Support NeoGAF

[Nodnol]

This thread has been fantastic, and a real insight into just why, in my opinion, nothing will ever change when it comes to US gun control.

The obvious solution would be stricter laws about who can own a gun, how many one can own, and the nature of the guns available given an individual’s justification for such firearms. Alongside this, mandatory health checks, both physical and mental, training and safety classes and annual check ups. You can’t ignore the healthcare aspect of this though, in that there needs to be better investment in mental health awareness and treatment.

The reality is, nothing will change. The politicians won’t vote for something that doesn’t suit their financial backers, and more importantly, the people they represent. Too many people are brainwashed into treating your Constitution as gospel, and until everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet, there’ll never be serious efforts made IMO.

It seems, from the outside admittedly, that the 2nd Ammendment is utterly redundant and a waste of time. It’s not relevant anymore; the right to bear arms....in a world where the US has the most well funded military, supplemented with drones, tanks, aircraft etc. You try and overthrow your government with what you can buy at your local gun store, and see what happens. Leaning on its existence to justify a culture that is obviously deeply flawed is just baffling.

It seems juvenile to demand the RIGHT to have a gun. The rest of the world just don’t get it. Port Arthur happened; Australia reacted. Dunblane happened; the UK reacted. Time and time again, there’s a needless loss of life, and the best people can manage is thoughts and prayers. Over and over again. The US will consume itself in a fire of God-fearing capitalism before their gun control laws are properly looked into.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I have yet to see a study that shows that the majority (or even the high minority) of homicides in the USA are being done by citizens who purchase their guns legally.

Studies show the opposite. They seem to show that guns used in killings are not purchased legally. Meaning more background checks, more bans, watch lists... all worthless.

Suicides, mass shootings (like Florida and Las Vegas), and domestic violence are cases were we do see legal guns being used. But if you add mass shootings and domestic violence and subtract suicides to the total number of gun homicides, you find that legal guns used is very low.

Unfortunately the proposed measures won’t help because the amount of illegal guns are already here.

 

[LordRaptor]

Now's not the time to have this discussion. Please let the bodies rest.

I mean... when is the time?
The alarming regularity of such attacks gives a pretty narrow window of when it is tasteful to have this discussion.

 

[MilkyJoe]

I don't think anyone is against gun control as a whole, everyone has their own idea of how much of it is needed. Anyway, I used to be very pro-gun control, I changed my mind when someone pointed me out how important an armed civil population is to prevent government tyranny.

I've read some nonsense on the internet....

 

[appaws]

It seems, from the outside admittedly, that the 2nd Ammendment is utterly redundant and a waste of time. It’s not relevant anymore; the right to bear arms....in a world where the US has the most well funded military, supplemented with drones, tanks, aircraft etc. You try and overthrow your government with what you can buy at your local gun store, and see what happens. Leaning on its existence to justify a culture that is obviously deeply flawed is just baffling.

I've read some nonsense on the internet....

It has been explained numerous times in this very thread. Insurgencies have succeeded in raising the cost of an occupation against first-world militaries to an unsupportable level. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

Especially since a huge percentage of US military and law enforcement would not join in the supression of other citizens' human rights.

 

[Nodnol]

It has been explained numerous times in this very thread. Insurgencies have succeeded in raising the cost of an occupation against first-world militaries to an unsupportable level. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

Especially since a huge percentage of US military and law enforcement would not join in the supression of other citizens' human rights.

It’s still an utterly irrelevant and outdated line though. Times have changed, and it doesn’t, or shouldn’t, translate to modern times very well. By its very nature, it’s unrealistic in 2018.

In my opinion, US lawmakers failed their country when they didn’t react to the change in technology and availability of firearms as they evolved. This should have been handled 100 years ago. Every politician who stood idly by has blood on their hands.

Society moves and evolves, but it still travels as quickly as it’s slowest citizens allow. Cars, drugs, alcohol etc etc etc, all regulated in varying degrees to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Same should apply to firearms, and thankfully it does in most civilized countries.

 

[MilkyJoe]

It has been explained numerous times in this very thread. Insurgencies have succeeded in raising the cost of an occupation against first-world militaries to an unsupportable level. See Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc.

Especially since a huge percentage of US military and law enforcement would not join in the supression of other citizens' human rights.

Which is not going to happen in a western democracy, the real reason is people do not want to give up their toys. Let's not beat around the bush.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I'm sure 100% of people support preventing the mentally ill from purchasing guns. The devil is in the details. Who is mentally ill, and how do we make sure that due process is protected in making that judgment? Who makes the ruling? Can it be appealed, etc.?

Agreed, although I'm not sure the legal concept of "due process" applies to purchasing a weapon. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee immediate access to purchase a firearm. In terms of unjust/unfair rulings, I definitely think there would need to be a formal, reasonable appeal process.

Now, as far as public support for a ban on "assault-style" weapons, that is a joke. The anti-gun lobby did a really great job with using terminology to convince people that these were "machine guns" that we are talking about. (And the liberty hating Josh Sugarmann specifically admits this in his book.) Ask people if small-caliber semi-automatic rifles should be banned....say goodbye to that phony statistic about "half of gun owners."

So I'd agree with your argument when considering the non-gun owner statistic. But shouldn't gun owners be better educated about guns and gun-related terminology?

There's also a similar question with just slightly less agreement among gun owners (44%) about banning high-capacity magazines, which really doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

 

[rokkerkory]

WH is saying they support expanded background checks this am. Hope this is something that can be realized.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/19/politics/trump-background-checks-florida/index.html

 

[appaws]

Agreed, although I'm not sure the legal concept of "due process" applies to purchasing a weapon. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee immediate access to purchase a firearm. In terms of unjust/unfair rulings, I definitely think there would need to be a formal, reasonable appeal process.

The legal concept of due process EXACTLY applies to taking away a person's constitutional rights, like purchasing a weapon. We have to be careful about things like "no fly lists," which are made by unnamed bureaucrats and are not appealable.

We can't get to a point where some bureaucrat can put you on a list of "mentally ill" people and suddenly you are denied your constitutional rights. It has to be a legal proceeding with all the standards of due process, legal representation, appeal ability, records request and discovery, etc.

As long as due process is protected, I am 100% in favor of denying weapon purchases to people who have mental illness or criminal histories. (We already do this to a certain extent.) I would even be in favor of denying purchases to people on a no-fly list....as long as that list was made public with notification, and being on the list was subject to appeal.

 

[The Sane Psycho]

This is just my personal feeling, but I'd eventually like to get a handgun to protect myself, just in case I need to. Especially knowing that my bedroom window doesn't lock and opens from the outside as well as the inside. I do have a .270 Remington bolt action that I use for hunting, but that's not really a home protection gun. I don't know, I'd feel safer knowing I'd have a gun to protect myself and my family.

 

[Nodnol]

This is just my personal feeling, but I'd eventually like to get a handgun to protect myself, just in case I need to. Especially knowing that my bedroom window doesn't lock and opens from the outside as well as the inside. I do have a .270 Remington bolt action that I use for hunting, but that's not really a home protection gun. I don't know, I'd feel safer knowing I'd have a gun to protect myself and my family.

As a Brit, I don’t understand this mindset. It’s not a criticism by the way, we all want our families safe.

Are burglaries common in your area? How common are deaths resulting from someone breaking and entering?

The way people talk about wanting protection makes it sound like the Wild West out there. I’d be curious as to how often someone who has a firearm for home protection actually uses it, finds it a viable and safe addition to their home and whether or not a gun is the best way to ensure they’re safe.

In my experience, thieves or burglars are largely opportunistic and will go for the path of least resistance over and above anything else. They’re not breaking in to murder your family; they’re just there to nick your TV and laptop.

Edit: I totally forgot the thing that baffles me the most...you’d rather buy a gun then fix your window locking arrangement. Eh?

 

[appaws]

This is just my personal feeling, but I'd eventually like to get a handgun to protect myself, just in case I need to. Especially knowing that my bedroom window doesn't lock and opens from the outside as well as the inside. I do have a .270 Remington bolt action that I use for hunting, but that's not really a home protection gun. I don't know, I'd feel safer knowing I'd have a gun to protect myself and my family.

Yeah, a bolt action hunting rifle is far from ideal for home defense. I recommend a handgun, preferably something full sized like a Glock 17 or a full sized revolver...or a pump action or semi-auto 12 gauge with a short barrel. And go take a class...training is very important. Try to get your spouse/significant other to get the training as well.

And a quick opening gun safe if that family includes kids.

As a Brit, I don’t understand this mindset. It’s not a criticism by the way, we all want our families safe.

Are burglaries common in your area? How common are deaths resulting from someone breaking and entering?

The way people talk about wanting protection makes it sound like the Wild West out there. I’d be curious as to how often someone who has a firearm for home protection actually uses it, finds it a viable and safe addition to their home and whether or not a gun is the best way to ensure they’re safe.

In my experience, thieves or burglars are largely opportunistic and will go for the path of least resistance over and above anything else. They’re not breaking in to murder your family; they’re just there to nick your TV and laptop.

Edit: I totally forgot the thing that baffles me the most...you’d rather buy a gun then fix your window locking arrangement. Eh?

Do both. A big loud dog (...also makes a great best friend!) and/or an alarm system are great as well. But to get a firearm is your right as an American. Ask at your local shop or range about classes.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I mean... when is the time?
The alarming regularity of such attacks gives a pretty narrow window of when it is tasteful to have this discussion.

That was sarcasm. It's essentially what SatansReverence said despite creating a thread wanting to discuss gun control.

It's literally just used as an anti gun control argument, because it's easy to talk about free and restrictionless access to firearms when you prevent the other side from talking about the victims.

 

[Nodnol]

Yeah, a bolt action hunting rifle is far from ideal for home defense. I recommend a handgun, preferably something full sized like a Glock 17 or a full sized revolver...or a pump action or semi-auto 12 gauge with a short barrel. And go take a class...training is very important. Try to get your spouse/significant other to get the training as well.

And a quick opening gun safe if that family includes kids.



Do both. A big loud dog (...also makes a great best friend!) and/or an alarm system are great as well. But to get a firearm is your right as an American. Ask at your local shop or range about classes.

Sorry mate, I know there’s probably a bit of sarcasm in there, but I’ve alreay said I think having the right to own a firearm is a flawed idea. Can’t blame the founders of your nation for not being able to see into the future; just those that didn’t adapt with the times and let it spiral to where you are now.

 

[mrkgoo]

As a Brit, I don’t understand this mindset. It’s not a criticism by the way, we all want our families safe.

Are burglaries common in your area? How common are deaths resulting from someone breaking and entering?

The way people talk about wanting protection makes it sound like the Wild West out there. I’d be curious as to how often someone who has a firearm for home protection actually uses it, finds it a viable and safe addition to their home and whether or not a gun is the best way to ensure they’re safe.

In my experience, thieves or burglars are largely opportunistic and will go for the path of least resistance over and above anything else. They’re not breaking in to murder your family; they’re just there to nick your TV and laptop.

Edit: I totally forgot the thing that baffles me the most...you’d rather buy a gun then fix your window locking arrangement. Eh?

Further from an outside perspective, it is a really alien concept.

As you said we all want to protect our family and stuff, but getting a gun to shoot any would be offenders has never crossed my mind. Now that might be that I'm in some sort of privileged situation compared to some in US, but it doesn't feel that way.

 

[Alx]

As a Brit, I don’t understand this mindset. It’s not a criticism by the way, we all want our families safe.

(...)

In my experience, thieves or burglars are largely opportunistic and will go for the path of least resistance over and above anything else. They’re not breaking in to murder your family; they’re just there to nick your TV and laptop.

Yeah I have the same reaction too, living in France. I only remember a single case of people breaking into my parent's house (well as a matter of fact just entering, the door being unlocked), and stealing a handbag and some pocket change lying around. My parents were quite shocked, and their first reaction was "we need a dog". (which we did get... cool dog btw).
It makes so much more sense. After all we've trained dogs for millenia to guard our homes, it should be at least the first idea that comes to mind, long before one considers weapons.

 

[rokkerkory]

Here’s the root cause, money lobbying in politics: http://on.msnbc.com/2o8m0ec

This is how much $ in millions our politicians are getting. You don’t think $ would influence their judgement to represent the people’s will right.

 

[gatti-man]

I have yet to see a study that shows that the majority (or even the high minority) of homicides in the USA are being done by citizens who purchase their guns legally.

Studies show the opposite. They seem to show that guns used in killings are not purchased legally. Meaning more background checks, more bans, watch lists... all worthless.

Suicides, mass shootings (like Florida and Las Vegas), and domestic violence are cases were we do see legal guns being used. But if you add mass shootings and domestic violence and subtract suicides to the total number of gun homicides, you find that legal guns used is very low.

Unfortunately the proposed measures won’t help because the amount of illegal guns are already here.

BioID and mandatory gun registrations would really dry up black market dealings. Also allowing private sales should be basically banned. All sales should go through a registration and background process with psych eval.

Also plenty of mass murders have used legally acquired fire arms. Focusing on majority or minority to me doesn’t matter. If 40% of mass murders can be stopped then we should do that. Right?

 

[mrkgoo]

Yeah I have the same reaction too, living in France. I only remember a single case of people breaking into my parent's house (well as a matter of fact just entering, the door being unlocked), and stealing a handbag and some pocket change lying around. My parents were quite shocked, and their first reaction was "we need a dog". (which we did get... cool dog btw).
It makes so much more sense. After all we've trained dogs for millenia to guard our homes, it should be at least the first idea that comes to mind, long before one considers weapons.

A place I used to live at was victim of several burglaries. All when we were not home, so any actual weapon would've been useless (or stolen). I'd wager that the larger portion of that kind of crime doesn't happen with guns here, since it's not that easy to obtain one.

Our police aren't usually armed with firearms for day-to-day use either.

 

[Durask]

Here’s the root cause, money lobbying in politics: http://on.msnbc.com/2o8m0ec

This is how much $ in millions our politicians are getting. You don’t think $ would influence their judgement to represent the people’s will right.

NRA spends peanuts compared to the really big lobbies out there.
The real strength of the NRA is politically active people who go out and vote, send letters to senators, congressmen, etc.
There is no big bloc of people who will go and vote for insurance industry.

 

[SatansReverence]

BioID and mandatory gun registrations would really dry up black market dealings. Also allowing private sales should be basically banned. All sales should go through a registration and background process with psych eval.

Also plenty of mass murders have used legally acquired fire arms. Focusing on majority or minority to me doesn’t matter. If 40% of mass murders can be stopped then we should do that. Right?

While I agree privatised sale of guns should at the very least require the same back ground checks as sales from established businesses, all sales requiring psych evaluation just isn't feasible.

I would definitely support a system that when a gun owner gets flagged, they should require a psych evaluation to determine if they are fit to own firearms. This system should be appealable too especially in the case of someone found unfit but gets treatment. A re-evaluation should take place.

 

[Durask]

Further from an outside perspective, it is a really alien concept.

As you said we all want to protect our family and stuff, but getting a gun to shoot any would be offenders has never crossed my mind. Now that might be that I'm in some sort of privileged situation compared to some in US, but it doesn't feel that way.

There are really two issues here. One is the right to own a gun (or any other weapon for that matter) and the other one is the right to self defence. Those are very different things.

Now something like this is quite rare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

However I would like to have layers of security to prevent something like this happening. Chances of this happening - sure they are extremely low. But we do get life insurance even though our chances of dropping dead before age 50 are quite low, right?

 

[TheShadowLord]

end of the day nothing will change so no gun owner here would need to fear the government taking away their guns or semi automatics. We will just talk about gun control for a week or two, asking politicians to do something and then move on without our lives until the next time there's a mass shooting and we're back where we started. A never-ending ouroboros.

 

[rokkerkory]

NRA spends peanuts compared to the really big lobbies out there.
The real strength of the NRA is politically active people who go out and vote, send letters to senators, congressmen, etc.
There is no big bloc of people who will go and vote for insurance industry.

Tens of millions is peanuts lol

Any type of money lobbying should be outlawed.

 

[Moneal]

NRA spends peanuts compared to the really big lobbies out there.
The real strength of the NRA is politically active people who go out and vote, send letters to senators, congressmen, etc.
There is no big bloc of people who will go and vote for insurance industry.

Yea people should check out opensecrets.org to get a better picture on lobbying and political spending.

 

[mrkgoo]

There are really two issues here. One is the right to own a gun (or any other weapon for that matter) and the other one is the right to self defence. Those are very different things.

Now something like this is quite rare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

However I would like to have layers of security to prevent something like this happening. Chances of this happening - sure they are extremely low. But we do get life insurance even though our chances of dropping dead before age 50 are quite low, right?

Sure, not really arguing the right of either, just that those things have never crossed my mind. I'm merely musing how much of those "rights" stem from the increased presence of firearms in the first place. Guess it's hard to truly know.

 

[Durask]

Tens of millions is peanuts lol

Any type of money lobbying should be outlawed.

Bloomberg himself donated 65 million in 2016 (his two things are gun bans and soda bans)

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bloomberg-new-york-donor-230861

 

[pramod]

Yeah i think one thing that really needs to be cleared up is that the AR 15 is not a machine gun. In close quarters its not even that great a weapon. To be honest he could have killed more people with 2 handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did.

 

[Durask]

Yeah i think one thing that really needs to be cleared up is that the AR 15 is not a machine gun. In close quarters its not even that great a weapon. To be honest he could have killed more people with 2 handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did.

That's the thing - banning military looking semi auto rifles will mean that shooters will just get non-military looking semi auto rifles or just get some handguns. There is really no logic to banning "assault weapons" except as an initial start to banning much larger categories of weapons, both committed pro-gunners and committed antis understand this very well.

 

[Durask]

To be honest, realistically what works is bureaucratic obstacles piled on in layers - while none of them is a guarantee, pile up enough of them and they will filter out the crazy simply because at some point their defective thought processes will flag them or they will simply give up due to inability to follow through, etc.

Will not stop a determined terrorist like Brevik who is really a terrorist and not a "mass shooter".

 

[rokkerkory]

Bloomberg himself donated 65 million in 2016 (his two things are gun bans and soda bans)

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bloomberg-new-york-donor-230861

So how do we get money out of politics since you seem to agree with that?

 

[Durask]

So how do we get money out of politics since you seem to agree with that?

Name a country with a democratically elected government that managed to do that to a resonable extent and see how it works?
(Note: not a snark, I do not know if there is one).

 

[Vicetrailia]

Name a country with a democratically elected government that managed to do that to a resonable extent and see how it works?
(Note: not a snark, I do not know if there is one).

It's more transparent now, but the beast is unleashed and if they banned it, it would move underground. We need some type of protection against the truly corrupt things, maybe a department to identify lobbies and challenge them in court. The NRA paying their way to banning federal research on guns should be some type of public health concern.

 

[rokkerkory]

Name a country with a democratically elected government that managed to do that to a resonable extent and see how it works?
(Note: not a snark, I do not know if there is one).

Well we have plenty of democratic countries with sensible gun laws with low gun related violence. We can certainly have the same.

 

[DavidGzz]

I have yet to see a study that shows that the majority (or even the high minority) of homicides in the USA are being done by citizens who purchase their guns legally.

Studies show the opposite. They seem to show that guns used in killings are not purchased legally. Meaning more background checks, more bans, watch lists... all worthless.

Suicides, mass shootings (like Florida and Las Vegas), and domestic violence are cases were we do see legal guns being used. But if you add mass shootings and domestic violence and subtract suicides to the total number of gun homicides, you find that legal guns used is very low.

Unfortunately the proposed measures won’t help because the amount of illegal guns are already here.

Well, I, and many others are not as concerned with gang members killing each other. This discussion isn't about drug deals or turf wars. Gang members aren't shooting up our schools, concerts and shopping malls, it's the legal gun owners.

 

[pramod]

Guns and AR15s have been around for a long time. School shootings and mass murder is a much more recent phenomenon. Of course we all want the quick easy solution which is gun control. But i feel like we are choosing the easy way out instead of confronting the root cause.

 

[appaws]

So how do we get money out of politics since you seem to agree with that?

It's more transparent now, but the beast is unleashed and if they banned it, it would move underground. We need some type of protection against the truly corrupt things, maybe a department to identify lobbies and challenge them in court. The NRA paying their way to banning federal research on guns should be some type of public health concern.

At least in the US, this takes you smack dab into the face of the first amendment. Luckily the heroes of the NRA have enough small donors and voters to counteract Bloomberg and his billions. I'll pass on borrowing some more money from China to fund "federal research" on how to take away my human rights, thanks.

Guns and AR15s have been around for a long time. School shootings and mass murder is a much more recent phenomenon. Of course we all want the quick easy solution which is gun control. But i feel like we are choosing the easy way out instead of confronting the root cause.

Society has become unstable. Families have fallen apart. Morality has declined. Such huge numbers of kids, especially boys, are drugged up to make them conform to what some school system bureaucrat has deemed proper behavior. Tossed onto a rough sea of atomization and nihilism, without fathers, without God, without communities. Sure most will make it through OK, man is a tough and adaptable creature...but that small number won't...and unfortunately sometimes they lash out at the rest of us.

I don't have solutions. We can't close the barn door, the horse is already out. Of course the statists will always take any chance to increase the power of the state, promising some sort of utopia brought on by enlightened bureaucracy. I would expect nothing different from them, they always sing the same song.

 

[WaterAstro]

Guns and AR15s have been around for a long time. School shootings and mass murder is a much more recent phenomenon. Of course we all want the quick easy solution which is gun control. But i feel like we are choosing the easy way out instead of confronting the root cause.

School shootings have been occurring just as long.

The root cause of it is the ease of access to guns by mentally unstable individuals. Gun control prevents that.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Well, I, and many others are not as concerned with gang members killing each other. This discussion isn't about drug deals or turf wars. Gang members aren't shooting up our schools, concerts and shopping malls, it's the legal gun owners.

Da fuck?

Many kids have been killed in gang fights. Gangs exist even in schools. There have been many kids killed trying to go to school.

Gang violence is a huge problem. Many parents bury there kids because of it. If you aren’t worried about that because those aren’t legal gun owners, then that’s you.

People like myself own a gun so we can protect our families in a situation that threatens our lives. And I believe a study the CDC did showed that guns are used in self defense situations at least a half million times a year. I could be mistaken so I’ll search to find a link.

A half million people should have tested fate? Protected themselves with hopes and wishes? Thoughts and prayers?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

We need better background checks. (understatement) The shooter in question was autistic, a psychopath and obsessed with guns.

 

[DavidGzz]

Da fuck?

Many kids have been killed in gang fights. Gangs exist even in schools. There have been many kids killed trying to go to school.

Gang violence is a huge problem. Many parents bury there kids because of it. If you aren’t worried about that because those aren’t legal gun owners, then that’s you.

People like myself own a gun so we can protect our families in a situation that threatens our lives. And I believe a study the CDC did showed that guns are used in self defense situations at least a half million times a year. I could be mistaken so I’ll search to find a link.

A half million people should have tested fate? Protected themselves with hopes and wishes? Thoughts and prayers?

My point is that stricter regulations are not going to save those gang violence situations but it can help the gun violence happening with the legal gun owners.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

My point is that stricter regulations are not going to save those gang violence situations but it can help the gun violence happening with the legal gun owners.

There are things we can do. Agreed.

I can’t help but feel that any background check wouldn’t provide better information than what was given to the FBI. Had Cruz been Muslim, he’d been caught.

 

[pramod]

School shootings have been occurring just as long.

The root cause of it is the ease of access to guns by mentally unstable individuals. Gun control prevents that.

If that's the case, how do you explain this chart?

What has changed since the 1980's and why is there a sudden explosion since the 90's?

Society has become unstable. Families have fallen apart. Morality has declined. Such huge numbers of kids, especially boys, are drugged up to make them conform to what some school system bureaucrat has deemed proper behavior. Tossed onto a rough sea of atomization and nihilism, without fathers, without God, without communities. Sure most will make it through OK, man is a tough and adaptable creature...but that small number won't...and unfortunately sometimes they lash out at the rest of us.

Yeah I know, I don't have any good answers myself. I guess I'm just asking a rhetorical question. I think deep down inside we all know why these things are happening..it's just that to confront the real ugly truth is too hard and complicated. This is the type of society we live in now and we just have to accept it I guess.

I don't have solutions. We can't close the barn door, the horse is already out. Of course the statists will always take any chance to increase the power of the state, promising some sort of utopia brought on by enlightened bureaucracy. I would expect nothing different from them, they always sing the same song.

I dunno, I'm at a point where I'm thinking the America we used to know is pretty much dead and is never coming back...so why even still worry about "the power of the state"...what are we trying to protect, anyway?...let them take our guns...just let it all burn down. There's nothing left, anyway. It's already too late.

 

[rokkerkory]

I heard today that AR-15s were wanted by the army even as early as the vietnam war because they would kill the opposition even better / faster than the m16s back then.

Crazy why crazy people can buy AR-15s so easily.

 

[Alx]

If that's the case, how do you explain this chart?

What has changed since the 1980's and why is there a sudden explosion since the 90's?

Video games.

Spoiler

I don't really believe it, but it's as good an explanation as another.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I heard today that AR-15s were wanted by the army even as early as the vietnam war because they would kill the opposition even better / faster than the m16s back then.

Crazy why crazy people can buy AR-15s so easily.

I always heard the ar15 was the civilian version of the m16

 

[pramod]

Video games.

Spoiler

I don't really believe it, but it's as good an explanation as another.

So why can't we ban video games or whatever is the root cause?

I know it's a bad analogy but it's like taking knives away from someone suicidal. As if that will really fix everything.

 

[mrkgoo]

So why can't we ban video games or whatever is the root cause?

I know it's a bad analogy but it's like taking knives away from someone suicidal. As if that will really fix everything.

It's not about fixing everything. It's about taking SOME steps to minimise it.

No single thing will fix everything, but it's worth trying, right?

And honestly, speaking, yes I think you should take knives away from someone suicidal.

 

[BANGS]

I heard today that AR-15s were wanted by the army even as early as the vietnam war because they would kill the opposition even better / faster than the m16s back then.

Crazy why crazy people can buy AR-15s so easily.

And this is why anti-gun people are taken so lightly...

https://www.fieldandstream.com/answ...views/what-difference-between-m4-m16-or-ar-15