politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hand guns are where the actual violence is. This is theater.
The problem that I have is, "what is an assault style weapon?" because a ruger 10/22 looks like
, but if you put a scope on it and get the black version, it looks like 
. If you put a pistol grip on it and a larger magazine, it looks like 
, but it's all the same gun. It does the same things. The shape of the magazine does not affect the gun in any way aside from more ammo. But you don't have to get a banana clip to do that.
To me, if the magazine is bigger than 5, and you can just hold the trigger, it should be illegal. Five rounds with five finger presses is all somone should ever need for hunting.
I don't know shit about guns nor do I care for them, but that is just my general feeling. It's the mag size and the speed it can be discharged at that matters.
Good news, full auto and burst fire have been illegal for decades.
Bump stocks, which would bounce the trigger back against your finger causing it to fire effectively like a full auto despite being semi, were banned by trump of all people.
The pro-gun community does not support this ban
The pro-gun community fought this for years, despite claiming they were "just a range toy" even after their role in the deadliest mass shooting America had ever seen.
So let's not pretend the pro-gun community are reasonable people making reasonable concessions.
I wasn't doing that. The guy I replied to wanted one specific thing to be illegal, I explained to him that it's already illegal. Whatever else you're reading into my post isn't there
The push back against full auto and bump stocks is particularly interesting because there are two advantages to full auto:
1: Haha that was fun for two seconds
2: There's a crowd of people I want to shoot into and accuracy doesn't matter.
From a cold blooded logical perspective full auto on small arms is mostly useless for hunting, self defense, and military needs alike. If you want to argue for burst fire, fair enough, but there's just no need for full auto or imitations.
I think that realistically the push back is because the full auto ban undermines a lot of their rhetoric.
After high profile mass shootings such as the Saint Valentines Day Massacre -- which includes the kind of photo you'll never see on a Wikipedia page about Sandy Hook or Ulvade -- killed 7 people, fully automatic weapons were deemed an unacceptable public risk without stricter regulations.
Like you say, they have functionally zero redeeming qualities and are far more useful to criminals than to "responsible gun owners". The laws have stood for a long time, the sky hasn't fallen and full auto weapons aren't turning up in mass shootings or organised crime. The regulations worked and they weren't even an outright ban.
But now people are asking why we can't do the same thing, for the same reasons, with semi-automatic weapons and the pro-gun community desperately doesn't want that for various self-aggrandizing, baseless reasons.
They know that "some weapons should be more tightly regulated because of the risk they pose to the public but not these ones" is a much weaker position than "no weapons should ever been regulated", so they opt for the latter.
If they actually succeeded, we would absolutely see those weapons used to create higher levels of violence, but the pro-gun community is fine with sacrificing more innocent lives for their hobby, especially if they get 2 seconds of fun at the range.
It was actually never determined if he used bump stocks or not. Some of his rifles had them but not all and the consistency and firing rate isn't typical of bump firing. There is a very real possibility that he just had illegally modified machine guns. During the course of the investigation the ATF was specifically prohibited from inspecting his weapons to determine if any modifications were made and the official report never actually stated one way or another if he did in fact use the bump stocks.
The pro-gun community opposes this because the intent of 2A was always to protect the ownership of militarily-useful arms.
The gov't already has the right to raise and provide arms for an army, as part of article 1 of the constitution; claiming that 2A protects the gov't's right to arm itself, when it was already granted that right earlier in the constitution, is laughable. Militias were groups of armed citizens, separate from the army, and they were often expected--and legally obligated in some cases--to provide their own arms in serviceable condition, and to train themselves in their use.
The way to effectively curtail violence without curtailing rights is to change the circumstances that lead to violence. Yes, you can cut out lung cancer, and even possibly do a lung transplant, but it's far, far easier to prevent lung cancer by not smoking than it is to cure it after you've been smoking for 50 years. Same with violence; look at the factors that lead people to pick up and use a gun illegally, then work to prevent those, and you'll have a greater net effect.
Isn't it cool how the intent of the amendment happens to align exactly with what the pro-gun community wants, which in turn aligns exactly with what is most profitable to the gun lobby?
It's a good thing it does too, otherwise you'd have to say things like "I want to play with a full auto and I think the consequences will happen to people I don't care about".
So do the gun laws in America mandate that a gun is kept in serviceable condition and it's owner is trained in how to use it? Or have we shrugged off "intent" before the second paragraph?
And while you spend the next 100 years doing that, the best way to minimize the amount of violence those people can inflict is to not sell them semi-automatic weapons after token checks that routinely fail.
I hate to break it to you, but gun control isn't about stopping all violence forever and never has been. It's about turning a murder into a black eye.
The fact that you slipped so effortlessly into that straw man makes it clear that you let pro-gun groups tell you what gun control is and then never thought critically about it.
I would fully support laws that required people to train in the arms that they choose to own, and provided the ammunition and expertise as part of income taxes that everyone is supposed to pay. I think that would be great. Heck, let's bring back marksmanship to schools; there used to be rifle teams in high schools, and I think that we should bring that back along with archery. We are a country that's heavily armed, but often sorely lacking in the skill to use those arms, and we should fix that to bring the people more in-line with the intent of the 2A.
Yes, ownership is a right, but that right also carries responsibilities. Guns aren't magic talismans that protect you simply by having one.
This isn't a straw man; I'm steel manning your argument. Your best claim is that you would give that right back once all violence had been eliminated. But that's an impossibility; even countries that have exceptionally low murder rates, with or without firearms, continually attempt to exert greater control over ownership of the tools of violence whatever those tools are. I'm acquainted with people that live in Finland, a country that has a murder rate that would be the envy of any politician in the US, but each murder committed with a firearm--legally owned or not--sees calls for more and more restrictions on the ownership of arms. What is a murder rate that you would consider to be acceptable such that you wouldn't attempt to restrict the ownership of firearms of any kind by individuals?
Congratulations, you are now a gun control advocate. Be sure to tell your pro-gun friends and all the lobby groups that claim to represent you.
Everything that followed this sentence was just another straw man.
You also talk about an "impossibility" with the confidence of someone who doesn't care if they're wrong because it won't change their views either way.
Countries like Australia have relaxed their gun laws in order to make recreational shooting more accessible, so i guess it's not impossible at all.
What they don't do is go back to selling semi-automatic weapons to known domestic abusers and people struggling with psychosis because that's a level of complete fucking idiocy that only America's pro-gun community can hit.
Again, since you refused to answer the question:
It's also useful to point out that NZ enacted sharp restrictions after the Christchurch murders, and then realized that they were functionally useless, and have since relaxed and are on the cusp of abolishing those same laws, Because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
Well you see since I'm not pro-gun, I don't think in terms of "all of these murders are acceptable".
Instead, whenever the laws failed, I would look at what could have been done to prevent that failure. If there truly was nothing that could have been done and no way of knowing, I would accept that.
But nope, we're not allowed to do that with guns. We just have to accept failure after failure because there is no amount of violence that will ever make the pro-gun crowd accept minor inconvenience.
Guns sold to people with a history of domestic abuse? No change. Guns sold to people who shoot children in the head for ringing a doorbell? No change. Guns sold to people who let toddlers get their hands on them? No change.
Sorry, this can't be true since you insisted it was an impossibility and surely you wouldn't be a melodramatic liar?
So, what you're saying is that the murder rate is not important to you, because you oppose the individual ownership of firearms, regardless of whether or not they're used to harm other people. Is that correct? So when you cite the murder rate as being your reason for banning firearms, that's not your real reason at all. On the other hand, if it is your real reason, then you must have a number that you consider to be acceptable. Is it 1? 100? Or does any single person using an item or right in a way that is either illegal or harmful to other people sufficient cause to ban that <> or eliminate that right?
Nope, and you're probably perfectly aware it isn't. But I won't waste my time clarifying in a dead thread so do your pathetic little downvote and I'll see you next school shooting.
Wasn't the bump stock ban overturned by SCROTUS?
If so i didn't hear about it and can't find it on Google.
It looks like it's on the docket, so expect it to get overturned 6-3, especially since their friends in the 5th circuit already gave them their argument
That is some insane non-sequitur logic.
you ABSOLUTELY cannot, that's been the case for a very long time now.
there are plenty of other things like that, it's not simply just a 'here's what you need to kill a deer and that's all you get'
I'm not a hunter, I don't kill or even eat animals; the motivation behind owning firearms doesn't begin or end with hunting.
Nobody is out there with full auto. period.
Looks like they may have edited it, they also hate normal ol' semi. Can't please the Anti-Self Defense people.
That's a fair thought. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings on it.
For what it's worth, automatic (holding the trigger) weapons are not available to American civilians without a class 3 permit. This permit is expensive and requires (I think) annual reapplication. I have never met anyone with this permit.
As for magazine size, I like to have a higher capacity for more fun at the range. One person I know got a 50 round drum magazine for their handgun. If you saw it, it would look silly and the thing would not be easily concealed. It'd be like carrying around a full Nintendo 64.
For my own opinion on the matter I think we need to focus on proper storage. No need for a teenager to have unrestricted access to guns. If we stopped that, there wouldn't have been a columbine shooting. Most if not all gun accidents are from mishandling, any time a person underage has one, it's due to improper storage (not locked up). I guess what I'm saying is the responsibility falls on the gun owner to ensure their items are secure and handled properly and with respect.
That's because it doesn't exist. There are licensing requirements for manufacturers and dealers of NFA items, but as long as you're legally allowed to own them in your state, you don't need a permit to buy a registered and transferrable machine gun.
What you need is $10k at a minimum and time to wait for the ATF to approve your Form 4 transfer application.
Many countries that the pro-gun community insists have "banned guns" will let you go to a range, unlicensed, and fire basically anything the range offers.
Meanwhile in America, scoping gun laws to reasonable use is staunchly opposed. We're supposed to accept that semi-automatic weapons with high capacity accessories are going to be sold to domestic terrorists and idiots, so people can "have fun at the range".
Not only is that deeply fucked in the head, it's not even necessary.
What a strange coincidence, I've never heard of these weapons being used in a mass shooting or gang crime, despite the pro-gun community insisting that regulations don't work.
Not necessary is not a good reason to not have something. Cars don't need to go 100mph, clothes don't need to have colors, Highly flavored foods are not necessary and actually may harm people with the preservatives and whatever else may be in the food. You're doing the same thing that conservatives do with border patrol reasons. "they could be terrorists and rapists. Not everyone who owns guns is a murderer, just like not every person crossing the border is a terrorist.
Cars are subjected to licensing and safety regulations that are being constantly changed. Heavy vehicles will soon include mandatory ECU speed limiters to address exactly this. As far as I'm aware, drivers haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.
The FTC has had principles for marketing junk food to children for almost a decade and harmful additives are routinely banned. As far as I'm aware, children haven't been parading around making flowery death threats over it.
Which is why legal immigration processes scrutinize character and intent and can be revoked at any time.
All your "but other things are dangerous" list does is demonstrate that gun laws aren't held to the standard as any every other public risk.
could you be anymore reductive with this statement?
yes, smack down that strawman argument you just propped up!!
I know you want to clean up after him and pretend there's some noble use for high capacity, semi-automatic weapons but it's literally the reason he gave for owning them.
Gonna need at least 15 rounds for a self-defense oriented pistol, and 30 for a home defense rifle.
This is the classic problem with democracy "I don't know anything about this topic but I definitely have opinions anyway." And look, I get it, and I don't have a solution to this democratic problem. There's no good test for reasonable expertise so we can't be excluding people from having opinions in areas based on knowledge. Furthermore, if you feel strongly that an issue affects you, how well educated do you really need to be before your opinion becomes valid?
Yea, I don't buy it. I'm saying I don't know much about guns because I don't want any in my house, but given what people "claim" they need guns for (hunting / defense) 5 bullets should be plenty.
WTF do you need 30 rounds for? Are you fighting an army? My guess is that any burglar is running away after the first shot, you're not going to be in an action movie 30 minute shoot out.
This is the problem with 2a people, they have these fantasies of what is "needed" that's completely detached from reality and just serves to provide guns to maniacs that can go on shooting rampages.
Self-defense pistols require higher mag capacity for 2 reasons.
One reason is because the goal of shooting an attacker isn't to kill him from blood loss in 40 minutes. It's to stop him from killing you in 5 seconds, meaning it generally requires multiple hits to physically stop them.
And the bigger reason is because precise shooting under stress is really, really difficult. In a 2-way shooting scenario with 5 rounds the most likely outcome is you miss all 5 shots. You carry 12-15 rounds in the mag not so you can shoot someone 12 times - you do it so you have 12 chances to hit.
It's also one of the reasons you don't hear about people with concealed firearms taking out mass shooters very often. Anyone with a lick of training knows they're going to miss most of their shots and that they're more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the shooter.
If the goal is to stop someone in 5 seconds, why would you need more rounds for the higher caliber rifle? Seems like 5 rifle rounds and 12-15 pistol rounds would be enough stopping power.
But if your argument is more chances to hit, well then you're just advocating for more rounds going somewhere other than there target, and 30 (high caliber rifle) rounds is certainly too much to fire out your walls willy nilly.
it's like you only read half of the comment and raced to post this reply...
the comment you replied to said:
the reason why you need more than 5 rifle rounds, IS NOT about stopping power. It's about giving you more than enough chances to land hits (if such a thing is absolutely necessary, the #1 goal of any sane gun owner is to avoid a firefight at ALL FUCKING COSTS).
Precise shooting in a stressful environment is really fucking hard, your heart is hammering your hands are shaking, you realize this could be the end. All of these factors heavily affect shooting ability in the moment.
you are making a lot of assumptions here, like assuming it's home defense shooting 556 or the like. What happens when you're out in the wilderness and end up in a face off with a bear or a cougar? There are so many complex settings and situations and here you are framing the conversation as if this only applies to defending your bedroom or hallway.
For home defense, many many people take this into account and avoid calibers with high penetration power. Not every home defenser has 5.56 or .300blk. Plenty of "assault weapons" that shoot pistol calibers
Nice ad hominem, thank you for putting your poor faith on display right away, but no, I was merely just addressing the points as presented.
So why did they say the rifle needed more than the handgun?
So the numbers should be the same then, no?
Which is dangerous for anyone nearby.
Seems like you're the one making assumptions, champ, all I implied is higher caliber, because I don't think people often refer to .22 carbines as rifles.
Okay, so how many shots do you think you need for a bear, or for a cougar? Because even if you're squeezing your trigger as fast as possible, a cougar is gonna be able to finish you before you finish your 30 round mag.
oh cute, a nice little strawman to finish with, almost needed a reminder that you were a bad faith actor. Didn't say anything about assault weapons though, scare quotes were cute though, definitely keep that up.
Also not who you're arguing with nor who you originally replied too, but:
He didn't, but "because the pistol still needs to be concealable." Jam this in your pants and it'll 100% stick out, or "print" as they call it. Rifles are inherrently less concealable, so they may as well have their standard capacity magazines.
Not who you're arguing with, but I am who you initially replied to.
I never said a rifle needed more ammo than a pistol, and you're claiming I did. I only addressed handguns in my comment. So maybe there's some accuracy to the claim you are framing your reply before reading the comments....
Also, an AR-15 is a .22 inch (22 caliber) carbine. It's not a .22lr carbine (though I have BCG replacement that let's me run .22lr through it for cheaper plinking).
Then the same is true for the person attacking you.
The pro-gun community insists that even "a lick of training" should be entirely optional.
There are multiple reasons you need a small handful of bullets for self defense:
You don't want to have to count rounds during the most stressful situation in your life. You should be focused on other tasks besides worrying about round count and reloading.
Bullets are the fastest and most reliable way to disable someone, yes, but they're not instant like in the movies. Unless you get a head shot (usually not advised) or hit their spine (a bit of luck) they don't have to stop fighting for a decent amount of time. You need multiple hits until they give up or are forced to.
You use up bullets way faster than you think. Your scenario where a 30 round magazine is appropriate (to you) would average one shot per minute. A typical self defense shooting is averaging multiple shots per second.
Smart home invaders bring buddies.
If they knew you only had five shots, couldn't they just count your shots and then come after you?
Do you really want to have to deal with a potentially deadly encounter with "enough" preparation, or would you like to have way more than enough?
Going by the pro-gun communities own statistics, it takes 75 million gun owners to see 100,000 "defensive gun uses" that can be independently verified.
So it looks like for 99.9% of gun owners, they needed exactly 0 rounds.
Thankfully. However I bet those 100k were glad they had a few.
Do you think this logic should be used for statutory rape laws? Should we let the experts in having sex with children write them because surely nobody else could get it right?
We can all clearly see the problems and we can all clearly see the "experts" doing absolutely nothing to solve them.
It's a person on social media making a comment. It's not even actual legislation.
But anyway, just to let us know your qualifications, how many people have you killed in self defense and how many bullets did it take?
what an absurd false equivolency. The person you are replying to is saying that we shouldn't be forcing through bad laws written by lawmakers who don't understand the specifics of the thing they are crafting law for, and your response is to say that we shouldn't use pedos to write child sex laws?
We should just pass laws on feelings and not specifics?
This is absolutely about actual legislation
It's both.
No problem, we can ban those too.