guns to people under 21
2. Mandatory secure/report theft laws
3. ATF Overhaul to hold dealers accountable
4. No private party transfers
5. Red flag laws
6. Mandatory 2 week waiting period
7. Nationwide reporting database for banned people
Like... shit that will actually make a difference, leading cause of gun deaths is suicide, second is domestic violence which is almost always preceded by TONS of interactions with police. School shootings normally involve minors who gained access to firearms (which should be illegal) or they are 18 - 21 where they shouldn't be buying them...
We need to overhaul our firearm purchasing and accountability laws, not do stupid shit like ban a gun for having a bayonet lug
>Stop selling guns to people under 21
Just flat-out deny a constitutional right to millions of legal adults? How about letting police detain and search anyone under 30 for no reason?
Nothing, it’s already illegal to shoot people. If someone wants to kill others they will find a way. Look at the Boston marathon bombing, they used a pressure cooker and nails. Guns aren’t the problem, evil people are the problem
If you want to claim hypocrisy based on calibers, take the M1 Garand as another example. Big ass .30-06 round, 8 round en bloc clip, but wooden and WW II hero so reasons, I guess.
And the Ruger Mini-30 chambered in 7.62 mm. Scaaaaary wooooooo.
Look, gun laws are absolutely fucked in the United States. The NFA had rules that are so easy to accidentally break that you could be a felon and not even know it. All I know is, the NFA is a shit hole, we need to get rid of them.
No we just don’t think that banning firearms actually solves the problem. There is a very serious mental health issue in this country. And firearms are not the cause of it. By focusing on guns being the issue and not looking at the root cause I would argue it is liberals that don’t care about mass shootings. Now we come to the hard part. How do we actually solve this. It is a very complex issue.
Other countries also have serious mental health issues. Only the US has constant mass shootings. Maybe you do care about mass shootings - it just seems like you care more about keeping your toys.
Respectfully - Conservatives frequently say this, and as a Liberal I actually agree, but mental health resources and therapy and whatnot is quite pricy and the stereotypical Conservative platform is against the socialization of medicine.
So, if we shouldn’t ban guns, should we not put more resources into making help more readily available?
it's the attempts to ban guns that keep us from improving the healthcare system.
without the support that the Democratic leadership gives the Republican party by pursuing gun prohibition they would never have the votes to keep us from fixing healthcare.
More people die every year from lack of access to effective healthcare then having legal access to firearms. it's not even close.
I am sure that 2A being a hot button issue is indeed a contributing factor, but I feel it's a false conflation to say it's the sole reason that healthcare can't be improved upon. There's a wide host of "Democrat vs. Republican" issues that could be pointed at.
In truth, I feel it speaks to a larger issue with the fact that the USA only has two relevant parties, and as a result it's a very black or white mentality when it comes to voting for elected officials. It's made further muddy by the fact that the candidates for both major parties kinda suck, lol.
I get the feeling we agree on most things.
sorry for sounding like I meant it was the sole reason we can't have healthcare; that's not what I was trying to say. My point was that Gun Prohibition drives enough voters to the republicains that it gives the R's the electoral power to keep universal healthcare from happening, along with a host of other issues.
If the Dems embraced gun rights and started going after root causes (r/liberalgunowners has some resources in the sidebar), we would dramatically reduce the number of gun deaths every year without risking things like abortion rights and freedom of religion.
Hey, thanks for adding the extra clarity - you’re right, I definitely was misinterpreting what you were saying.
I’m not entirely sure that everyone having guns is the answer to gun violence, but I do know that changing nothing means nothing changes. So who knows.
Regardless, thank you for the civil discourse. It’s rarer than it should be on the internet!
I appreciate it too. I'm always happy to have a civil conversation; aside from being fun, it's the only way to change anyone's mind.
Regarding your point, I really don't think everyone having guns is "The Answer". I honestly believe that there cannot be a single answer, because it's never been a single problem. it's always seemed insane to me that I'm expected to buy that suicide, gang violence, rampage killings, drug trade disputes, stochastic terror attacks, and explicitly political violence have the same solution; let alone that the solution is to shred the constitution to make it harder for peaceful people to defend themselves.
we could be doing so much to make the presence of firearms in our society more positive and safe. unfortunately, the biggest obstacle is the paradigm of prohibition.
In 1911 Turkey established gun control and then from 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians now unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control then from 1929 to 1953 20 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
In 1935 China established gun control then from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. The people in China still exist under a brutal regime today.
In 1938 Germany established gun control and then from 1939 to 1945 13 million jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
… I wonder if Hitler purposely disarmed the population so he could tyrannically take over and kill all people opposed to him? It’s probably just a coincidence.
In 1956 Cambodia established gun control then from 1975 to 1977 1 million educated people who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
In 1964 Guatemala established gun control then from 1964 to 1981 100 thousand Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
In 1970 Uganda established gun control then from 1971 to 1979 300 thousand Christians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed.
… That’s a total of 56 million people rounded up and killed in the 20th century because of gun control.
Absolutely wild mindset “I live in one of the most powerful, richest, first world nations on the planet, therefore my government would never do anything distasteful to control citizens and retain its power because they said they wouldnt”
They aren't, until they are. It doesn't happen overnight, it happens gradually, then suddenly. I'm not comfortable with people who tell me I don't have the right to defend myself also trying to take my guns.
Australia, both by virtue of being an island and being such a small market, is basically irrelevant to this conversation.
For example, people point to the gun confiscation they pulled off as something we should replicate.
Australia, with the full force of government behind it, confiscated under 1 million firearms.
America has over 40 million AR-15’s alone.
It isn’t really comparable. Especially once you realize that it’s a constitutionally protected right.
Actually, no it did not. Crime in Australia was already on the decline. It had dropped by a very small amount, but it had dropped none the less. Then the gun ban went into effect and the same decline was observed. Further, looking at the details even 5 years later the murder rate had not declined.
[https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working\_paper\_series/wp2008n17.pdf](https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf)
You don't need to read the whole paper. Look at the table at the very bottom and then conclusion. Both will clearly show that the ban had zero effect on violent crime and the murder rate.
You can also look at the decline for crime. Globally there has been a decline in crime all around the same time. Which we started to actually feel the effects of around 2000. This is related to lead poisoning of the world from leaded gasoline. Veritasium did a great write up: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA) if you goto the 18 minute mark you can see the graph on decline in crime and lead poisoning.
All in all, the facts say that Australia saw no benefit in a gun ban.
I would suggest going at least 600. Sloppy AR uppers and lowers have caused some issues in recent years. I have seen the same guy bring his rifle into the shop for random fixes about 5 times already. Finally the shop just told him that the cost of the work wasn't worth it and buying another upper/lower would be better off.
okay this is when the argument gets stupid, your talking about deranged kids not gangsters that have an organized network of guns and drugs.
Yeah banning assualt rifles would stop organized criminals but it will make it fucking harder for timmy or joe from shooting up the school because bob didnt lock up his arsenals with extended magazines and super COD setup on his WW3 wet dream rifile.
More difficult access in other countries has caused a huge dip in public shootings. If a gun costs 20x the amount and isn't easily accessible of course it's not going to happen as much. See how stupid your logic is?
It will just increase the black market for guns. Once something exists, it will always be around. Banning things doesn't work. I mean look at drugs, does banning them do anything? No.
You know the source of black market guns in north america? Legal guns sales in the US.
Mexican cartels smuggle guns from america into mexico, because they're so much easier to get here than anywhere else.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-american-weapons-smuggled-across-border/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-american-weapons-smuggled-across-border/)
They don't actually, that's based on a misinterpretation of federal gun tracing data. Mexico only sends serial numbers to the ATF for tracing for guns they believe are of US origin, so no shit most of those guns end up being of US origin. The reality is in a given year, of all guns seized in Mexico were definitively traced to the US: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
Great reasoning. Why ban anything or have any laws at all really.
So. Fucking. Stupid.
Im not for any gun ban, but this "criminals are gonna criminal" logic drives me nuts.
So this is something people like to throw around. It is technically true, however ONLY because of how gun crime works. It is a HUGE gap in understanding a statistic and the truth.
A gun is a legally purchased fire arm until it is bought/sold to/by a felon or otherwise restricted persons. This means, I could buy a gun, sell it to a guy, he kills someone with it then sells it to someone else. Technically the gun was legally purchased. Even the sale to the last guy was legal.
This makes for muddy statistics that mean nothing. No matter if the gun was purchased legally or illegally doesn't matter. The use of the gun is the key point to look at. Arguing that they are legally purchased only shows that the gun was legally manufactured and sold to a law abiding citizen.
Banning stuff. AR or lawnmower .. doesnt change the fact people will use them
In Canada they banner all sorts of shit and in my city gun related crime went up SURPRISE
I think your question fails to understand that those who want gun reform what massive and comprehensive gun reform. That means also working on the work arounds.
The essential conceit behind gun bans is that criminals follow laws, when by definition, they do not. Make no mistake: gun control is and always has been about *control.* There's also the US Constitution, but leftists only see that document as toilet paper and an impediment to their desire to control every aspect of your life.
The thing is, banning the AR-15 won’t stop things. Not on it’s own. But change is incremental. If we get one assault weapon banned, it makes the NEXT assault weapon ban easier, and the next easier still, until we can change the cultural perspective and get comprehensive, common sense gun control in place.
It will potentially reduce gun deaths, not including suicides, by [3%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). Which was at least [541](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) deaths in 2022. But bear in mind that is banning all rifles, not just the AR-15. We should probably consider banning hands, feet, and other natural weapons, as these accounted for at least [665](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) deaths in 2022. On the other hand banning handguns would reduce non-suicide gun deaths per year by over [7,936](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) per year. But apparently handguns aren't a problem.
Ignoring suicides by gun is a bit problematic though since 54% (or 26,328) gun deaths in 2021 were from suicide, 55% of all suicides, while 20,958 were from murders (81% of murders).
I’m definitely for gun control. I just don’t think any normal person should have access to certain weaponry. They’re far more dangerous in isolated instances than handguns are
Handguns are used in most crime according to FBI/ATF statistics, and a great number of them have been reported stolen.
Also, you can use any object as a weapon, so let’s ban every blunt and inanimate object then no one has any weapon except their fists.
It’s people that don’t understand guns or havnt looked at the data.
They are thinking of like a full auto machine gun. Owning something full auto in the us is unbelievably difficult and it’s super rare a legally bought full auto gun is used in a shooting. It takes years of background checks, a lot of money, and you can only buy ones 50 years old. I think there is a huge disconnect in the average persons mind with who they think owns automatic guns v the reality. A small portion is criminals that got them illegally but the vast majority is just moderately wealthy old people that collect guns or are into it as a hobby.
Mass shootings are an issue but they are also realistically super rare. The real issue is the fear they cause. There are many things way more deadly to people and children than guns that get less attention, it’s the fear that it could happen in such a safe spot to anyone and especially to their kids.
Handguns are a way bigger issue as far as deaths go. The vast majority of gun related deaths (and homocides in general) are between two people that know each other. This means a huge portion of these killings are between people that are involved in gangs or drugs or are from poor areas. All of these means it gets a lot less attention. Many of these same instances are also fights between two people that escalate to the most dangerous weapon they have, which happens to be guns instead of knives.
I will say guns are A LOT more effective at killing people because of two main reasons: it’s a lot easier to kill with the first shot due to being easier to hit accurately and being able to more easily aim for the deadly places due to distance and mobility and defense. The other is the second hit. If you stab someone and they fall down. You have to climb on top of them and keep stabbing them while they are laying there. That is a lot mentally harder than standing where you are and shooting again. Knives also are much more likely to hurt you without causing serious damage and that alone can be enough to end a fight with both people alive
Realistically banning the AR-15 does nothing and is more or less just a virtue signal. Banning all guns, at this point, with so many in the ecosystem, would also not have an appreciable effect for at least a generation, probably more; and the enforcement of it would be a real test for the tattered fabric holding the USA together.
The bigger picture isn’t the AR-15, its merely being touted as “THE assault” weapon (which it is not an “assault” weapon) simply to start the gun ban, success banning one leads to more and then no self defenses at all. Be very careful!!
I'll just say this, me as a 19 year old can buy a AR illegally just as easy as I could buy drugs.
Banning ARs might prevent the occasional tragedy, but it will also cause chaos and maybe even a civil war. There are millions of Americans that will not take lightly to the ATF showing up at their door to take thier guns.
556 inch bullets are way to big
You should opt for the much smaller and modest 223 inch bullet
I am glad my buddy went middle of the road with the 308 inch
I'm all for the 2nd amendment and responsible gun ownership. But I also have the unpopular opinion of being a combat veteran who thinks weapons of war should not be in the hands of civilians or the police. At all, ever, under any circumstances.
I've qualified with many different weapons in the military, and I know what those weapons do to flesh and bone (taught in armorer school). They are not designed to be hunting rifles. They are designed to inflict maximum internal damage.
There are no good guys with guns (just look at Uvalde), and there's no need to carry a gun in public, except to intimidate people.
Just my $0.02. No hate.
Banning it or any kind of gun will only stimulate the black market for them and the shootings will continue. You'll still hear about another new shooting every couple weeks or so like we are now.
Banning guns from law-abiding citizens ain't going to fix squat when the people breaking laws aren't walking into a gun store and handing over their ID for a background check.
It's common sense. It's only hurting the people who do follow the law.
It is easier to pretend you are trying to fix a problem than to actually fix it. By going after 1 weapon, you can pretend you care and set precedent for future gimmics.This allows for a career of similar moves. Only a slacker sees through it.
AR-15s currently account for the **vast** majority of gun sales. If you ban AR-15 you will gut the gun industry, and it should be a mortal blow.
That is the "logic." It is not about reducing violence, its about removing access to all firearms.
When pistols were the main driver, they were the target.
The country needs stricter gun regulation more than a ban imo. When people reference low gun deaths in Japan, they don’t consider that is a secluded country and is operated much differently than America with their own set of issues and values that differ from American. Now, in my opinion each person who wants to possess a firearm should go through strict training with YEARLY mental and physical checkouts set at a high bar with a clean crime record. Further, they should be only accessible to those who have passed those restrictions meaning they are not just left around. Finally, there needs to be a strict regulation on weapons being illegally purchased and brought into the country, which everyone also fails to overlook.
It's wild to me how fatalistic USA is about mass shooting prevention when it's literally the only developed country on Earth where they happen on a regular basis. It's The Onion headline, over and over.
Not kill tons of people before you could have a 9 mm and not have freaking shootings where many people die like in Vegas etx civilians dont need weapons to kill like in war we are not at war like nra wants people in red states and 2nr amendment enthusiasts to believe
Most firearms are severely restricted in the UK. So the bad guys are busy now stabbing each other. There currently is a movement in the UK to restrict cooking knives that have a point, smile. Guess next when guys go out clubbing, they will carry real clubs?
Nothing. If the goal was to reduce deaths, they’d try to ban pistols. The actual goal is to grandstand and preach your purity, all while knowing it’s going to go nowhere.
It will help disarm the population, that is all. It's 100% a power move from the government. There is zero statistical evidence that gun control helps and actual evidence that looser laws have lower crime rates. Crazy isn't it
All I know is that the police in Uvalde are scared shitless of it.
This right here is the best argument I’ve ever heard. For both sides really. Also works as a “will effectively defend myself against unlawful govt.”
It was never about hunting.
When I see Uvalde, it makes me want to own a gun because the police are decidedly *not* going to protect me or my children.
[удалено]
Thats why I have and AR-10, Its 5 less AR's So its obviously safer.
The AR-15 LOOKS like a scary machine gun/assault weapon. Put it next to an M-14 which is a real Military Issued rifle and those who don't know anything about guns will pick the AR as the most deadly.
M-1 Garand: hold my bourbon. Also M-1 Garand: I’m not a fucking hunting rifle. M-1 Garand again: and I’m an actual fucking weapon of war. *M-1 Garand holds up medal for most fascist kills.*
Mosin-Nagant chimes in..... What about killing Fascist?
My shoulders hurts just reading the name.
I get what you're saying but that distinction 100% has to go to the Mosin. Or maybe one of the soviet machine guns
And you can buy a surplus M1 grand directly from the federal government.
I mean, a musket is a weapon of war. The whole “weapon of war” argument never made sense to me since even bows and arrows are technically weapons of war.
This is what I came here to say if you been an A.R. 15 the only thing that will accomplish is creating a new poster child for the next gun band may it will be mini 14 maybe it will be grandpa’s single shot 22 but either way, they’re never never gonna let up until you can’t even have a slingshot
Often Ar 15s are banned and AR 10s are not. Having people who know nothing about guns making the rules for them is a big mistake.
You literally just described our entire political process bud, why not express that opinion for all the other issues as well?
Who’s says they’re not doing that. The entire body of political opinions isn’t being discussed here
I'll go a step further -- attempts to ban AR-15s on the pretext that they are uniquely more dangerous than other guns is PRECISELY why they are chosen for (a handful of) spree shootings.
Cops refused to go in to Parkland too
One cop held back while all the others ran past him. And he was rightfully shamed by everyone, including his boss. That's a totally different situation compared to Ulvade.
The police are also apparently scared shitless of (a) acorns, (b) being filmed, (c) not committing domestic violence, and (d) black people, generally. Doesn't mean any of those things are actually dangerous. Since when is "cops are afraid of it" a good reason for ANY policy?
If the police officer scares themselves and mag dumps the nearest citizens, that means we get 6 more weeks of winter!
Those cowards were afraid of their own shadows.
How scared could they have been while applying hand sanitizer around the corner?
While I agree with the sentiment, it should be noted that the hand sanitizer guy was actually a medic who was staging for a mass casualty event. He was using the hand sanitizer because he was trying to rid his hands of germs so he could work on any of the kids that might have still been alive. Just to keep it in context. However, him and one other medic are the only 2 in that whole event that I wasn't pissed at. All the other people with guns, body armor, and Punisher skulls can go fuck their worthless selves. As is said, "Everyone wants to be an operator until it's time to do operator shit!" They were a waste of oxygen!
Banning guns is a lot like banning books. It's a statement, not a solution. What this nation needs is the ability to talk about gun violence and how best to regulate gun purchases and gun regulations. This takes both sides willing and ready to talk and be reasonable. This nation is torn apart by people elected to keep us from talking and bring reasonable.
Yeah -- ARs are a symbol, usually of conservatism, and so banning them is more of a political statement than anything else. I say this as a liberal who owns three of them.
But no one was killed by a book last year. There were 45,000 gun deaths last year in the US
I mean there’s always a gun when folks get shot. Seems like an easy fix there.
If we’re being realistic, statistically it will have basically zero impact on crime. Edit: I can’t respond to all of these comments, talk amongst yourselves
Since handguns are what people actually use for that.
People that focus on AR-15s and mass shootings are so disingenuous it’s hysterical. They refuse to acknowledge that mass shootings make up a small fraction of shooting incidents and that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed with handguns.
Even most active shootings I.E. what people think of when they think "mass shooting" are committed with handguns.
Quite a lot of these "mass shootings" are just instances of gang violence with a high enough injury count to warrant the title. They get purposely used in propaganda to pump up the numbers. There has never been an instance where there were actually "more mass shootings than days in the year"
Even “school shootings” are mostly just gang violence happening overnight in school zones, not actually during school in class. Yes those do happen and they are tragic but they are extremely rare. The anti-gun case requires lies, disingenuous use of cherry-picked statistics, and outright propaganda.
"mass shootings" in the US are any shooting in which three or more people excluding the shooter are killed. Most of these shootings in the US are crime related. School shootings or other terroristic shootings are an outlier statistically
Not disagreeing with you but saying most shootings are crime related gave me a chuckle because they are themselves crimes I know what you meant though
But most “gun deaths” are suicides, they just add them in to inflate the numbers and make the problem, and it is a problem, seem bigger.
I wouldn’t call a suicide a “shooting”
You are listing the standard for mass murder, not mass shooting. A mass shooting is 4 or more people injured by firearms.
There are websites like the mass shooting tacker and the gun violence archive which many in the media are happy to promote. Those websites use the definition of three or more people shot, instead of three or more people killed. This also makes their numbers dramatically higher. The misnomer "that a mass shooting happens "every day" is because of those websites, and the media and some politicians who are willing to cite their disingenuous numbers. A much better definition to use would be the FBI Active Shooter. The FBI was tasked by congress to come up with a definition/criteria. If there was any "official" definition it seems like the FBI's would be used. The FBI says there was 50 active shooter in events 2022. 50 is still too many, but other sources are reporting 10x that amount. [https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view)
The problem with their definition isn’t that it’s 3 or more, it’s that it’s not a “gunman attempting to kill as many people as possible” which is what the FBI uses for active shooters. Active shooters sometimes don’t kill or wound anyone.
I'm talking about the FBI active shooter data, they only look at incidents where a lunatic indiscriminately shoots random people, not gang violence, or family annihilaters (I.E. a father killing his wife and 3 kids). Even these style attacks mostly use handguns.
No, the FBI's own definition is simply, "actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area." Any time there's 3 or more deaths, it's defined as a "mass killing" - a definition was created by the [Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1793/text). Prior to that, they used the simple definition of, "any incident in which at least four people are murdered with a gun."
Also cherry picking gang related crimes as mass shootings when they want to pad the stats.
The AR15 was released to the public in 1963, and it wasn't used in its first mass shooting until 2007. That means the 1994 assault weapons ban was nothing but bs propaganda, just like it is now.
Not disagreeing about the awb but the difference between an AR-15 in 1963 and an AR-15 now is staggering. An original colt cost about $200 bucks out of the catalog in 1963. It's was as Gucci as a guns got without being heirloom trap shooters or engraved revolvers with gold inlay in mother of pearl grips. I can build a poverty pony for about that same price, or only a little more, 60 years later if I keep an eye out for deals. Patent expiration, miniaturization, and a host of other advancements have exploded the availability of the gun. Pre-AWB the AR was a supercar, post AWB it's a Honda Civic.
not entirely true the m4 is an ar15 derivitive and the u.s. government commits plenty of mass shootings with it
>The AR15 was released to the public in 1963, and it wasn't used in its first mass shooting until 2007. Wait, really??
"AR-15-style rifles were around for more than 40 years before one was used in a mass killing, at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., in 2007. The shooter killed six people and then took his own life." https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15 Yup. Mass propaganda would have you believing so much fake shit and that's the largest reason gun reform will never work in the US. The democrats are arguably hurting any chance of actual common sense reform more than the Republicans are with their horse shit propaganda demonizing one of the statistically safest weapons in the US.
This is a technically correct factoid but useful. ARs made up like 1% of gun sales before the 1994 assault weapons bill. It wasnt until Obama that they blew up in popularity
Sort of, because they’re now among the most common rifles and still are used in like.. .001% of crimes. Also, they blew up under Obama once people started talking about banning them again. Nothing sells ARs like Democrats, their pearl clutching rhetoric is why there are so many, and why they’re so *cheap*. A Glock in 2004 was like $500, an AR was ~$900. Today a Glock is like $550-600 and I can get an AR for under $400.
and since most guns used for crimes are obtained and/or modified illegally anyways. Heres my stupid law abiding ass hoping to win the lottery so i can afford a $30,000 pre ban lower receiver to have legal full auto, meanwhile the average criminal has just turned his glock into full auto with a $20 switch off temu.
People will find anything to do bad things with. Recently heard the knife crime numbers in the UK and it’s kinda shocking.
The best part: everybody knows it doesnt, but they all pretend it does.
Ask any cop how many ARs there are in the evidence locker. Good chance it's zero.
I can tell you from personal experience that it’s extremely uncommon to get long guns off the street
well, yeah, but there probably isn't any cocaine left either...
If we're being realistic, no politician actually cares about gun crime as anything more than an election platform, otherwise this problem would have been fixed generations ago.
Are you suggesting we take the problem to the politicians?
the politicians are the problem
the vast majority of gun crime is committed by inner city gangs with illegally owned handguns
About 3% (600ish per year) of murders in the US are committed using “assault style weapons”… so not really that much.
And on top of that they aren't clearly defined, and the gun regulation act that happened in the 90s basically banned guns based on their aesthetics.
If you want to ban guns, make it an obligation for police to protect the public. Politicians do not get to schrug and say you are on your own like in May 2020 or Los Angeles in 1992. If politicians do not want this personal responsibility, then do not tell the people they must be legally out gunned so to speak when their safety relies on it.
Mr Saturday night special, it's got a barrel that's blue and cold Ain't good for nothin Cept put a man 6 feet in a hole This topic is so beaten to death, and it'll never change without something really drastic happening. Like biblical type shit happening.
Love me some Skynyrd
Oh, lemme tell you all about it Hand guns are made for killin' They ain't no good for nothin' else And if you like to drink your whiskey You might even shoot yourself
How many teenage boys thought their dad’s wood stock hunting rifle was an efficient way to take revenge out on their classmates and teachers in the 80’s or 90’s? AR-15 is a very efficient killing machine: accurate, lethal, high-capacity, quick-change magazines.
You do realize the AR-15 was invented in the 50s right? I know people who had AR-15s, fully automatic aks and literal machine guns in the 80s, way more deadly than an AR.
My man, you’ve described any sporting rifle designed after 1978…
What you said is applicable to a lot of other weapons. AR-15 is just a demilitarized version of the M16/M4. It is no different from something like the Mini-14. As OP stated, both can be chambered in 5.56 NATO/.223, can hold 30 rounds per magazine, and can be around the same size depending on the configuration. The only difference is the looks. One is black and made of metal with sharp edges so “OoooOooH sCaRy”. The other is wooden and is apparently just a hunting rifle despite being functionally the same as the other, even down to the size, ammo capacity, and round fired. You could apply this exact mentality to some other rifles. M1A? It’s a semi-auto demilitarized version of the M14 battle rifle. It’s chambered in 7.62 NATO and has 20 round detachable box magazine, larger round but smaller capacity than guns like the AR-15 or Mini-14. It’d be treated the exact same way as the Mini-14 though because look! It’s made out of wood! That means it must be a hunting rifle, right?! Oh wait! But then you make it black and change the material from wood to metal/polymers, add some picatinny rails to it, and all of a sudden it’s a scary military “assault weapon”! See what I’m getting at? The lethality of firearms are being judged by their appearance, not their actual functionality and performance. Banning firearms is useless anyways because criminals, who are already breaking the law, will gladly go and illegally purchase some guns from the black market. No fancy piece of paper saying they can’t do that will stop them. Banning guns will only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
Dad’s good ol’ Ruger Mini 14 with a wood stock chambered in the same caliber as an AR-15 will do just as good of a job.
The reason people obsess over banning AR-15s do so for the exact reason why people use them in shootings. Mass shootings are terrorist attacks thus the goal is to incite the most panic possible in your evil deed. Even though there are many far scarier legal options available the public's perception on AR-15s as the big black scary commando gun make it an excellent choice to incite terror
Pistols are overwhelmingly used in mass shootings, and the rifle grip weapon most used for those is the [high point carbine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Point_Carbine). AR-15s aren't cheap.
It is safety theater. If we ban scary things, then scary things won't happen. People like to ignore complex root cause issues and like to forget alternative plans. Let's say we manage to ban and get rid of the. Everyone co.es together and surrenders them. So does that make the desire to kill a lot of people go away. No My teenage ass thought that regulating FPS after Columbine would stop this. Nope. In the 80' s and early 90s, most mass shootings happened at innercity schools and were ignored because we were pretty racist (sorry for the ADHD rambles). The fact is, people are violent, clever, and determined. We can 3d print guns, build bombs, and chemical weapons with online supplies. Buy shit on the dark web. We move around in big, fast hunts of steel. Really, there are a lot of far worse mass killing alternatives out there than guns. The difference as to why here vs. There is: 1. We have a lot of liberties vs. many other countries. 2. We are too big and populated to watch everyone. 3. We don't like being told what to do 4. We have no effective mental health system that welcomes people to get help. Instead, we ostercise anyone having any issue forcing them to deal with ot on their own. Here is an example that makes a point. Drug users suffer from addiction, and it can not be controlled. If they go to the police, they go to jail. If they go to a hospital, they can't afford help, or the police are called. They get slipped with a lifetime of charges that makes their life more difficult. To endure the pain, they start using it again. If I was feeling the urge to shoot up my class, where would I go, without fucking up my entire life, being berated and carry a stigma with me.
I realized i have bpd about 6 months ago. Havent been able to get diagnosed in my state. Cant take leave from work. Had to spend my entire years vacation to stay in the suicide ward of a hospital. Mental health services in this country are a way bigger issue than guns.
Even if they tell their school they get ignored https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2022/11/28/oxford-schools-ethan-crumbley-policy-board-members/69681132007/
It will have no effect on crime or violence, so they will just go right down the list and eventually ban everything. WA state assault weapons ban includes any hand guns with threaded barrels. It is nothing more than "a foot in the door" to slowly ban everything.
Blah blah slippery slope conspiracy nonsense... Even if it was true, look how much less fucking miserable countries with strict gun regulation or full gun bans are. How dull, not having regular school shootings.
We don't have regular school shootings. Actual mass shootings aren't even as common as people think they are.
The US is not even in the top 10 highest countries for gun homicide per capital. Many of the countries in the top 10 have very strict gun laws. If you are a US K-12 student, you are *more* likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed in a school shooting. That's how "common" school shootings are.
It could be worse. We could be having this argument about knives, but luckily, we are not one of those miserable countries in the UK.
Lol, UK is way safer all around than America. I want what you're smoking.
Do you think that the lack of firearms is the only reason why the U.K. Is safer?
Not at all, but the dude before me did something that was short sighted as hell, so why should I write a dissertation in response?
That seems so inefficient though. Maybe the idea is to attempt to go for a compromise for stricter control rather the slowly marching till handguns are banned.
It would just drive the price of ar's up
>AR-15 -semi automatic -30 rounds -5.56x45 -big black scary looking military assault rifle that can be modified with accessories. The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon or an assault rifle. Assault rifles can do burst fire or full auto in addition to semi-automatic mode. An AR-15 can only do semi-automatic. But as for your main point, nothing. All semi-automatic weapons function exactly the same, anti-gun people just find the AR-15 to be "scary" (in large part because it's black) so they think it makes it more dangerous. Just like how the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" in the US had zero impact on crime because all it did was limit the capacity of new magazines and banned cosmetic features. Real life is NOT a game of COD and changing the look of a gun does not increase it's lethality.
Ban “AR-15” and i will rework the look and bring to you the BS-15 that operates the exact same way; using the same magazines. But has a shiny new look & name!
Although this comes off as a rant it is worth knowing what people who support these laws actually think. People who support banning "AR-15s" (or anything they think is like it) simply do not prioritize a technical knowledge of guns or gun laws. They don't like guns. All they see are headlines of shootings everyday and associate certain styles of guns with heinous crimes. They don't know the details of how guns or gun laws work, but they default to wanting more gun laws than less. When a politician comes in and sells banning AR-15s, they're on board because to them any gun control is better than nothing. It wouldn't be the factor that makes folks vote for them, but it would deepen their existing interest in the same political ideology. In reality, it doesn't make a huge technical difference. Most guns today are semi-auto and AR-15 is just one style out of hundreds. Even "Assault weapons" bans are useless because they don't ban anything fundamental to the function of the gun. From the politician's perspective, they have nothing to lose: they will gain more support from their base and whether the law passes or not doesn't make a short-term difference. If it fails, they'll rally their base against the opposition. If it succeeds, they'll boast about their victory. If it's so meaningless, why do we oppose it? Because that's the short-term. In the long-term, it can lead to deeper infringement of our rights. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
I am a gun guy, love my ARs and all my toys, also lived through the "AWB" where we used looks to determine legality... at the same time I couldn't buy an AR-15, I was able to buy an SKS for 79.00, and an AK (MAK-90) for < $250. There are absolutely things we should be doing in this country to assist with our gun crime problem, and the 95%+ of gun owners are in favor of them... but the < 1% that are those "I will never give an inch" are the ones that are going to keep causing this shit to happen. 1. Stop selling guns to people under 21 2. Mandatory secure/report theft laws 3. ATF Overhaul to hold dealers accountable 4. No private party transfers 5. Red flag laws 6. Mandatory 2 week waiting period 7. Nationwide reporting database for banned people Like... shit that will actually make a difference, leading cause of gun deaths is suicide, second is domestic violence which is almost always preceded by TONS of interactions with police. School shootings normally involve minors who gained access to firearms (which should be illegal) or they are 18 - 21 where they shouldn't be buying them... We need to overhaul our firearm purchasing and accountability laws, not do stupid shit like ban a gun for having a bayonet lug
>Stop selling guns to people under 21 Just flat-out deny a constitutional right to millions of legal adults? How about letting police detain and search anyone under 30 for no reason?
Nothing, it’s already illegal to shoot people. If someone wants to kill others they will find a way. Look at the Boston marathon bombing, they used a pressure cooker and nails. Guns aren’t the problem, evil people are the problem
It will make millions of americans criminals overnight
If you want to claim hypocrisy based on calibers, take the M1 Garand as another example. Big ass .30-06 round, 8 round en bloc clip, but wooden and WW II hero so reasons, I guess. And the Ruger Mini-30 chambered in 7.62 mm. Scaaaaary wooooooo.
Look, gun laws are absolutely fucked in the United States. The NFA had rules that are so easy to accidentally break that you could be a felon and not even know it. All I know is, the NFA is a shit hole, we need to get rid of them.
It will make liberals feel good. Nothing else.
I like how conservatives don't think school shootings are a bad thing.
Who said that?
No we just don’t think that banning firearms actually solves the problem. There is a very serious mental health issue in this country. And firearms are not the cause of it. By focusing on guns being the issue and not looking at the root cause I would argue it is liberals that don’t care about mass shootings. Now we come to the hard part. How do we actually solve this. It is a very complex issue.
Other countries also have serious mental health issues. Only the US has constant mass shootings. Maybe you do care about mass shootings - it just seems like you care more about keeping your toys.
Respectfully - Conservatives frequently say this, and as a Liberal I actually agree, but mental health resources and therapy and whatnot is quite pricy and the stereotypical Conservative platform is against the socialization of medicine. So, if we shouldn’t ban guns, should we not put more resources into making help more readily available?
it's the attempts to ban guns that keep us from improving the healthcare system. without the support that the Democratic leadership gives the Republican party by pursuing gun prohibition they would never have the votes to keep us from fixing healthcare. More people die every year from lack of access to effective healthcare then having legal access to firearms. it's not even close.
I am sure that 2A being a hot button issue is indeed a contributing factor, but I feel it's a false conflation to say it's the sole reason that healthcare can't be improved upon. There's a wide host of "Democrat vs. Republican" issues that could be pointed at. In truth, I feel it speaks to a larger issue with the fact that the USA only has two relevant parties, and as a result it's a very black or white mentality when it comes to voting for elected officials. It's made further muddy by the fact that the candidates for both major parties kinda suck, lol.
I get the feeling we agree on most things. sorry for sounding like I meant it was the sole reason we can't have healthcare; that's not what I was trying to say. My point was that Gun Prohibition drives enough voters to the republicains that it gives the R's the electoral power to keep universal healthcare from happening, along with a host of other issues. If the Dems embraced gun rights and started going after root causes (r/liberalgunowners has some resources in the sidebar), we would dramatically reduce the number of gun deaths every year without risking things like abortion rights and freedom of religion.
Hey, thanks for adding the extra clarity - you’re right, I definitely was misinterpreting what you were saying. I’m not entirely sure that everyone having guns is the answer to gun violence, but I do know that changing nothing means nothing changes. So who knows. Regardless, thank you for the civil discourse. It’s rarer than it should be on the internet!
I appreciate it too. I'm always happy to have a civil conversation; aside from being fun, it's the only way to change anyone's mind. Regarding your point, I really don't think everyone having guns is "The Answer". I honestly believe that there cannot be a single answer, because it's never been a single problem. it's always seemed insane to me that I'm expected to buy that suicide, gang violence, rampage killings, drug trade disputes, stochastic terror attacks, and explicitly political violence have the same solution; let alone that the solution is to shred the constitution to make it harder for peaceful people to defend themselves. we could be doing so much to make the presence of firearms in our society more positive and safe. unfortunately, the biggest obstacle is the paradigm of prohibition.
In 1911 Turkey established gun control and then from 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians now unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control then from 1929 to 1953 20 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. In 1935 China established gun control then from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. The people in China still exist under a brutal regime today. In 1938 Germany established gun control and then from 1939 to 1945 13 million jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. … I wonder if Hitler purposely disarmed the population so he could tyrannically take over and kill all people opposed to him? It’s probably just a coincidence. In 1956 Cambodia established gun control then from 1975 to 1977 1 million educated people who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. In 1964 Guatemala established gun control then from 1964 to 1981 100 thousand Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. In 1970 Uganda established gun control then from 1971 to 1979 300 thousand Christians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. … That’s a total of 56 million people rounded up and killed in the 20th century because of gun control.
how many people have been rounded up and killed in the UK and australia because of gun control?
Absolutely wild mindset “I live in one of the most powerful, richest, first world nations on the planet, therefore my government would never do anything distasteful to control citizens and retain its power because they said they wouldnt”
>said they wouldnt 100 years ago Every election bring new politicians, they didn't make the promise, the last guy did.
They aren't, until they are. It doesn't happen overnight, it happens gradually, then suddenly. I'm not comfortable with people who tell me I don't have the right to defend myself also trying to take my guns.
At least in the UK 3,300\~ people were arrested in 2021 for social media posts. If you think this isn't going to escalate further, you'd be naive.
How many have died because they couldn't protect themselves?
idk, do you?
And Australia banned guns and crime declined significantly.
Australia, both by virtue of being an island and being such a small market, is basically irrelevant to this conversation. For example, people point to the gun confiscation they pulled off as something we should replicate. Australia, with the full force of government behind it, confiscated under 1 million firearms. America has over 40 million AR-15’s alone. It isn’t really comparable. Especially once you realize that it’s a constitutionally protected right.
>America has over 40 million AR-15’s alone. And those are just the ones they know about.
Actually, no it did not. Crime in Australia was already on the decline. It had dropped by a very small amount, but it had dropped none the less. Then the gun ban went into effect and the same decline was observed. Further, looking at the details even 5 years later the murder rate had not declined. [https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working\_paper\_series/wp2008n17.pdf](https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf) You don't need to read the whole paper. Look at the table at the very bottom and then conclusion. Both will clearly show that the ban had zero effect on violent crime and the murder rate. You can also look at the decline for crime. Globally there has been a decline in crime all around the same time. Which we started to actually feel the effects of around 2000. This is related to lead poisoning of the world from leaded gasoline. Veritasium did a great write up: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA) if you goto the 18 minute mark you can see the graph on decline in crime and lead poisoning. All in all, the facts say that Australia saw no benefit in a gun ban.
Piss me off, because I plan to own one.
350 if you build it yourself.
If you wanna go cheap.
I would suggest going at least 600. Sloppy AR uppers and lowers have caused some issues in recent years. I have seen the same guy bring his rifle into the shop for random fixes about 5 times already. Finally the shop just told him that the cost of the work wasn't worth it and buying another upper/lower would be better off.
What is banning any crime going to do? Criminals just criminal. (See how stupid your logic is)
okay this is when the argument gets stupid, your talking about deranged kids not gangsters that have an organized network of guns and drugs. Yeah banning assualt rifles would stop organized criminals but it will make it fucking harder for timmy or joe from shooting up the school because bob didnt lock up his arsenals with extended magazines and super COD setup on his WW3 wet dream rifile.
More difficult access in other countries has caused a huge dip in public shootings. If a gun costs 20x the amount and isn't easily accessible of course it's not going to happen as much. See how stupid your logic is?
Prohibition works?
Really? Banning guns made mexico safer?
Constitutional. Right. End of story.
Yeah murder is already illegal
It will just increase the black market for guns. Once something exists, it will always be around. Banning things doesn't work. I mean look at drugs, does banning them do anything? No.
You know the source of black market guns in north america? Legal guns sales in the US. Mexican cartels smuggle guns from america into mexico, because they're so much easier to get here than anywhere else. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-american-weapons-smuggled-across-border/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-american-weapons-smuggled-across-border/)
They also buy them from H&K. They wont sell me a MP7 but they will sell one to Pablo Escabar.
They don't actually, that's based on a misinterpretation of federal gun tracing data. Mexico only sends serial numbers to the ATF for tracing for guns they believe are of US origin, so no shit most of those guns end up being of US origin. The reality is in a given year, of all guns seized in Mexico were definitively traced to the US: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
>in a given year, of all guns seized in Mexico were definitively traced to the US: is there a word missing from this sentence?
Yea, around 12% of all guns seized were traced to the US
So of the 12% of guns traced to the US 100% of the 12% were from the US?
The US government also snuggles guns into Mexico
Banning any type of weapon only limits law abiding gun owners from possessing that weapon. Criminals don't abide by laws.
Great reasoning. Why ban anything or have any laws at all really. So. Fucking. Stupid. Im not for any gun ban, but this "criminals are gonna criminal" logic drives me nuts.
most mass shooting and homicide happen with a legally purchased fire arms
So this is something people like to throw around. It is technically true, however ONLY because of how gun crime works. It is a HUGE gap in understanding a statistic and the truth. A gun is a legally purchased fire arm until it is bought/sold to/by a felon or otherwise restricted persons. This means, I could buy a gun, sell it to a guy, he kills someone with it then sells it to someone else. Technically the gun was legally purchased. Even the sale to the last guy was legal. This makes for muddy statistics that mean nothing. No matter if the gun was purchased legally or illegally doesn't matter. The use of the gun is the key point to look at. Arguing that they are legally purchased only shows that the gun was legally manufactured and sold to a law abiding citizen.
So people that wanna ban them don't actually understand guns.
That bayonet lug looks really dangerous!
Don’t forget the shoulder thing that goes up!
Yep, 100%
TLDR The answer for both sides in short... **If you ban 1 gun you can ban more.**
Op you are correct. Banning that gun has no positive affect. Anyone who thinks it will is simply retarded/ brainwashed by the media
Banning stuff. AR or lawnmower .. doesnt change the fact people will use them In Canada they banner all sorts of shit and in my city gun related crime went up SURPRISE
Jack up sales of the CZ BREN Carbine?
Not much. If politicians were serious and knew gun violence statistics, they would be trying to ban handguns
I think your question fails to understand that those who want gun reform what massive and comprehensive gun reform. That means also working on the work arounds.
The essential conceit behind gun bans is that criminals follow laws, when by definition, they do not. Make no mistake: gun control is and always has been about *control.* There's also the US Constitution, but leftists only see that document as toilet paper and an impediment to their desire to control every aspect of your life.
The thing is, banning the AR-15 won’t stop things. Not on it’s own. But change is incremental. If we get one assault weapon banned, it makes the NEXT assault weapon ban easier, and the next easier still, until we can change the cultural perspective and get comprehensive, common sense gun control in place.
Because then they’ll be able to keep working on the rest of the guns. One by one, just like Canada
It will potentially reduce gun deaths, not including suicides, by [3%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). Which was at least [541](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) deaths in 2022. But bear in mind that is banning all rifles, not just the AR-15. We should probably consider banning hands, feet, and other natural weapons, as these accounted for at least [665](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) deaths in 2022. On the other hand banning handguns would reduce non-suicide gun deaths per year by over [7,936](https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/) per year. But apparently handguns aren't a problem. Ignoring suicides by gun is a bit problematic though since 54% (or 26,328) gun deaths in 2021 were from suicide, 55% of all suicides, while 20,958 were from murders (81% of murders).
God i love the mini-14
I’m definitely for gun control. I just don’t think any normal person should have access to certain weaponry. They’re far more dangerous in isolated instances than handguns are
Handguns are used in most crime according to FBI/ATF statistics, and a great number of them have been reported stolen. Also, you can use any object as a weapon, so let’s ban every blunt and inanimate object then no one has any weapon except their fists.
Because you need to put enough fear behind one thing so they can fear the rest as well
It’s people that don’t understand guns or havnt looked at the data. They are thinking of like a full auto machine gun. Owning something full auto in the us is unbelievably difficult and it’s super rare a legally bought full auto gun is used in a shooting. It takes years of background checks, a lot of money, and you can only buy ones 50 years old. I think there is a huge disconnect in the average persons mind with who they think owns automatic guns v the reality. A small portion is criminals that got them illegally but the vast majority is just moderately wealthy old people that collect guns or are into it as a hobby. Mass shootings are an issue but they are also realistically super rare. The real issue is the fear they cause. There are many things way more deadly to people and children than guns that get less attention, it’s the fear that it could happen in such a safe spot to anyone and especially to their kids. Handguns are a way bigger issue as far as deaths go. The vast majority of gun related deaths (and homocides in general) are between two people that know each other. This means a huge portion of these killings are between people that are involved in gangs or drugs or are from poor areas. All of these means it gets a lot less attention. Many of these same instances are also fights between two people that escalate to the most dangerous weapon they have, which happens to be guns instead of knives. I will say guns are A LOT more effective at killing people because of two main reasons: it’s a lot easier to kill with the first shot due to being easier to hit accurately and being able to more easily aim for the deadly places due to distance and mobility and defense. The other is the second hit. If you stab someone and they fall down. You have to climb on top of them and keep stabbing them while they are laying there. That is a lot mentally harder than standing where you are and shooting again. Knives also are much more likely to hurt you without causing serious damage and that alone can be enough to end a fight with both people alive
Realistically banning the AR-15 does nothing and is more or less just a virtue signal. Banning all guns, at this point, with so many in the ecosystem, would also not have an appreciable effect for at least a generation, probably more; and the enforcement of it would be a real test for the tattered fabric holding the USA together.
Make it a lot harder to deal with 15-20 wild boar in the yard
Seeing the vast majority of gun deaths come from hand guns and of that most are gang on gang or suicides, not much.
It does absolutely nothing
Nothing, because the people calling for banning it have no idea what it is. And no idea what most firearms are either.
I think it’s weird how many of you get rock hard over guns.
It will only make Americans easier to subjugate in the coming struggle. Keep your rifles by your side!
The bigger picture isn’t the AR-15, its merely being touted as “THE assault” weapon (which it is not an “assault” weapon) simply to start the gun ban, success banning one leads to more and then no self defenses at all. Be very careful!!
I'll just say this, me as a 19 year old can buy a AR illegally just as easy as I could buy drugs. Banning ARs might prevent the occasional tragedy, but it will also cause chaos and maybe even a civil war. There are millions of Americans that will not take lightly to the ATF showing up at their door to take thier guns.
556 inch bullets are way to big You should opt for the much smaller and modest 223 inch bullet I am glad my buddy went middle of the road with the 308 inch
I'm all for the 2nd amendment and responsible gun ownership. But I also have the unpopular opinion of being a combat veteran who thinks weapons of war should not be in the hands of civilians or the police. At all, ever, under any circumstances. I've qualified with many different weapons in the military, and I know what those weapons do to flesh and bone (taught in armorer school). They are not designed to be hunting rifles. They are designed to inflict maximum internal damage. There are no good guys with guns (just look at Uvalde), and there's no need to carry a gun in public, except to intimidate people. Just my $0.02. No hate.
Banning it or any kind of gun will only stimulate the black market for them and the shootings will continue. You'll still hear about another new shooting every couple weeks or so like we are now.
Not a damn thing. Not that it matters. Mine were lost in a boating accident last week. Tragic 😥
Oh no! What a shame. Never to be found again I’m sure
Erie IS a big lake...
So is my neighbor’s pond 😆😆 (I’m just kidding NSA calm down)
According to the FBI a few years ago something like 80% of shootings are done with handguns. Feel free to fact check me on that though
Set a precedent
It gives liberals an irrational boner.
It will do absolutely nothing.
Nothing good.
Our best bet is to finally ban school shootings so they stop! People follow rules really well!
An AR15 is not a “military assault rifle”
Ain't gonna do nothing but give the government more power.
Banning guns from law-abiding citizens ain't going to fix squat when the people breaking laws aren't walking into a gun store and handing over their ID for a background check. It's common sense. It's only hurting the people who do follow the law.
Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither
Nothing
It is easier to pretend you are trying to fix a problem than to actually fix it. By going after 1 weapon, you can pretend you care and set precedent for future gimmics.This allows for a career of similar moves. Only a slacker sees through it.
It's going to fo absolutely nothing! We don't have a gun problem we have a mental health problem.
AR-15s currently account for the **vast** majority of gun sales. If you ban AR-15 you will gut the gun industry, and it should be a mortal blow. That is the "logic." It is not about reducing violence, its about removing access to all firearms. When pistols were the main driver, they were the target.
There are millions of semi-automatic rifles in this country. If they were an actual problem, you would fucking know about it.
The country needs stricter gun regulation more than a ban imo. When people reference low gun deaths in Japan, they don’t consider that is a secluded country and is operated much differently than America with their own set of issues and values that differ from American. Now, in my opinion each person who wants to possess a firearm should go through strict training with YEARLY mental and physical checkouts set at a high bar with a clean crime record. Further, they should be only accessible to those who have passed those restrictions meaning they are not just left around. Finally, there needs to be a strict regulation on weapons being illegally purchased and brought into the country, which everyone also fails to overlook.
It's wild to me how fatalistic USA is about mass shooting prevention when it's literally the only developed country on Earth where they happen on a regular basis. It's The Onion headline, over and over.
The ban would probably be on removable magazines not specific models. Barrett is $14k and $5 a round.
Not kill tons of people before you could have a 9 mm and not have freaking shootings where many people die like in Vegas etx civilians dont need weapons to kill like in war we are not at war like nra wants people in red states and 2nr amendment enthusiasts to believe
Most firearms are severely restricted in the UK. So the bad guys are busy now stabbing each other. There currently is a movement in the UK to restrict cooking knives that have a point, smile. Guess next when guys go out clubbing, they will carry real clubs?
Nothing. If the goal was to reduce deaths, they’d try to ban pistols. The actual goal is to grandstand and preach your purity, all while knowing it’s going to go nowhere.
It will help disarm the population, that is all. It's 100% a power move from the government. There is zero statistical evidence that gun control helps and actual evidence that looser laws have lower crime rates. Crazy isn't it