A little different post this time, not a news article or anything. Just some excellent points made here.
Hickok45 on gun control: “It is my belief, and it is for a lot of other gun owners, that the purpose of the second amendment is that we have the same firearms that the military has”
You see, AR rifles might look scary, but really they’re just semi-automatic rifles that function the same as other less scary looking rifles. The real scary weapons are actual military assault rifles, and I think anyone should be allowed to own those too! Obviously, these will only be used for good and will never be used to make mass shootings even worse. Of course, some people might perhapse use them for bad, so police will now need to be equipped to handle literal military weapons, and I see nothing wrong with cops walking the beat looking like they’re patrolling Kandahar. This is the vision the founding fathers had for America!
I’m being sarcastic of course, but honestly how could anyone justify allowing literally anyone to purchase actual military assault rifles without any sort of licencing or training requirements?
We don’t allow people to automatic weapons without a background check and even then it’s old stock.
An AR-15 is similar to the M-16. The only real difference is depending on the model, the m-16 will be fully automatic or have a three round burst.
The round fired is a 5.56 NATO round which is the same round used for varmint hunting. There is nothing unique about the round or deadly about it. It’s an intermediate round.
My 30-06 is much deadlier on a round per round basis.
The point being is people freak over an AR-15 when it’s used in under 1% of murders.
Handguns are the primary killer and its inner city youth killing each other.
Handguns are the primary killer and its inner city youth killing each other.
How would you solve this state of affairs?
In all fairness I don’t have an answer. It’s a tough problem to solve that’s tied to culture.
My gut reaction is to increase the number of police on the streets as they did in the 90’s when we had a rapid decrease in murders. Studies are mixed is that really helped. That was part of Joe Biden plan to decrease crime the 90’s.
Joe also worked to increase prison time but once again studies are mixed is that worked.
What we do know is the in the 90’s we had a sharp decline and I do think that should be studied. We need to really learned what did and didn’t help.
I am not a fan of Joe Biden. I think he’s a racist but he did push tough on crime measures in the 90’s. The question is did that really cause the decline or was it something else.
Maybe we should look to what other developed countries have done to reduce gun crime? Like you, I am at a loss, but others seem to have managed it, so in lieu of a homegrown solution, perhaps someone else has a solution to the problem.
I am also no fan of Joe Biden, he pushed for that awful racist crime bill in 1994. I mean crime was already decreasing due to a variety of measures and here he come with this truly awful bill and sets us back so far due to its unequal policing and persecution of racial minorities.
Then again, there are a great many people today who are still pushing for those provably damaging policies to be continued or even expanded. I truly hope those people begin to learn that it is helping people rather than persecuting minorities which will improve things for all of us!
Other countries disarmed their population and took away their rights. That doesn’t interest me.
We should do what has worked in the past. If that is more police and longer jail sentences, as Biden claims then let’s do it. I have no issue keeping criminals in prison.
The 1994 crime bill wasn’t racist. That is an odd thing to say. Can you point to where the law was racist?
Yes no worries, happy to inform you! Here is a link:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/17/joe-biden-race-crime-bill-1994-policing
I realise its the smelly Guardian but maybe you can hold your nose and give it a little read.
We should do what has worked in the past.
If it worked in the past, then why is there a problem now?
Maybe we should look to what other developed countries have done to reduce gun crime
Why should I give a fuck about gun crime, a category solely defined by the use of guns, rather than violence as a whole, which gun control has repeatedly proven to have no statistical impact on?
Why should I give a fuck about gun crime, a category solely defined by the use of guns, rather than violence as a whole
It’s the leading cause of death for children.
gun control has repeatedly proven to have no statistical impact on?
The U.S. has 120 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate or 6 per 100,000.
Finland has 32 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000
Germany has 20 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000.
The U.S. has the most lax gun law, followed by Finland. Germany is by far the most strict of these three.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
If gun control doesn’t work why is gun control tied to lower deaths, and gun quantity tied to higher deaths?
Back on your favorite lie, eh
We don’t allow people to automatic weapons without a background check and even then it’s old stock.
This isn’t true if you’re at a gun show or have a friend with one.
Thats straight up not true. NFA items always require a tax stamp, which means a background check.
TIL. I retract my previous statement.
but honestly how could anyone justify allowing literally anyone to purchase actual military assault rifles without any sort of licencing or training requirements?
Because fuck off, neither you nor the government has a place in telling me what I can and can’t buy.
Easy. Because the actual problem is murder. “Precrime” should not be a crime.
Murder is made way easier with guns, as a result gun prevalence increases murder rates. Nobody is suggesting “precrime” is a crime.
Do you think civilians should be allowed to own nuclear bombs? Would it be a problem for civilians to own such arms, or would murder the be problem?
So as long as mass murders go to jail it’s fine? A classroom of kids get slaughtered, the guy who did it gets life in jail. That’s an even trade? That’s justice? The government has done its job?
I mean, pretty much. Throw them in with the unabomber in 23/7 solitary. Maybe put out an awareness campaign or something.
Awareness always works. Do you have any crack cocaine?
(This is a jab at awareness campaigns, not about the gun debate.)
…
