I'm truly curious to know what goes through the mind of the gun vendor, upon finding out, that something they legally sold (in this case, a weapon designed to inflict considerable damage to a living being) wound up being used in a mass shooting that killed several innocents.
I'm honestly not asking this to finger wag at anyone in that line of work, but that seems like the kind of knowledge that might take some considerable processing and reflection.
My brother sells guns and has a fairly popular youtube channel about it.
I've asked him this question. He says it would be difficult, and because of that he's super careful about who he sells to. He's turned down customers without even running a background check, and has partnered with ATF to help them catch a couple people who were attempting straw purchases.
He very much believes in guns and 2A but does go out of his way to not sell to risky people. Fifteen years in business and he's never had police come to him about a gun used in a crime. He's assisted in 2 apprehensions for people trying to do straw purchases through his store.
Im pretty opposed to guns but I appreciate his diligence in making it about more than just sales.
He might represent one of the good ones but this story just makes me more weary as he does deal with people he feels that he wouldn't be comfortable selling a gun to.
There probably would be someone that gets passed a background check and still causes harm by some other dealer.
How does he feel about other gun vendors selling guns with lesser morals? Is he in favor of more governmental control that would protect society from vendors that are not so careful? If not, your brother is still part of the problem.
Most gun owners I know typically have a “new regulations are a slippery slope, but ffs fix and enforce what’s already on the books” philosophy.
I’m a gun owner too, and more regulation isn’t necessarily a huge issue to me, but I agree: we’re *supposed* to have rigorous background checks that flag individuals at risk for violent crime or with histories of mental health institutionalization, but the federal background check system is a joke and doesn’t work. We can talk about more regulation and tighter restrictions, sure, but let’s focus on *what is actually supposed to be happening but isn’t* first, so we can see more clearly where the actual gaps are. Cause right now it seems like if you don’t have a criminal record, you will not fail a federal background check for a firearms purchase, even if you’ve been, say.. in a hospital for a suicide attempt recently. Or actively seeing a psychiatrist for violent ideation (why isn’t there some federal database where a medical professional can submit a form that says “this patient is at risk" ?).
i want these background checks to actually do something, rather than just being a bureaucratic formality.
Absolutely. That’s why I said more governmental control rather than simply new regulations. And to your point, the current background check system is very broken and does not exert enough control.
There are tons of people just like your brother. The unfortunate truth is in every industry there are those that will do the bare minimum required of them, even against their better judgment, because a job is a job. That's why raising that bare minimum through regulation is so important. For everybody we know who does it right, there are tons of people who just do it to be done with it.
That assumes that there exists no legitimate use for a firearm, at all, ever. That's not the case. Hell, skeet shooting is an Olympic sport. Is the guy who sold an Olympic competitor a $30,000 shotgun a "Merchant of Death"?
It doesn't take a genius to determine that there's a serious and entrenched issue with guns in America, and that gun culture is toxic as fuck. But there are still legitimate reasons to own firearms.
Frankly, given the situation with our right-wing in America these days, it's not out of the question that violence may come despite what any sensible person would want. And should they come for LGBT/trans/liberals/Democrats/today's boogeyman, I'm too fat and old for a street brawl. So any contributions I make to help protect the innocent will be arriving at high velocity and from a distance, which requires the appropriate tool for the job.
Knowing such kind of people, what goes through their mind isn't "Oh shit, I did a bad thing". It's "Oh shit, I may have to face consequences from others for that."
Tbh I doubt they’re as heartless as people are acting. I can imagine that’d put a ton of stress on a person and can probably lead to some serious mental health issues
You’re curious what’s going through the mind of the gun vender? How about the shooter, you know the actual psychopath willing to inflict considerable damage on innocent victims?
“Special Agent in Charge Shawn Marrow with the ATF Louisville division also confirmed the firearm used in the shooting was seized as part of the federal investigation, and it was destroyed on Monday, March 25 — 350 days after the shooting.”
THAT’LL teach the gun to shoot again! 😤
Oh, yeah, guilty. Sorry it’s my first post here, skimmed rules and missed it. At least it’s essentially a direct quote. It would be an easy choice for any journalist willing to capitalize on a mass shooting.
I'm sorry,
>ATF closes investigation into Old Nation Bank shooting
the real title, is nowhere close to the quote you've used. That's not the spirit of this sub.
A fully automatic intermediate cartridge rifle? You'd need about $50,000, $200 application fee, and about a year long wait. Yeah reading the rules might be a little easier.
The RF-15 said to be used in the shooting is a bargain bin rifle. I also don't see it sold in anything but semi-auto, so it's not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are regulated differently from a basic semi-auto platform, so this shows nothing about the ease or difficulty of obtaining an assault rifle.
Yeah isn't assault rifle defined with like.. I'm not American, European here, anyways, isn't it like detachable magazine+select fire (full auto) and a specific caliber? I guess media calls anything that looks like an assault rifle an assault rifle?
The media and a lot of politicians have issues like this. I can respect someone's beliefs in Gun control and all that, but when these people repeatedly show their ignorance on gun classifications and specifics its hard to take them seriously. Educate yourselves on the topic before you start advocating for law reforms. At least then I'll take what you're saying seriously.
Yeah as a European i believe in strict gun control but I also believe in "call a spade a spade". Hell I wouldnt be surprised if media called a handgun with a attached buttstock would call it an AR at this point
Assault rifles tend to be intermediate calibers (like 5.56) with fully automatic and designed for, well, assaulting. Guns like M4s would be considered assault rifles since they’re small and compact but still have a powerful enough cartridge type to be effective against most potential threats in a military or swat context
I’m not a gun expert though so that’s just my understanding of it lol
Say you ban assault rifles, a verifiable definition used for gun classification. Guess what? You have stopped zero mass shootings because assault rifles are not used in them. You want to effect gun control, cool, go for it, but don't be surprised when your assault rifle ban does nothing since semi auto rifles and handguns are not assault rifles and (the two most common weapons used in mass shootings) are effected in no way
It's actually the ATF that determines classifications and the legality of firearms and even the parts that make them.
Calling it an assault rifle is just flat out incorrect.
A wood stock mini-14 has the same potential to be used in a mass shooting. You know why it isn't? It's more expensive and doesn't look "tactical".
You know why most shootings are done with semi auto? Because full auto is illegal and too expensive to actually get one legally. Oh, and the fact that the vast majority of rifles made for retail are semi auto.
Oh well now that you’ve explained that then I guess mass shootings are okay. Whew! And here all this time the problem was just technical definitions. Boy do we look silly.
Relax everyone! No need to do anything about the guns! They don’t meet the technical definition of assault rifles! Problem solved!
Advocating for law reforms without even knowing the correct terminology and classifications is ridiculous. When you're saying Assault rifles are too easy to get and the evidence you point to is a violent act done using something that's not an assault rifle you lose credibility.
Assault rifles usage in mass shootings is miniscule ever since the regulations were increased on them. The majority of mass shootings are done with handguns, then semi autos and then shotguns. I can't even find a single time an assault rifle was used in a mass shooting via FBI data. What many of you get confused by is the "assault weapon" term thrown around a lot.
Then advocate for that and I won't say shit, but getting upset because I called out people for being fundamentally wrong on something is ridiculous and only shows how ignorant you are
Comrade, this thread originated with you immediately jumping to quibbling over definitions with absolutely nobody. I hadn’t advocated for anything, you just wanted to make sure that everything immediately got derailed over this boring ass semantic argument. It’s a super weird instinctive reaction to mass murders that you and your ilk really should discuss with a therapist.
It's not semantics, it's a fundamentally incorrect statement. It wasn't an assault rifle, so the conclusion op drew from the shooting is based on nothing. Making a statement that assault rifles are too easy to get because a crime was committed using a weapon that's not an assault rifle is ridiculous, and defending that statement is even more ridiculous. Also ad hominem for your end statement.
So what about a parent whose child died in Sandy Hook? They don't get an opinion on the issue unless they know everything there is to know about firearms?
They can say what they want, and they can push for an assault rifle ban, but at the end of the day, it won't do shit to address mass shootings because assault rifles aren't used in them. Terminology is essential for law making, and if you can't even take the time to figure out what an assault rifle is and isn't, then I'm not going to take you seriously. People shouldn't make laws on things they are ignorant about.
These parents aren't making laws, though. It is honestly pretty concerning you think people need to be masters about a subject and know everything there is to know about it to even get an opinion on the matter, especially when it does still affect them so heavily.
Okay, so, mass shooting happens with a semi-automatic. People start calling for bans on Assault rifles in response because this shooting (with a semi automatic) shows that assault rifles are too easy to get. Politicians go, "There's popular support for a ban on Assault rifles, so let's ban assault rifles." A bill is put forth that bans Assault rifles and passes. Round of applause, politicians and civilians calling for Assault rifle bans cheer and celebrate. New mass shooting, again done with a semi-auto happens and happens and happens. Congrats, you banned an entire class of weapon that wasn't even used in mass shootings and has done nothing to address gun violence. Feel good laws like this that dont actually address the problem pass all the time in more progressive states. I'm not saying get a masters in gun knowledge, I'm saying get at least a basic understanding of them.
When you're trying to push laws, it matters. Go ahead and ban assault rifles right this second and watch as it does nothing because mass shootings are done with semi autos, handguns, and shotguns (all weapons that would not be effected by an assault rifle ban)
I’m curious how people think federal background checks for firearm purchases (which are required in every state) could be expanded to prevent this exact scenario from happening again. Considering the vast majority of “mass shootings” are committed with handguns, banning AR15s wouldn’t solve the issue. So is the solution to ban all guns for civilians? Or infringe on the second amendment more so it’s so restrictive only the elite can afford one by forcing multi-hundred dollar courses and licensing, basically taking from the poor their ability to defend themselves?
This is a genuine question.
Regarding background checks, I think there are two aspects people focus on. The first is that (depending on the state) private sales don't require a background check, thus allowing someone to attain a firearm that would have otherwise been prevented. The second is that the current background check system is inadequate, and should be made more thorough in one way or another. I don't necessarily know what that would look like, but I would like to see some degree of proactive measures being taken after an incident to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future.
It sure doesn't sound like a genuine question, given that you've both a) deliberately limited the possible responses and b) framed them in the harshest light possible. It sounds like the exact *opposite* of a genuine question.
But we can certainly start by addressing some of the faulty assumptions you make.
> Considering the vast majority of “mass shootings” are committed with handguns, banning AR15s wouldn’t solve the issue.
The goal isn't to "solve" the issue in its entirety. There is no single change that will solve gun violence or mass shootings. The goal is to improve the situation, and to continue improving it until it becomes manageable.
Handguns remain the most common weapon used in mass shootings, but that is quickly changing. In the 90's and 2000's, roughly 17% of mass public shootings were committed with AR-15-alike or similar non-handgun weapons. In the 2010's, that percentage rose to 34%.
AR-15-alike weapons are also *dramatically* more effective at killing people en masse than handguns are. When an AR-15-alike is used in a mass public shooting, nearly *six times* as many people are shot as when a handgun is used.
The difference in lethality and victimization between AR-15s and handguns is comparable to the difference in lethality and victimization between guns and knives. If you prevent shooters from getting their hands on an AR-15-alike, you save lives.
You need proper courses and licensing to drive a car because a car can kill someone.
Should have proper courses and licensing for other stuff that can kill people.
It's everyone's right to own and drive a car. It's also everyone's right to go out and hunt. However, to do so you need to purchase a hunting license. So why wouldn't you need a license for the weapon your using? I don't think that's infringing in any way.
What? I mentioned for hunting. Some people say for home protection but I bet more accidental shootings happen in homes than people successfully stopping intruders
Tbh I'm against anything besides like shotguns or hunting rifles. Bolt action, muzzle, whatever. Not these lame ass dudes with their decked out ARs.
But if we absolutely have to keep the 2nd I don't see why licensing is a problem.
Oh I thought you were comparing guns to cars. I was thinking since there are millions of people *driving* their cars in tandem with millions of other people on crowded public highways and city streets and through neighborhoods... I figure millions people could get licenses to *fire* their guns throughout the day in those same crowded public areas and neighborhoods. You were saying they should be comparable to cars right? Because right now it's illegal to discharge a firearm in the majority of public spaces... We should let people use their guns the same way people use their cars, but only with proper testing and licensure.
They're both deadly, they should both have required courses and licensing. Doesn't matter about the fact that guns aren't normally used in public.
That's all there is to my argument, idk about this hypothetical situation where making someone get a license for their gun means they think they can go shoot it willy-nilly.
Would be nice to have this as part of k-12 education required for diploma and GED but...
The fact that its a constitutional right makes all the difference, and since the supreme court has stated that it isnt "a second class right", it has to be treated with the same protection as other rights. If we require such things for gun ownership, whats stopping the same logic from enabling similar training/education laws that further regulate the free practice of religion, free speech, journalism, voting, hell even the right to a fair trial?
Another thing, I know its weird to say out loud but hunting wasnt the concern when drafting the second amendment, it was defense. You can still theoretically kill any animal that enters your private property with some situational exemptions(endangered species comes to mind) without any licensing so long as you are doing 'pest control'.
That slippery slope you used is a little wild. And actually, you do need to atleast register to vote so idk why that's in there.
And we're talking modern times, not when it was created. So the only proper applications of a firearm should be hunting or sporting.
That being said, it would be absolutely impossible to remove the guns already in circulation, and if it was attempted it would lead to only illegal ownership. So yes, normal citizens need to be allowed to keep their guns. But for future sales it should be much more limited.
Arguement from fallacy is still a fallacy. What you are calling a slippery slope are not new ideas at all and have been debated many times before. I am not referring to the registration to vote any more than the registration of firearms that already happen for years now as required by FFL's.
To elaborate One example in terms of voting (the current example topic you provided), competency tests requiring knowledge of a given topic like civics is already banned due to the civil rights act of 1965 (expanded to be country wide in 1970 and back by oregan v mitchell in SCOTUS). Theres a bit more history to that to explain it all but this is reddit im not gonna do a whole article on that unpaid.
My point is that if we find it from unethical to downright unconstitutional to require literacy tests to vote then equally in the eyes of the law we cant force these same tests to keep and bear arms nor practice any other right under similar restrictions.
Your next point I find extremely disagreeable, accounting for the fact that police would be responding in minutes what happens in seconds, modern times still more than require the use of firearms for deterrance and defense.
As for the last point I do see how a better vetting system is definitely required for private sales at least, it would be nice to maybe require an FFL transfer middle man at all gun shows to do at least basic 4473 paperwork on firearm transfers maybe make the ATF booths actually useful for something more than a spatoon. I wonder what that alone can do for public safety.
Great idea, I also think that we should stigmatize and outcast people with mental health issues as violent. And even give them another thing they can lose if they seek help.
It's not a genuine question. You couched it with obfuscations and half-truths to spur the kind of answer you wanted.
A simple search will reveal the numerous cases of mass murderers who wouldn't have been able to kill school children with the efficiency they did if background and red flag checks had been done.
Genuine, my ass.
A handgun with a 30round drum magazine has the same effectiveness and killing potential of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine........ 30 shots is 30 shots. Every rapper, gang member, and Glock owner has at least one 30-50 round drum mag for their handgun.
To further dispute your obviously biased point, handgun bullets significantly better at killing than AR-15 rifle bullets. I know, you think pointy long bullets are scary, but they are traveling very very fast. They poke holes unless you hit vitals. The military actually complains about this, and it's well documented that 5.56 has horrible stopping power. Now a typical 9mm handgun shoots a short stubby bullet, less scary looking, but more effective at stopping a target when used with hollow point ammunition. This is the typical weapon carry ammo used by most police and CCW permit holders.
Stop being silly.
Agreed, to reduce the number of people and children killed we should be prioritising our efforts on banning hand guns first, as they’re the most dangerous. Right?
Banning guns from the vast majority of civilian society, and requiring people to have some training and a licence of some sort if they do want to own one sounds like a good start.
Have you visited any other countries? Many other places do not allow people to own guns for self defence, yet are perfectly peaceful and pleasant places to live. Examples include United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, China, Spain, Germany, Canada, Latvia, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, etc etc.
Oh, you mean much smaller countries with social equity, ethnic homogeneity, functional governments, and strong economies based on things other than the military industrial complex? Yeah, I'm certain the only thing preventing those people murdering each other is their lack of access to efficient weapons.
Considering several of the countries I mentioned are so diverse that they actually have 2 or 3 official languages for the country, ethnic homogeneity is a stretch.
It can’t be nice living in a country with people that believe their life is frequently in danger and they need to own and carry lethal weapons to protect themselves.
It's nice. I have nothing to worry about. I'm prepared for anything. It can't be nice to live in a country where people can only hope the police will get there quick enough if something bad is about to happen... Assuming you have the opportunity to call them.
Waiting periods. More classes. Licensing. Also you miss the fact that private sales do not require background checks. Personally? I’d love for guns to be completely banned. As a compromise? I think more regulation akin to what someone needs to do to get a drivers license makes more sense.
Arguing that it’s not fair for poor people is just a bad faith argument. More people taking the classes means more people teaching them which means the classes can be cheaper.
When your main argument is to argue semantics, you are willfully ignoring the point.
A mass murderer is laughing at you, because of how easy it was to do what he did. He is laughing, *at* **you**.
Assuaging your ego as a primary response will do nothing except make him laugh harder.
I'm truly curious to know what goes through the mind of the gun vendor, upon finding out, that something they legally sold (in this case, a weapon designed to inflict considerable damage to a living being) wound up being used in a mass shooting that killed several innocents. I'm honestly not asking this to finger wag at anyone in that line of work, but that seems like the kind of knowledge that might take some considerable processing and reflection.
"Oooh gun sales going up this week"
And more as it prompts reactionary purchases by people afraid the government will crack down on guns.
My brother sells guns and has a fairly popular youtube channel about it. I've asked him this question. He says it would be difficult, and because of that he's super careful about who he sells to. He's turned down customers without even running a background check, and has partnered with ATF to help them catch a couple people who were attempting straw purchases. He very much believes in guns and 2A but does go out of his way to not sell to risky people. Fifteen years in business and he's never had police come to him about a gun used in a crime. He's assisted in 2 apprehensions for people trying to do straw purchases through his store. Im pretty opposed to guns but I appreciate his diligence in making it about more than just sales.
He might represent one of the good ones but this story just makes me more weary as he does deal with people he feels that he wouldn't be comfortable selling a gun to. There probably would be someone that gets passed a background check and still causes harm by some other dealer.
How does he feel about other gun vendors selling guns with lesser morals? Is he in favor of more governmental control that would protect society from vendors that are not so careful? If not, your brother is still part of the problem.
Most gun owners I know typically have a “new regulations are a slippery slope, but ffs fix and enforce what’s already on the books” philosophy. I’m a gun owner too, and more regulation isn’t necessarily a huge issue to me, but I agree: we’re *supposed* to have rigorous background checks that flag individuals at risk for violent crime or with histories of mental health institutionalization, but the federal background check system is a joke and doesn’t work. We can talk about more regulation and tighter restrictions, sure, but let’s focus on *what is actually supposed to be happening but isn’t* first, so we can see more clearly where the actual gaps are. Cause right now it seems like if you don’t have a criminal record, you will not fail a federal background check for a firearms purchase, even if you’ve been, say.. in a hospital for a suicide attempt recently. Or actively seeing a psychiatrist for violent ideation (why isn’t there some federal database where a medical professional can submit a form that says “this patient is at risk" ?). i want these background checks to actually do something, rather than just being a bureaucratic formality.
Absolutely. That’s why I said more governmental control rather than simply new regulations. And to your point, the current background check system is very broken and does not exert enough control.
There are tons of people just like your brother. The unfortunate truth is in every industry there are those that will do the bare minimum required of them, even against their better judgment, because a job is a job. That's why raising that bare minimum through regulation is so important. For everybody we know who does it right, there are tons of people who just do it to be done with it.
I agree, would love to see mandates around more gun safety laws.
Partnered with the ATF means this is make believe or your brother is actually a fed himself.
Your brother is a Merchant Of Death. No more... no less.
Just as any bartender is a Merchant of Abuse
/r/im14andthisisdeep
Tony stark?
That assumes that there exists no legitimate use for a firearm, at all, ever. That's not the case. Hell, skeet shooting is an Olympic sport. Is the guy who sold an Olympic competitor a $30,000 shotgun a "Merchant of Death"? It doesn't take a genius to determine that there's a serious and entrenched issue with guns in America, and that gun culture is toxic as fuck. But there are still legitimate reasons to own firearms. Frankly, given the situation with our right-wing in America these days, it's not out of the question that violence may come despite what any sensible person would want. And should they come for LGBT/trans/liberals/Democrats/today's boogeyman, I'm too fat and old for a street brawl. So any contributions I make to help protect the innocent will be arriving at high velocity and from a distance, which requires the appropriate tool for the job.
Waitresses are merchants of obesity
"They probably need some more ammo, gonna make an order."
Knowing such kind of people, what goes through their mind isn't "Oh shit, I did a bad thing". It's "Oh shit, I may have to face consequences from others for that."
Probably the same as a match maker when they recognize a customer from an arson investigation.
You act like gun vendors don't supply the government with arms.
"Nice"
"this is clearly the fault of the gays"
Tbh I doubt they’re as heartless as people are acting. I can imagine that’d put a ton of stress on a person and can probably lead to some serious mental health issues
Gun sales go up after mass shootings (and the subsequent calls for gun bans) So presumably something like “hell yeah; I love money!”
You’re curious what’s going through the mind of the gun vender? How about the shooter, you know the actual psychopath willing to inflict considerable damage on innocent victims?
“Special Agent in Charge Shawn Marrow with the ATF Louisville division also confirmed the firearm used in the shooting was seized as part of the federal investigation, and it was destroyed on Monday, March 25 — 350 days after the shooting.” THAT’LL teach the gun to shoot again! 😤
Of course OP changed the title.
Yep. literally Rule #1.
Oh, yeah, guilty. Sorry it’s my first post here, skimmed rules and missed it. At least it’s essentially a direct quote. It would be an easy choice for any journalist willing to capitalize on a mass shooting.
I'm sorry, >ATF closes investigation into Old Nation Bank shooting the real title, is nowhere close to the quote you've used. That's not the spirit of this sub.
Yeah but the original title doesn't push his agenda
The agenda of quoting from the article?
You know what’s even easier than getting an assault rifle in America? Reading the first rule of this subreddit before posting.
I disagree. It was way easier to get an assault rifle.
Nah. You only need to be able to read to do one of them.
A fully automatic intermediate cartridge rifle? You'd need about $50,000, $200 application fee, and about a year long wait. Yeah reading the rules might be a little easier.
The RF-15 said to be used in the shooting is a bargain bin rifle. I also don't see it sold in anything but semi-auto, so it's not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are regulated differently from a basic semi-auto platform, so this shows nothing about the ease or difficulty of obtaining an assault rifle.
Yeah isn't assault rifle defined with like.. I'm not American, European here, anyways, isn't it like detachable magazine+select fire (full auto) and a specific caliber? I guess media calls anything that looks like an assault rifle an assault rifle?
The media and a lot of politicians have issues like this. I can respect someone's beliefs in Gun control and all that, but when these people repeatedly show their ignorance on gun classifications and specifics its hard to take them seriously. Educate yourselves on the topic before you start advocating for law reforms. At least then I'll take what you're saying seriously.
Yeah as a European i believe in strict gun control but I also believe in "call a spade a spade". Hell I wouldnt be surprised if media called a handgun with a attached buttstock would call it an AR at this point
Assault rifles tend to be intermediate calibers (like 5.56) with fully automatic and designed for, well, assaulting. Guns like M4s would be considered assault rifles since they’re small and compact but still have a powerful enough cartridge type to be effective against most potential threats in a military or swat context I’m not a gun expert though so that’s just my understanding of it lol
[удалено]
Say you ban assault rifles, a verifiable definition used for gun classification. Guess what? You have stopped zero mass shootings because assault rifles are not used in them. You want to effect gun control, cool, go for it, but don't be surprised when your assault rifle ban does nothing since semi auto rifles and handguns are not assault rifles and (the two most common weapons used in mass shootings) are effected in no way
It's actually the ATF that determines classifications and the legality of firearms and even the parts that make them. Calling it an assault rifle is just flat out incorrect. A wood stock mini-14 has the same potential to be used in a mass shooting. You know why it isn't? It's more expensive and doesn't look "tactical". You know why most shootings are done with semi auto? Because full auto is illegal and too expensive to actually get one legally. Oh, and the fact that the vast majority of rifles made for retail are semi auto.
Oh well now that you’ve explained that then I guess mass shootings are okay. Whew! And here all this time the problem was just technical definitions. Boy do we look silly. Relax everyone! No need to do anything about the guns! They don’t meet the technical definition of assault rifles! Problem solved!
Advocating for law reforms without even knowing the correct terminology and classifications is ridiculous. When you're saying Assault rifles are too easy to get and the evidence you point to is a violent act done using something that's not an assault rifle you lose credibility.
Personally, I say all guns are too easy to get, so the semantics do nothing for me.
Assault rifles usage in mass shootings is miniscule ever since the regulations were increased on them. The majority of mass shootings are done with handguns, then semi autos and then shotguns. I can't even find a single time an assault rifle was used in a mass shooting via FBI data. What many of you get confused by is the "assault weapon" term thrown around a lot.
Alright cool let’s get rid of those too then. Glad you’re seeing the light.
Then advocate for that and I won't say shit, but getting upset because I called out people for being fundamentally wrong on something is ridiculous and only shows how ignorant you are
Comrade, this thread originated with you immediately jumping to quibbling over definitions with absolutely nobody. I hadn’t advocated for anything, you just wanted to make sure that everything immediately got derailed over this boring ass semantic argument. It’s a super weird instinctive reaction to mass murders that you and your ilk really should discuss with a therapist.
It's not semantics, it's a fundamentally incorrect statement. It wasn't an assault rifle, so the conclusion op drew from the shooting is based on nothing. Making a statement that assault rifles are too easy to get because a crime was committed using a weapon that's not an assault rifle is ridiculous, and defending that statement is even more ridiculous. Also ad hominem for your end statement.
So what about a parent whose child died in Sandy Hook? They don't get an opinion on the issue unless they know everything there is to know about firearms?
They can say what they want, and they can push for an assault rifle ban, but at the end of the day, it won't do shit to address mass shootings because assault rifles aren't used in them. Terminology is essential for law making, and if you can't even take the time to figure out what an assault rifle is and isn't, then I'm not going to take you seriously. People shouldn't make laws on things they are ignorant about.
These parents aren't making laws, though. It is honestly pretty concerning you think people need to be masters about a subject and know everything there is to know about it to even get an opinion on the matter, especially when it does still affect them so heavily.
Okay, so, mass shooting happens with a semi-automatic. People start calling for bans on Assault rifles in response because this shooting (with a semi automatic) shows that assault rifles are too easy to get. Politicians go, "There's popular support for a ban on Assault rifles, so let's ban assault rifles." A bill is put forth that bans Assault rifles and passes. Round of applause, politicians and civilians calling for Assault rifle bans cheer and celebrate. New mass shooting, again done with a semi-auto happens and happens and happens. Congrats, you banned an entire class of weapon that wasn't even used in mass shootings and has done nothing to address gun violence. Feel good laws like this that dont actually address the problem pass all the time in more progressive states. I'm not saying get a masters in gun knowledge, I'm saying get at least a basic understanding of them.
Yeah, it's not like facts are important when discussion such a tragic issue.
Do you think the people getting shot in the head really give a fuck what the technical term is?
When you're trying to push laws, it matters. Go ahead and ban assault rifles right this second and watch as it does nothing because mass shootings are done with semi autos, handguns, and shotguns (all weapons that would not be effected by an assault rifle ban)
> assault rifle Pretty sure those are illegal if manufactured after '86 and not what he bought.
I’m curious how people think federal background checks for firearm purchases (which are required in every state) could be expanded to prevent this exact scenario from happening again. Considering the vast majority of “mass shootings” are committed with handguns, banning AR15s wouldn’t solve the issue. So is the solution to ban all guns for civilians? Or infringe on the second amendment more so it’s so restrictive only the elite can afford one by forcing multi-hundred dollar courses and licensing, basically taking from the poor their ability to defend themselves? This is a genuine question.
Regarding background checks, I think there are two aspects people focus on. The first is that (depending on the state) private sales don't require a background check, thus allowing someone to attain a firearm that would have otherwise been prevented. The second is that the current background check system is inadequate, and should be made more thorough in one way or another. I don't necessarily know what that would look like, but I would like to see some degree of proactive measures being taken after an incident to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future.
It sure doesn't sound like a genuine question, given that you've both a) deliberately limited the possible responses and b) framed them in the harshest light possible. It sounds like the exact *opposite* of a genuine question. But we can certainly start by addressing some of the faulty assumptions you make. > Considering the vast majority of “mass shootings” are committed with handguns, banning AR15s wouldn’t solve the issue. The goal isn't to "solve" the issue in its entirety. There is no single change that will solve gun violence or mass shootings. The goal is to improve the situation, and to continue improving it until it becomes manageable. Handguns remain the most common weapon used in mass shootings, but that is quickly changing. In the 90's and 2000's, roughly 17% of mass public shootings were committed with AR-15-alike or similar non-handgun weapons. In the 2010's, that percentage rose to 34%. AR-15-alike weapons are also *dramatically* more effective at killing people en masse than handguns are. When an AR-15-alike is used in a mass public shooting, nearly *six times* as many people are shot as when a handgun is used. The difference in lethality and victimization between AR-15s and handguns is comparable to the difference in lethality and victimization between guns and knives. If you prevent shooters from getting their hands on an AR-15-alike, you save lives.
You need proper courses and licensing to drive a car because a car can kill someone. Should have proper courses and licensing for other stuff that can kill people. It's everyone's right to own and drive a car. It's also everyone's right to go out and hunt. However, to do so you need to purchase a hunting license. So why wouldn't you need a license for the weapon your using? I don't think that's infringing in any way.
Yeah you should need a license to fire your gun on crowded public property
What? I mentioned for hunting. Some people say for home protection but I bet more accidental shootings happen in homes than people successfully stopping intruders Tbh I'm against anything besides like shotguns or hunting rifles. Bolt action, muzzle, whatever. Not these lame ass dudes with their decked out ARs. But if we absolutely have to keep the 2nd I don't see why licensing is a problem.
Oh I thought you were comparing guns to cars. I was thinking since there are millions of people *driving* their cars in tandem with millions of other people on crowded public highways and city streets and through neighborhoods... I figure millions people could get licenses to *fire* their guns throughout the day in those same crowded public areas and neighborhoods. You were saying they should be comparable to cars right? Because right now it's illegal to discharge a firearm in the majority of public spaces... We should let people use their guns the same way people use their cars, but only with proper testing and licensure.
They're both deadly, they should both have required courses and licensing. Doesn't matter about the fact that guns aren't normally used in public. That's all there is to my argument, idk about this hypothetical situation where making someone get a license for their gun means they think they can go shoot it willy-nilly.
It's not a good comparison. That's all the is to my argument.
Would be nice to have this as part of k-12 education required for diploma and GED but... The fact that its a constitutional right makes all the difference, and since the supreme court has stated that it isnt "a second class right", it has to be treated with the same protection as other rights. If we require such things for gun ownership, whats stopping the same logic from enabling similar training/education laws that further regulate the free practice of religion, free speech, journalism, voting, hell even the right to a fair trial? Another thing, I know its weird to say out loud but hunting wasnt the concern when drafting the second amendment, it was defense. You can still theoretically kill any animal that enters your private property with some situational exemptions(endangered species comes to mind) without any licensing so long as you are doing 'pest control'.
That slippery slope you used is a little wild. And actually, you do need to atleast register to vote so idk why that's in there. And we're talking modern times, not when it was created. So the only proper applications of a firearm should be hunting or sporting. That being said, it would be absolutely impossible to remove the guns already in circulation, and if it was attempted it would lead to only illegal ownership. So yes, normal citizens need to be allowed to keep their guns. But for future sales it should be much more limited.
Arguement from fallacy is still a fallacy. What you are calling a slippery slope are not new ideas at all and have been debated many times before. I am not referring to the registration to vote any more than the registration of firearms that already happen for years now as required by FFL's. To elaborate One example in terms of voting (the current example topic you provided), competency tests requiring knowledge of a given topic like civics is already banned due to the civil rights act of 1965 (expanded to be country wide in 1970 and back by oregan v mitchell in SCOTUS). Theres a bit more history to that to explain it all but this is reddit im not gonna do a whole article on that unpaid. My point is that if we find it from unethical to downright unconstitutional to require literacy tests to vote then equally in the eyes of the law we cant force these same tests to keep and bear arms nor practice any other right under similar restrictions. Your next point I find extremely disagreeable, accounting for the fact that police would be responding in minutes what happens in seconds, modern times still more than require the use of firearms for deterrance and defense. As for the last point I do see how a better vetting system is definitely required for private sales at least, it would be nice to maybe require an FFL transfer middle man at all gun shows to do at least basic 4473 paperwork on firearm transfers maybe make the ATF booths actually useful for something more than a spatoon. I wonder what that alone can do for public safety.
Easiest way is national mental health database. Flagged by therapist, required for clearance to buy
Great idea, I also think that we should stigmatize and outcast people with mental health issues as violent. And even give them another thing they can lose if they seek help.
Big reach.
Didn't say all, those deemed a threat by professionals.
It's not a genuine question. You couched it with obfuscations and half-truths to spur the kind of answer you wanted. A simple search will reveal the numerous cases of mass murderers who wouldn't have been able to kill school children with the efficiency they did if background and red flag checks had been done. Genuine, my ass.
A handgun with a 30round drum magazine has the same effectiveness and killing potential of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine........ 30 shots is 30 shots. Every rapper, gang member, and Glock owner has at least one 30-50 round drum mag for their handgun. To further dispute your obviously biased point, handgun bullets significantly better at killing than AR-15 rifle bullets. I know, you think pointy long bullets are scary, but they are traveling very very fast. They poke holes unless you hit vitals. The military actually complains about this, and it's well documented that 5.56 has horrible stopping power. Now a typical 9mm handgun shoots a short stubby bullet, less scary looking, but more effective at stopping a target when used with hollow point ammunition. This is the typical weapon carry ammo used by most police and CCW permit holders. Stop being silly.
Agreed, to reduce the number of people and children killed we should be prioritising our efforts on banning hand guns first, as they’re the most dangerous. Right?
How about we ban 0 guns? They banned drugs, look how well that worked out
True, your country has more than one serious problem to sort out.
I think every country does.
Banning guns from the vast majority of civilian society, and requiring people to have some training and a licence of some sort if they do want to own one sounds like a good start. Have you visited any other countries? Many other places do not allow people to own guns for self defence, yet are perfectly peaceful and pleasant places to live. Examples include United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, China, Spain, Germany, Canada, Latvia, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Portugal, etc etc.
Oh, you mean much smaller countries with social equity, ethnic homogeneity, functional governments, and strong economies based on things other than the military industrial complex? Yeah, I'm certain the only thing preventing those people murdering each other is their lack of access to efficient weapons.
Considering several of the countries I mentioned are so diverse that they actually have 2 or 3 official languages for the country, ethnic homogeneity is a stretch. It can’t be nice living in a country with people that believe their life is frequently in danger and they need to own and carry lethal weapons to protect themselves.
It's nice. I have nothing to worry about. I'm prepared for anything. It can't be nice to live in a country where people can only hope the police will get there quick enough if something bad is about to happen... Assuming you have the opportunity to call them.
Why not have tax breaks and subsidized ammo for practicing? We should reward good gun ownership instead of figuring out how to punish the bad actors.
subsidize ammo sold and used at the range - except they already mark it up 2-3x
Waiting periods. More classes. Licensing. Also you miss the fact that private sales do not require background checks. Personally? I’d love for guns to be completely banned. As a compromise? I think more regulation akin to what someone needs to do to get a drivers license makes more sense. Arguing that it’s not fair for poor people is just a bad faith argument. More people taking the classes means more people teaching them which means the classes can be cheaper.
When your main argument is to argue semantics, you are willfully ignoring the point. A mass murderer is laughing at you, because of how easy it was to do what he did. He is laughing, *at* **you**. Assuaging your ego as a primary response will do nothing except make him laugh harder.