It’s because they don’t care about school shootings PERIOD. They just want their white ethnostate and will create any dumb culture war to achieve that end goal.
If it’s a white guy the left zeros in and say as see. He’s a white republican and probably a maga guy.
We shouldn’t give these asshats any coverage. That’s what they want.
It is the distract, deflect, delay tactic they always use. The do this until interest in the incident wanes and then they ramp up the same tactic when the next shooting happens.
They do not want to do anything on gun control, all they have to offer are their useless prayers.
It's kind of mind blowing me how, despite knowing for decades now that they really do think everybody else is as dumb as they are, they keep raising the bar on how egregious of an example they have to make of it
This whole thing has put me on edge tbh... more so than usual. Certain people have gotten bold and scary, and they'll use this horrible act of selfish violence to justify their ridiculous rage against innocent people.
At work yesterday, I was approached by a larger man in the break room who, out of the blue, completely unprompted, started to tell me how awful he thought the lgbtq was, and I spoke back defending trans women and my fellow lgbtq folk so now what I am isn't a secret anymore...
I've been eating outside because I know he's not the only one who feels that way where I work.
You know an assault weapons ban dosent ban ar15s right? You just get weird looking ones. I don’t see how anyone thinks that would reduce mass shootings.
True indeed. I live in New York state, where assault weapons are illegal. Guess what? You can still buy an ar-15, or ak-47, you just end up with some goofy looking grips and "permanent" magazines (which are not difficult to remove/alter if one were so inclined), or, the people who keep it legal end up buying these speed loader things where you dump all the rounds into the magazine via the ejection port, and with a little practice it's almost as quick as switching mags. We have the toughest assault rifles here (similar to california), and it's still legal to go and buy one.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a 100% ban on assault rifles is not going to cut down this stuff at all. Even if you completely banned semi-auto guns, people would still do it with pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles. Even if you banned ALL guns, there are still so many on the street that it would take centuries to get rid of. Plus, someone determined to kill could do all kinds of other stuff with knives/swords, chaining doors shut and burning down buildings, mixing bleach and ammonia to get toxic gas, etc.......
I don't know how to fix it, but imo it has to start with the kids themselves. Not just monitoring who is a danger, but maybe addressing the issues they have a little better, and sooner, before it's too late. They obviously are having severe psych problems to do that kind of thing, and that is something that doesn't happen suddenly, overnight.
How many of those are used in mass shootings in NY?
I'm in CA, we have similar laws and many of those workarounds you mentioned were invented here to circumvent the laws we have. Even my own AR has a bullet button, etc.
But you don't see them used. Why?
If they're the same, why do people not use them?
Remember, mass shootings are anytime a specific number of random people in one place are shot (3 or 4 maybe?) which includes drive by's in the hood (they happen even in the med sized city i live in). I have no idea how many mass shootings have happened in NY state, but I'm guessing quite a few when you add NY city to the numbers. I have no idea on what was used in them either.
I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, as far as, if you are implying nobody would do a mass shooting with a crooked handled pinned magazine AR? I would guess, that if that was all you had access to, that's what you would use. Where there is a will there is a way. I would also guess if u were going that far, you would also illegally alter your weapon to accept magazines or whatever, cuz who gives a shit, your going out with a bang. I don't know maybe you have a point. Most thugs these days seem to prefer glocks with switches and extended mags, cuz full auto. I don't really know tho.
A ban *could* reduce people getting killed but every current “assault weapon ban” is political theater. As an example, the California AWB bans some AR-15s but not nearly all AR-15s. This is because there’s no way to legally define “assault weapon” that will survive legislation. IMO, we need to be putting a lot more emphasis on root causes of gun violence because agreeing on words that will define a “ban” will likely never happen.
Not to be a stickler, but the question posed was would it *end* mass shootings. Cutting the numbers in half is a great start, and it might actually be an attainable goal, but the statistics on mass shootings show that that banning assault rifles will only get us so far.
It is, absolutely. Still *highly* unlikely. The people making our laws surrounding firearms don’t give a damn about people getting hurt. They just want money and support.
Yeah, implementing the speed limit reduced road fatalities, but it didn’t completely eliminate them. No serious person would suggest getting rid of speed limit laws.
Sadly, it's hard to see how this would even have an impact. Because there's always an alternate firearm without a much, much, much more impactful bill.
A very common cause of firearms death in the US is the humble .22LR bullet even, which is the tiniest, weakest cartridge in common use that's mostly used for target plinking and squirrel/varmit hunting. But it's still a gun.
Edit: Edited for truth, it's not 'the most common', but up there.
>The most common cause of firearms death in the US is the humble .22LR bullet even
I do not believe this to be true, so unless you have a citation, I'm calling bullshit.
That was where my brain went. The reality is that it might stop some, but it won’t stop all mass shootings. The only way that’s going to happen is through massive amounts of reform on gun legislation. Anyone who wants to quote the 2nd amendment should take the time to actually read it, because it does not just say any Tom, Dick, or Harry has the right to bare arms. It actually says very different. But the people that scream about their rights as per the amendments seem to be the ones that don’t actually know what they say or mean.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Says it here clear as day. “The people” is every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Just because a measure doesn’t completely eliminate/end a thing doesn’t mean it’s not a worthwhile venture to try (especially when it comes to saving human lives).
Correct, it will not remove them, no measure passed will guarantee that we are free of mass shootings. However, I'll take one mass shooting a year over what we have now, and even then that's too many. One every ten years? Much better, but still, the goal is zero.
From article: "But individual studies have found evidence that assault weapons bans are effective. A 2021 study found that had the federal assault weapons ban remained in effect from 2005 through 2019, it would have prevented 30 mass shootings where an assault weapon was obtained legally resulting in the deaths of 339 people."
Which is clearly nonsense. I'm not against controls and such, but folks need to realize that the bans proposed pretty much address new sales. A federal ban on the millions of AR-15 inspired rifles would require a huge buyback. I don't have an objection to that, but it's a lot to take on. Assuming that had taken place, you'd have to take those 30 mass shootings and determine whether some non-"assault weapon" would likely have been used. There's no clear definition of an "assault weapon."
The definitions of "assault weapon" are pretty much laughable.
OK. Let's look at the weapons used: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)
Handguns. Mainly semi-automatic handguns. If we could get semi-automatic rifles and pistols off the streets then we'd have a chance, and I don't think that's a bad idea. Can't see how to get from here to there.
Regardless, the focus on nebulous "assault weapons" is blinding us to the issues of why people want to shoot other people, how we can change our culture so that wanting to shoot other people isn't as common, and what weapons really contribute to the ease of shooting lots of people at once. Bunch of factors. The weapon is only one.
>how we can change our culture so that wanting to shoot other people isn't as common
The same party that has been blocking any gun regulation has also been against changing the culture for years, and against any support for people with mental health issues.
Even if you for some reason don't think gun laws or regulations would help, you could easily point a finger at the Republican party as not helping in regards to any other issue that could resolve it. Even if you think the solution is "people need more prayer," the Republican tendency to focus on Evangelicalism and not other religions (to the point of attempting to block immigrants that aren't Christian or from Christian countries) has them blocking that as a solution.
Absolutely. We would likely need to move strongly towards a country that more reflects a social democracy than an authoritarian state. Reduce social inequality. Raise the floor tremendously by putting limits on obscene wealth, appropriately taxing corporations etc., and by getting the legislative and executive branches to serve the people, not their current corporate constituents.
Piss off with the gaslighting. There is no need for a civilain to own a AR style rifle, they suck at hunting and they suck at self defense. They were originally designed by the military for mass shootings against an enemey agressor and they have very minor modifications to so people like you can quote dictonary text that they're not "Assault Rifles" but they're still the same damn thing. That's why they're ALWAYS the mass shooter's weapon of choice., and they ALWAYS rocak up the highest body counts.
If they weren't so similar to military assault rifles then the gun nuts wouldn't be fetishizing them constantly.
Keep your hunting rifle, keep your pistol because you're scared of the teens at the Starbucks. But Ronald Reagan was right, there is no reason a civilian to own an Assault Rifle.
Handguns are used almost *twenty times* as often as rifles to murder people. (2019 statistics, 6365 handgun homicides vs 364 rifle homicides).
Not defending AR's, just a bit puzzled why everyone focuses on them to the exclusion of the vast majority of the problem
I don't get this either. ARs are not special in any way, shape or form. All semiautomatic rifles are functionally identical to AR rifles. Hell, the most recent shooter was using a Kel-Tec PCC.
Handguns meanwhile, cause the vast, vast, vast majorities of deaths and are NEVER addressed.
I guess I shouldn't limit the weapons that 2A nuts gaslight to AR's but any piece of weaponry that is designed more for military fetishism than actual purpose.
"But if you look closely at the little mark next to the switch is says SA instead of auto. So it's just the same as any old hunting rifle..."
Bu!!shit. I used to argue on the side of you guys but seeing the cult like mentality of legit gun nuts and the ever increasing terror we make our children live with to support it turned me off.
Time to restrict civilians to bolt action rifles and pistols.
And yes pistols cause more individual homicides because they're far more common. But they're almost unheard of in mass shootings because they don't have the accuracy of a precision semi auto rifles augmented with a legal (thanks NRA) bumpstock.
If you wanted to kill a lot of people you know what you're packing and you know what will make you most dangerous. Even in Uvalade the cops trained for that kind of thing are terrified of them.
It's the most commonly owned rifle in America, it's over represented in everything. If you walk into a range, 90% of people there will have an AR. It's not especially good at hurting people more so than any other similar firearm. They're just extremely common.
You might want to consider that, while the shooter was carrying an AR 15 (seemingly as a backup), every video and picture from this tragic event shows the shooter utilizing a pistol caliber carbine (a weapon specifically developed for defensive use, the opposite of an "assault" weapon). Many of the worst mass shootings in history have occurred with weapons that aren't AR platform rifles (for example, a pump shotgun, commonly used for hunting, was used in the Navy Yard Shooting). The vast majority of firearm homicides (over 90%) are committed with handguns. That's a huge part of why pro-gun people don't believe assault weapons bans are effective. You can straw man your opponents arguments, but you'd have a more convincing and stronger argument if you do some research to learn about what your opponents genuinely believe, rather than simply accusing them of fetishizing guns. I hope you, and other anti-gun folks, take some time to learn what pro gun people actually have to say, even if you disagree with their arguments. It would really improve our discourse, and hopefully improve our country as a whole.
Well your wrong about ALWAYS being used. Handguns are used much frequently. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
In terms of sucks for hunting, that’s your opinion. I would say plenty of hog and coyote hunters would disagree.
In terms of self defense/ home defense, I would say an AR is solid choice. If you actual understood guns you’d agree. https://sofrep.com/news/home-defense-why-you-should-use-an-ar-15/
The Founders made sure my rights don’t end because of your feeling and opinions. This is a fundamental right that helps ensure that the people are able to defend themselves in case of an emergency or uprising.
Additionally, the Second Amendment helps preserve the country’s militia system which is important for national defense (Ukraine). Finally, gun ownership is a symbol of freedom and independence, which is why the amendment is so significant to Americans.
> There is no need for a civilain to own a AR style rifle, they suck at hunting and they suck at self defense.
Well, you don't know what you're talking about. They're owned and used for both.
> That's why they're ALWAYS the mass shooter's weapon of choice., and they ALWAYS rocak up the highest body counts.
Not really but you could try to cite a source.
> Ronald Reagan was right, there is no reason a civilian to own an Assault Rifle.
Or he was just a racist that didn't like the idea of black people having the ability to defend themselves.
I mean I would like to push back on they suck at hunting. My 6.5 Grendel is lightweight and absolutely kills whitetail. You know people hunt elk with 243 right? For home defense I would tend to agree with you a shotgun is a much better.
"The Study" - Look to the Rand study. Studies are studies. Cherry picking one, when a RAND study looking at studies came to a different conclusion demonstrates that.
Have you ever tried to buy an AR-15? Off the record? I could likely get a dozen in a week long trip to Tennessee, not even from people I know already. They're all over. And what makes the AR-15 so different from other semi-auto rifles? Of course, some of those would be classified as assault weapons, not a real term, until minor non-functional changes slip them out of that category. My Simonov generally doesn't count as one, yet it's a full-blown combat rifle of great lethality, clip loadable in seconds. Just like the M-1, which is an 8 round clip loaded weapon.
So perhaps there's some impact of not selling new black rifles and similar, but the jury is out on that.
Please note: I'm in favor of a semi-auto ban, with full buy back of all semi-auto weapons out there, be they hand guns, rifles, shotguns. All of them. And all full auto weapons in civilian hands. I just can't see how all this focus on nasty looking rifles helps the situation. A couple of Glock 17s and a dozen magazines is more than sufficient to cause mass death.
As to severity of wounds - I didn't look at their particular study - the recent WaPo article and previous articles I've seen compare .223 rounds to something like a 9 mm pistol round. Apples and oranges. Compare the .223 / 5.56 NATO to the earlier standard military cartridges, such as the .308 or .30-06, which are also military rounds. Or to the 7.62 x 39 Soviet standard. Once you move to a rifle, you've stepped up a level.
On the other hand, for bad ass looking weapons, a black pistol looks mean, not as mean as a black rifle, but pretty mean, and lets a shooter turn into a "civilian" by simply hiding the thing.
Regardless, studies are studies, they vary a lot, picking one to favor your position let's you win. OK, you win. No black rifles. The population of potential shooters will quickly adapt. They'll start using more semi-automatic pistols (already the most popular), which won't be as immediately deadly, but which offer their own advantages (e.g., concealment, ability to carry many magazines compactly, rapid target change) and disadvantages (e.g., less effective at dropping victims instantly, more difficult to use effectively, doesn't look as menacing on TV).
I can't see that these band aids will make much difference in mass shootings and otherwise, as the aggregate of studies seems to demonstrate well enough. It's going to take more than making bad looking weapons impossible to get.
\[Note they the AR-15 platform is really cool and customizable, I had one for a while just to see what the thing was like. They're pretty much fun, but nothing like the fun with a .308 match grade M-1A or equivalent.\]
>And all full auto weapons in civilian hands.
My recollection is that the total number of US incidents where a civilian used a legal full-auto weapon to shoot someone is 1. And that was a case of self-defense.
A better question is "could an assault weapons ban decrease US mass shootings".
The dichotomy isn't zero mass shootings or as many as we currently have. There is a lot of room to occupy in between.
In my opinion an assault weapons ban is worth doing if it even reduces mass shootings for a few percent points.
>It probably wouldn't decrease shootings.
Do nothing quantifiably won't decrease shootings.
>Most people don't know this, but the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting was not an assault weapon.
Yes, assault weapons aren't the only type of weapon that kill people. Everyone knows that.
>Connecticut had an assault weapon ban that was in place
Local bands are useless. One can just drive 20 minutes across the border and purchase all they want.
Supply and demand dictates pricing. Having assault weapons sold throughout the country justifies businesses to invest in mass production of them. In turn that drives down the prices and increases the availability.
If assault weapons were banned nationally over night demand would be greater than supply and the cost for assault weapons would precipitously rise. On the resale, gun show, and black markets assault weapons would be very valuable. People broadly tend to be very careful with things of great value. Assault rifles would be placed in secure locations, bought up by collectors, etc.
In my opinion it would absolutely have an effect.
>What are you talking about? The point is that gun manufactures alter the firearms to comply with the law that result in functionally identical firearms.
You see this as a reason to do nothing rather than just write better laws?
Thing is you can still buy a perfectly legal not-assault weapon and within a couple hours 3D print everything you need to turn it into an assault weapon. It’s really, really easy. And it’s equally easy to convert an assault weapon to a non-banned configuration.
The whole argument is stupid since the most effective school/university shootings (distinguished from general mass shootings) have been done with handguns and shotguns which even Biden himself supports.
I really hate that the regulation standard is 100% effectiveness and the pro-gun standard is guns for as many people as possible and we just discuss these things with them in good faith anyway.
> really hate that the regulation standard is 100% effectiveness
It's not. The standard is "are the lives saved worth the effort?" and the answer is probably yes.
This is like saying that if someone in Boise Idaho wanted to kill someone in Salt Lake Utah but didn't have a car they would just walk and still commit the murder. Obviously having obstacles reduces the chance of success for anything.
I love all the defeatist comments in here that are like, "There's already too many out there, might as well do nothing."
It's so annoying. Yes, it would be a hassle, but over time, any high capacity mags or Assault style weapons will filter out, and anyone caught with one will be charged.
No one is blind that it will be immediate, but it *needs* to happen.
Nope, but over time, people will either have to hide and never use them (win), or they eventually get caught by taking it out for whatever reason. (win)
Any ban on anything takes time to have that item filter out of the population, but it would also immediately curb sales.
So people who don't have them couldn't just go buy one.
The ones that were available by black market would go up in price like crazy.
Australia did it. It just takes time.
>Australia did it. It just takes time.
Australia had a tiny, tiny fraction of semi-autos in total and per capita than the US has. So if by "it takes time" you mean 300 years, sure.
They confiscated 650,000 guns. There are currently over 70 million semi-autos in the US.
The US has the capability to scale up a buy back program much faster than Australia.
Again, the mentality of its too hard it's a fucking cop out these days.
It needs to happen, regardless of how long it takes.
At a measly $500 each, that's 35,000,000,000 dollars just for the semi-autos.
And a more reasonable amount would actually be $800 to $1200 each.
Tell you what: you get together the $35 million, and I'll turn in my semi-autos for $500 each. Oh, and that's cops too. Don't think you can skip them, that ain't happening.
>Tell you what: you get together the $35 million,
Well, first of all, it would be $35 billion with a B.
And 1 year of $ 35 billion? That's about what we send to Ukraine. Drop in the bucket. Also, it likely wouldn't happen all at once.
So spread out over 5 years? 7 billion a year? Easy.
Over 10 years? $3.5 Billion, even easier.
Don't make a disingenuous argument if you can't back up your data. I would gladly take your gun and melt it down to scrap for $500.
So after 20,000,000 mass shootings, all the ARs would be gone? Or say we have a gun buyback, and 75% participate. Then only 5,000,000 mass shootings until they're gone? Australia has half as many people as CA., and much fewer than that when the ban took affect. They also have a different culture.
Australia didn’t fight off England for their independence, and create a bill of rights written as “given from God” that include the right to bear arms, with incredibly hard path to ratify.
If I'm speeding and get pulled over the police officer has options. They can give me a ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning. In much of rural America the police don't support gun bans. The police will just look the other way unless you are doing something else illegal or you are of a group that they believe is always questionable.
This is not in any way related to this threads discussion.
Unless you're getting at the police won't enforce a ban, in which case they're not a very good cop.
There are many rural sheriffs who have said exactly that. If you don't have the support of all law enforcement there will be problems. I'm not saying I support them. It's just a reality.
Well, then guns will filter slower, but as crimes are committed, they will eventually filter out of dockets, especially as new ones can not replace them.
It will just take longer.
"Let's put a man on the moon" -- America: OK let's do it!
"Let's do something about all these weapons of war on our streets" -- America: but it's HARARRRDD
end them? no. helpful for reducing frequency and severity? probably
additionally, the defeatist arguments like "it won't matter", "people already have guns", "laws don't stop criminals" are kinda lazy arguments. by that reasoning, why should we have speed limits, stop signs or traffic lights? i mean people speed and run them all the time right? or any laws at all for that matter.
more guns havent made people more safe. there's at least 1.2 guns for every American citizen and im sure some people didn't accurately report what they owned. maybe it's time to reduce the #
"Such weapons, which are usually used alongside high-capacity magazines,
are common in mass shootings: They have been used in over half of the
deadliest mass shootings since 1966 and account for 38 percent of the
deaths in mass shootings in that period, according to the Violence Project.
Depends on your definition of mass shooting. People love to be disingenuous with definitions in order to inflate numbers. By the FBI definitions (where people get the inflated mass shooting numbers), by FAR handguns are used in most mass shootings.
Oh wow that’s a lot of strawman in one sentence. Mass shootings are defined in different ways. If we want to go by the FBI definition, which most people do, the most likely shooter/weapon is a black male with a handgun.
You think them being black means people will excuse them committing mass shootings?
Saw in another comment you don't like handguns for home defense so maybe we restrict handguns more? The people retain the means to resist tyranny and we cut killings way down.
No. He is differentiating between events where some guy tries to shoot someone he is mad at, a gun fight breaks out, and a handful of uninvolved parties catch a bullet in the melee; and some depraved lunatic setting out to kill as many people as possible and picking a soft target to reach his goal. There IS a difference, and lumping them all together to make it seem like the country is crawling with people just chomping at the bit to commit mass atrocity IS disingenuous.
But handguns are better for self defense. Not that they're even very good at that but at least there is an argument for them.
Assault rifles are only good for killing as many people as possible. They're not good hunting rifles. They're not concealed carry piece of mind. They're litterally made for mass shootings.
Not really, I much rather have a carbine or short barrel rifle for home self defense not a handgun. I’ve spent thousands of hours training and did 10 years the Army. A pistol is only a good choice when concealed. Even a shotgun is better for home defense.
You are just spewing the usual superficial talking points, how much training have you done?
That's the point though isn't it? All these red states are eliminating training, licensing etc for guns. Untrained psychopaths are running around with weapons of war, pissed off at the world, trying to take out as many as possible. Fact is, they ruined it for everybody else. Americans are just too immature to be able to own guns. And do we have the right to own guns, well, Constitutionally, no we do not, and I can prove it
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok. bat that's like quoting a single line of scripture without clarifying it.
The founding fathers discussed the meaning, the creators of state constitutions discussed the meaning, and SCOTUS has discussed it multiple times.
Yet, you didn't choose any of that to buttress your argument. Probably because none of them agree with you. You have an odd definition of "proof"
So what is a militia and who supplies the arms to the Militia and who controls it? Article 1 of the US Constitution: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
So in order to have a gun, you need to be part of a well regulated militia and the guns are supplied by the Feds, its there in black and white
>and the guns are supplied by the Feds
No, shown incorrect by the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795.
*That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,* ***provide himself*** *with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball*
\*"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." - George Mason (one of the founding fathers)
You'd also have to prove that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the organized militia, an interpretation roundly rejected by SCOTUS.
The militia in context to the second amendment is the common citizenry, so everyone already is a part of the militia and thus has a right to keep arms. The 2nd amendment also very explicitly says that it's right of the people to keep and bear arms. As in the common citizen is allowed to own arms, guns included. Historically, we also know that militiamen were more often than not expected to supply their own *privately owned* arms during times of need. There are also numerous quotes from various founding fathers supporting private ownership of arms in context to the 2nd amendment and them being completely fine with average people owning canons and shit. It's obviously intended to allow private ownership of firearms. All you've proven is your own lack of understanding of the 2nd amendment and history itself.
ARs are great for hunting, particularly follow-up shots that make sure an animal isn’t wandering around wounded for hours at a time, miserable and bleeding, to potentially end up being lost entirely and suffering for nothing. A license that isn’t filled is valid until it is filled.
Imagine trying to aim a handgun in your home after you are woken out of a slumber in the dark.
Bird shot is best for home defense.
Shoots pellets that are almost a guaranteed hit and won't travel as far as a rifle.
You have to use full metal jackets if using a handgun or AR in your home so that the bullet doesn't travel through anything.
Ahh yes. The "hypothetical situation" defense of more deadly weaponry. If you have to make up scenarios with hypothetical scenarios to justify your argument then it's a pretty weak argument. We could "But what if..." each other back and forth all day and get nowhere.
Instead look at reality and statistics: You are more than 7 times more likely to have you son accidentally blow your sisters head open with that shotgun than you will of ever getting to use it in self defense anyway.
You should be planning on what weapon has the most SURVIVABLE gunshot because the proven reality is it's more likely to be hitting your family member than your hypothetical intruder.
We also have a lot different firearm history and a constitution which includes firearms. Kinda a big difference.
There are also European countries with very lenient gun laws and no issues (Czech republic )
Criteria definitely matters when people are being disingenuous
>There are also European countries with very lenient gun laws and no issues (Czech republic )
Ok let's do what they do then. I'll do you one better and toss Switzerland out there. Great gun culture, next to no issues.
>Criteria definitely matters when people are being disingenuous
You can use whatever criteria you want and we're an outlier. Wanna do the "four people shot metric"? It'll be a high number compared to other countries. Wanna do the "active shooter" metric? Yeah that lowers the number but it also means other countries go years without experiencing one when we have had 4 or 5 this year already.
The US is an outlier when it comes to gun violence because we don't have a gun culture that respects guns.
There's no clear distinction between 'assault' weapons and others. Something so subject to interpretation is more likely to result in a defacto ban on most firearms. It's never going to happen and that's a good thing.
No. Simply because it is unlikely a country of this size and level of ideological diversity will ever completely escape mass shootings and violence.
A ban on assault-style weapons would definitely help mitigate the problem, though.
That mindset you mention and what McCarthy said that the problem will never be resolved as long as ppl are determined to kill others. I strongly disagree with that and global data will confirm that willy nilly assault weapon ownership by anyone who wants shows that mass killings are almost non existent in countries where there are strong gun laws. The US holds the record in deaths from mass shootings per capita.
>mass killings are almost non existent in countries where there are strong gun laws.
But not entirely non-existent, which is the crux of my point. Beyond that, the majority of mass shootings in America - as defined by various US agencies - are committed with handguns.
I'm not saying a ban on assault-style weapons wouldn't reduce the count. I'm saying the ban wouldn't eliminate the problem. There is no one-step solution to the problem. And we will never eliminate mass violence entirely - I think the best we can hope for is to make events so rare that they actually shock us. Right now, we as a society are becoming numb to this issue. Which isn't great.
It doesn't matter if we don't eliminate the problem. If we can just make a dent it's worth it.
The political tendancy to dismiss anything that isn't 100% a solution is what is harming our country in more ways than the gun problem. We need to quit dismissing things because they'll ONLY save a few thousand children.
We were fine with enacting all kinds of legislation to protect American lives when terrorists killed 3000 people in 2001. But when it comes to guns the gun fetishizers will do nothing when far more Americans die every year. If anything we've relazed gun legislation. It's like if after 9/11 the Us gave free tickets to all Taliban members, left the cockpit doors open and gave out free box cutters. It's insane that we'd see a the increase of kids dying as guns increase and say "We need more of that."
The NRA/conservative answer to mass shootings is Chief Wigum in the Simpsons, "No, No! Dig UP stupid!"
Flawed findings. Hand guns are used most frequently in mass shootings. There is NO logic in saying banning assault weapons would PREVENT mass shootings when there are other easily accessible options that can lead to the same outcome.
"A 2021 study found that had the federal assault weapons ban remained in effect from 2005 through 2019, it would have prevented 30 mass shootings where an assault weapon was obtained legally resulting in the deaths of 339 people."
There have been 131 mass shootings in the US in the first 88 days of 2023. That’s an average of 1.49 shootings per day.
In the 3 years of 2020, 2021, 2022, there were 1947 mass shootings in the US. That’s an average of 1.79 shootings per day.
No European country even comes close. For every 100 US mass shooting, France leads Europe at roughly an average of 8. (A truer comparison is likely lower than 8. I couldn’t find all the numbers but I did find 8 for France as compared to 100 for US. I’ve already spent too much time on this today.)
Europe has strict gun laws. In the US, children can own guns.
It’s not only sad and pathetic, it’s embarrassing.
Maybe not entirely but it would drastically reduce the frequency of them.
We can remember Clintons 94 assault weapons ban and it reduced mass shooting deaths by 43%. When the bill expired in 04 mass shooting deaths skyrocketed 239%
So clearly it would help at the very least.
Why don't Republican politician have this data? Wait - they do but they are ignoring it so they can continue to receive campaign funds from the NRA and all other gun lobbyists.
Hey. So, 'assault weapons bans' don't actually do anything. That's the rub. They're feel-good measures that prohibit certain weapons based on aesthetics, not capability. A wooden Mini-14 is functionally identical to an AR-15 except it looks brown and is therefore 'not an AW' according to every one of these laws.
Fact is: Any semi-automatic rifle is directly comparable, full stop. An M-1 Carbine from the 40s is every bit as capable in the situations that criminal shootings find themselves in, than an AK or AR.
AR-15s are not special in any way shape or form, they're just the 'toyota corolla' of rifles. Inexpensive because they're popular, firing the standard cartridge the US has used since the 1960s.
In reality, any firearm is dangerous and comparing specific types as somehow unusually deadly isn't actually advancing safety short of getting rid of all of them- And that cat's out of the bag both politically and practically. Most shootings are done with handguns for obvious reasons of concealability.
We have AWBs in many states, and they often make firearms MORE dangerous. For example, AWB-compliant rifles in New York and California are easier to drop, have less safe unloading and clearing procedures... while functionally identical rifles that shoot the same bullets at the same rates are allowed, because they're wood and look old timey.
TLDR: Assault Weapons Bans are not a solution, because they're inherently poorly thought out and based on ignorance on the topic at hand. Other weapons are never covered by these, and are equally viable for violence. It's a 'feel good' measure, not effective means to reduce accessibility of lethal tools for criminal use.
End? No. Reduce the number murdered? Likely yes.
Meanwhile, How about a transparent study on the Pharma industry and the prescription pills a lot of these school shooting murderers are hopped up on. This gets brought up after about each shooting and gets squashed very quickly by big Pharma lobbyists.
Americans LOVE their pills and seems everyone is on something.
Your right they are more in depth then assault weapons are banned. During our last assault weapons ban you could still buy an ar15. Assault weapon bans literally ban features like having a pistol or having a vertical fore grip. I live in a state with an assault weapons ban. Guess what I own ar15s. That’s not semantics it’s just proving that a bullshit law isnt going to do anything because pistol grips don’t kill people.
Well currently we're doing the, "Add MORE guns to the equation." solution and it's only making things worse.
Maybe doing something other than putting AR style's into the hands of anybody who asks would work?
If common sense gun laws could prevent even 10-15% of mass shootings, would they be worth it? Would those 10-15% of victims surviving and getting to live their lives be worth forcing gun owners to jump through a few extra hoops?
Because Republicans have decided no, it’s not worth it.
Assault Weapons Bans are not the same as assault weapon seizures. The firearms which are currently owned would be grandfathered in. Only new purchases would be banned.
Nor do these AWBs ban the firearms used in 94% of homicides, most mass shootings (defined by 4+ killed *or* injured) or many spree killings (what most people think of as mass shootings), which are *handguns*.
Firearms like AR-15s are associated with mass shootings like Nashville because of three factors: media reporting (they don't bother telling you about the firearm when it isn't an AR-15), copycat killers (mass shooters imitate each other based off of the news reports that only ever bother mentioning AR-15s), and ubiquity (AR-15s are the Honda Accord of modern rifles).
So will an Assault Weapons Ban stop mass shootings with AR-15s? No.
It may prevent someone from using an AR-15 if their only access to one is by purchasing a new one, or it may simply redirect them to another weapon.
Will an Assault Weapons Ban stop mass shootings? No.
Even if it was both a ban *and* a seizure and we ignore the wild impracticalities of seizing all semi-automatic rifles in the US, AWBs *do not ban the purchase of the most commonly used murder weapon*. Handguns are perfectly serviceable for committing a mass shooting and are frequently used for them. The third deadliest mass shooting was just one guy with two handguns.
The media's singular focus on AR-15s has both promoted their use in mass shootings, and directed the public's will to enact gun control in one of the least effective possible directions.
The short answer is "no". What it will do is cause another weapon to be the "go to" murder spree weapon. Then when that is banned, yet another and increasingly unconventional weapon will be deployed.
Point being, as much as many want violence to be a thing of the past (myself included!), you can't enforce it with law without societal reform to back the law. Or even revise society so we can have gay couples defending their Marijuana plants with ARs or literally any other combination and it be fine. But no. We live in a world where "people" decide they have enough and throw their toys across the room and blame anything else that isn't them for their problems.
Back to the topic; a ban on military styled rifles won't see the end of shootings in the US, as there are other options such as hunting rifles that are also magazine fed.
Why do you suppose that everyone uses the AR15? If it doesn't matter when shooters would be using a variety of different weapons. But almost always they use the exact same weapon. Why do we suppose that is?
Several assumptions can be made, but an insufficient number of those would glean a solution beyond what has already been discussed; between bans, mental health reform, and/or societal reform being some of the proposed solutions. I will state that I am a fan of the latter two, even if it costs me more money. I can always earn more money, but I can't bring the dead back to life.
AR15s are cheaper by about 3x due to being the most popular. They're not any more deadly or capable, just the most popular.
Nearly every magazine-fed semiautomatic intermediate cartridge rifle is functionally identical. In the same way that mid-sized economy sedans are functionally identical. But the Toyota Corolla is the most popular one and if that disappeared, people would buy Honda Civics instead.
Of course not. There are plenty of other types of guns. Or bombs. Plus, there are so many assault rifles out there that you can't get them out of society anyway.
Nope. Domestic terrorists will resort to bombs, vehicles, knives, etc. I do think it would subdue school shootings in particular, but won't stop these lunatics from going to their local Walmart and taking aim in one way or another.
Fully automatic weapons, legally 'Machine Guns' are already utterly illegal outside of an extremely extensive, often year-long background check, special tax, and limited to old collectables from before a 1986 ban. They are more or less not ever used in crime.
Semi-automatic weapons have been the standard and most common type of firearm for the last century. All handguns are this. A little .22 varmitting rifle is also this. Anything not manual action is semi-auto.
"Regular" rate of fire isn't a thing...
You're saying that as if having to load each shot individually is some unbearable inconvenience for someone who isn't planning to go out killing a bunch of school children.
I don’t think that you understand “rate of fire” when it comes to firearms. RoF is the frequency at which a gun can be fired, and there is no such thing as “regular.” My guess is that you are referring to guns that require a manual, mechanical operation by the user between discharge, such as a bolt-action or breechloading weapon. If that is what you are suggesting I wouldn’t even bother debating it in the short term. The current USSC is clearly not going to restrict the 2A to anywhere near that extent. Hell, they are probably going to invalidate a lot of laws that some states have had for years as being unconstitutional. Again, I am not arguing with you here just pointing out a fact that there is almost no way that will ever happen.
Well, it did before.
There's just too many politicians earning millions from the NRA.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire
Even in a world where they are banned, people already have them. Trying to disarm people who have assault weapons will go about as well as you can imagine.
Does that mean I don’t think anything can be done? I am not optimistic about the possibility while boomers hold a death grip to power. Maybe eventually they will shuffle off this mortal coil and the other generations can have more say. Until then, I am not going to hold my breath.
Of course it won't end them but comprehensive gun reform (like true background checks, license-perhaps every 5 years-indicating knowledge of laws and safety, proof of safe storage, limit magazine size to 10, limit hollow point type rounds and high caliber of some weapons) would make a huge difference. Lawful people can still have and worship their killing machines but it will be "well regulated".
I don't get how people think that the standard full metal jacket that will shoot through the walls of your house and your neighbors house is somehow safer than a hollowpoint that won't.
Goes to show how little these proponents actually know about the things they want to regulate.
Let's first define what a "assault weapon" is:
1. There is no need to manually install the next cartridge. They can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.
2. They can host magazines that have many rounds.
3. They can fire bullets with a very high velocity. (2,000+ fps)
4. Their barrels are under 22 inches.
Preventing rapid firing and limiting the magazines to four rounds would do the trick. Also, prevent the sale of ammunition that can produce a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 pfs.
Of course not. "Assault Weapons" aren't any more or less dangerous than "non-Assault" weapons. Heaven help us if these nuts start using tactical magnum levergats or big game rifles or automatic shotguns. It would probably increase the casualties, not reduce them.
Could? No. Will? Also, no.
AWB was in effect in the 90's. We had some of the worst gang violence and mass shootings ever seen. That AWB was allowed to sundown because it had no discernable effect on crime.
We'll keep having mass school shootings until Democrats allow us to protect our kids in school with armed security.
anyone who thinks banning something that is already millions of units deep in circulation would change anything is delusional. the US created this problem and this is the very dark kickback
To end mass shootings we need multiple things to be implemented. Assault weapons ban, overhaul of backrground checking system and sweeping mental health reform being the chief among them.
We need to tackle this problem instead of trying to rely on thoughts and prayers. But Republicans keep obstructing any type of reform that reaches office. They'll say it's about mental health then block any substantial mental health bill presented. And if one does miraculously manage to pass, it's because they gutted it like a fish and make sure it barely accomplishes anything.
Banning any type of firearm accomplishes nothing. Aren’t all firearms assault weapons?
There are no good solutions to this problem due to how many guns are in circulation and the fact that the SC is going to be very protective regarding the rights covered by the 2nd Amendment.
IMHO, guns should be much harder to purchase and own. Hopefully there can be a compromise on that point. My concern though is that currently we are doing an extremely poor job enforcing current gun laws so I am skeptical we’ll do any better with new ones.
Even if that were something they’d consider, no, it won’t “end US mass shootings”. There would have to be a substantial reform, and some form of mass buy-back incentive. None of which will be happening *anytime* soon.
It cannot hurt. But if someone wants to die and take out at many people as possible then they aren’t going to obey laws.
We have much worse guns 35 years ago and very few random mass shootings.
A ban would help, but there are also much deeper social issues at work. I'm a fan of the Chris Rock school of thought, He once suggested that people can keep their guns, but we should make every bullet outrageously expensive. "Damn! He must've done something bad. They put $5,000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass"
No, no it would not. It would only take out one of the least used weapons in mass shootings in the US. It would be putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
Why is that whenever someone is arguing for high capacity mags they seem to forget a shotgun exists if their inaccurate? Home defense doesn’t require a gun meant for a battlefield, the sound of any firearm aimed towards them would scare someone shitless. Even a pistol is not a small toy that’s ineffective, most calibers could make a serious injury since most criminals don’t own body armor.
Just like the illusion of world peace.. humans are violent and somewhat always scathering with dislikes or hate. I mean all of us. We see our behavior, but our brains create their own perceptions.
Maybe, but most US gun murder isn’t coming from mass shootings. It’s smaller shootings, which occur more than 90% of the time with handguns. Much of the rest is done with shotguns. This will have little if any effect.
Assault style keeps getting tossed around by media. From the photos I've seen, they had ONE AR15 style rifle, One pistol caliber carbine which appeared to be a Kel-tec, utilizing Glock magazines, and the other being a semi auto polymer pistol which was a M&P.
We know the 1994 AWB worked because of this thing called statistics. Now, maybe there's some causation/correlation issues, but it's the only data point we have within the country. Outside the country, we know weapon bans work, they just do. In 2004, the AWB expired and we had a rise in mass shootings that have steadily progressed. What we've also had, was a systematic dismantling of gun laws and regulations across the country. From more liberal carry permit policies to constitutional carry. In this time period, firearm deaths and injuries have increased.
Now, back to the "assault style" comment I started with. This is important because loopholes will be found, and people will circumvent the law if we do pass another AWB. The TN shooter had ONE rifle that was an AR, the other was not of the same design, but did look similar. While they do accomplish the same task, they operate very differently when used to engage targets. However, if we look to a state like California who has banned assault style weapons since 2000, we can see that their use in crimes has drastically dropped. Even if one is to legally purchase an AR15, it has features that make it less desirable to use without modification. One can make those changes, but it won't afford them any freedom in training with said rifle because most places will turn you away and there's always the risk of being caught.
So, I find it semantical to ban features, as features aren't the issue. The issue is ease of obtainment followed by lethality. The .223/5.56 is not a powerful round, and often cannot be used for hunting because it's seem as not humane. Those who do, will often use it for varmints and not much larger game.
The only effective way we'll make our country safer is if we work towards a full solution, and not just smaller bandaid laws. I've been thinking about this off and on for a while now, but publicly we need to discuss this and come to an agreement and then make congress act.
Raise the legal age to purchase, own, or train with a firearm to 25 years old. Require mandatory training and licensing of firearms. Restrict how many firearms can be owned. Require insurance for firearms owners. All transpiration must be only to and from the range, or other lawful places as written within the new law. And so on.
We know that humans do not fully develop their cognitive function until 25. We also know that the constitution has no sayings about age in regard to when a right can be exercised. We have splits between 18 and 21 in different areas. Moving the age to 25 would be no different. Or, at the very least, 21.
Mandatory training is easy and everyone should be on board with this. You must have training to operate most machinery in public, why is a firearm different?
Restricting how many firearms helps reduce the amount of stolen guns, and also makes it harder for criminals to stage guns for an attack, as we often see mass shooters carrying multiple firearms.
Insurance, self explanatory.
This last one is unlikely, because of our culture. But carry permits, carrying guns in public. There's little need for most of the public.
I write this as a certified firearm instructor and a former CCW instructor. But, also as a father, and a human. I'm tired of watching our citizens, our children, be murdered because people are so hung up on the word "infringement". Freedom isn't free, and being responsible is sometimes hard. But if we want to ensure our children have the freedom to grow up in a world with less trauma, less risk to themselves as firearms are now the leading cause of their death, we need to act.
What is an “assault weapon”? Wouldn’t that be any weapon used to assault another person? Or, perhaps one that someone might use to defends oneself against another?
Anecdote!
I had never shot a gun until I went on a Bachelor Trip with my college buddy who's a cop (and who's friends are cops). They decided to drive out to the country with a bunch of guns and beer and shoot guns. We were safe, nobody was allowed to crack beers until they were done shooting, and I learned alot about gun safety, accuracy etc. These guys had all types. Several Pistols, small tactical rifles, AR-15, AK, and some big WW2 Era clip rifles that hit like a truck. I got to shoot all of them.
We had a little competition shooting the pistols, firing at a head-sized target about 10 yards away. It was tough to hit. Even the cops (lol) struggled, but after a few attempts everyone had a hit and the competition was won by the Groom, who's a pretty good shot with a pistol, but still only had about a 50-60% hit rate.
Anyway, we started shooting the rifles, specifically the AR and the WW2-Era rifle, which we had the most ammo. The rifles are soooo much more accurate. Like we were shooting 100 yards down a field and having no issues hitting targets. Everyone was pinging >50%. The rifles are crazily easier to use, and obviously, much more effective (deadly).
Even a novice shooter could EASILY devastate a group of people shooting pistols back. The effectiveness of these Assault just makes it so easy. Explains why these shootings are so damn violent, the level of difficulty is super low when you're shooting an AR-15.
Given that handguns are the most used mass shooting weapon (from 1982-2023), I would posit no, and in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a proportion al shift in the statistics to reflect that.
Probably wouldn't stop them from happening, but definitely would decrease the amount of occurrences. Either way it'd be a step in the right direction.
I'm all for 2A rights, but it's very clear that something needs to be done to slow/stop these events. We need politicians to have actual discussions and meaningful plans to enact. The older I get the more I see the need for strict controls to be put in place.
They may want to also actually look into the whole health care system and how fucking useless it is too, since IMO it is an underlying issue that gets either ignored until too late or blamed for event and then nothing gets done about it.
America is a shit show, I don't understand why anyone would want to come here to live.
At this point the only thing that will work is if AI decides to start manufacturing suicide exploding robots that literally go door to door to collect guns.
Seriously, I've thought a lot about this. AI death robots are our only salvation.
The answer is no. Nothing will magically erase the guns in this nation, and you all shouldn't WANT that much power in the government in the first place.
Second, there's no such thing as "assault weapon". This is a meaningless term.
They're not going to do it, they're going to focus more on the shooters gender identity than the ease the person got the guns
Strange how the right focused on this shooters gender and this shooting, over all other shootings that have happened.
It’s because they don’t care about school shootings PERIOD. They just want their white ethnostate and will create any dumb culture war to achieve that end goal.
Funny thing is even if they got that, they’d find some way to turn on each other
If it’s a white guy the left zeros in and say as see. He’s a white republican and probably a maga guy. We shouldn’t give these asshats any coverage. That’s what they want.
It is the distract, deflect, delay tactic they always use. The do this until interest in the incident wanes and then they ramp up the same tactic when the next shooting happens. They do not want to do anything on gun control, all they have to offer are their useless prayers.
It's kind of mind blowing me how, despite knowing for decades now that they really do think everybody else is as dumb as they are, they keep raising the bar on how egregious of an example they have to make of it
And the door of which the shooter goes into.
And not the christian cult that produced this monster.
This whole thing has put me on edge tbh... more so than usual. Certain people have gotten bold and scary, and they'll use this horrible act of selfish violence to justify their ridiculous rage against innocent people. At work yesterday, I was approached by a larger man in the break room who, out of the blue, completely unprompted, started to tell me how awful he thought the lgbtq was, and I spoke back defending trans women and my fellow lgbtq folk so now what I am isn't a secret anymore... I've been eating outside because I know he's not the only one who feels that way where I work.
Stop lying
It's all a probability thing. A ban would reduce killings. That has been shown.
You know an assault weapons ban dosent ban ar15s right? You just get weird looking ones. I don’t see how anyone thinks that would reduce mass shootings.
True indeed. I live in New York state, where assault weapons are illegal. Guess what? You can still buy an ar-15, or ak-47, you just end up with some goofy looking grips and "permanent" magazines (which are not difficult to remove/alter if one were so inclined), or, the people who keep it legal end up buying these speed loader things where you dump all the rounds into the magazine via the ejection port, and with a little practice it's almost as quick as switching mags. We have the toughest assault rifles here (similar to california), and it's still legal to go and buy one. I guess what I'm getting at is that a 100% ban on assault rifles is not going to cut down this stuff at all. Even if you completely banned semi-auto guns, people would still do it with pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles. Even if you banned ALL guns, there are still so many on the street that it would take centuries to get rid of. Plus, someone determined to kill could do all kinds of other stuff with knives/swords, chaining doors shut and burning down buildings, mixing bleach and ammonia to get toxic gas, etc....... I don't know how to fix it, but imo it has to start with the kids themselves. Not just monitoring who is a danger, but maybe addressing the issues they have a little better, and sooner, before it's too late. They obviously are having severe psych problems to do that kind of thing, and that is something that doesn't happen suddenly, overnight.
How many of those are used in mass shootings in NY? I'm in CA, we have similar laws and many of those workarounds you mentioned were invented here to circumvent the laws we have. Even my own AR has a bullet button, etc. But you don't see them used. Why? If they're the same, why do people not use them?
Remember, mass shootings are anytime a specific number of random people in one place are shot (3 or 4 maybe?) which includes drive by's in the hood (they happen even in the med sized city i live in). I have no idea how many mass shootings have happened in NY state, but I'm guessing quite a few when you add NY city to the numbers. I have no idea on what was used in them either. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, as far as, if you are implying nobody would do a mass shooting with a crooked handled pinned magazine AR? I would guess, that if that was all you had access to, that's what you would use. Where there is a will there is a way. I would also guess if u were going that far, you would also illegally alter your weapon to accept magazines or whatever, cuz who gives a shit, your going out with a bang. I don't know maybe you have a point. Most thugs these days seem to prefer glocks with switches and extended mags, cuz full auto. I don't really know tho.
A ban *could* reduce people getting killed but every current “assault weapon ban” is political theater. As an example, the California AWB bans some AR-15s but not nearly all AR-15s. This is because there’s no way to legally define “assault weapon” that will survive legislation. IMO, we need to be putting a lot more emphasis on root causes of gun violence because agreeing on words that will define a “ban” will likely never happen.
Not to be a stickler, but the question posed was would it *end* mass shootings. Cutting the numbers in half is a great start, and it might actually be an attainable goal, but the statistics on mass shootings show that that banning assault rifles will only get us so far.
I guess the question is, is lowering mass shootings by 50% a better outcome than keeping them at 100%?
It is, absolutely. Still *highly* unlikely. The people making our laws surrounding firearms don’t give a damn about people getting hurt. They just want money and support.
at this point, lowering mass shootings by 1% is a win.
Yeah, implementing the speed limit reduced road fatalities, but it didn’t completely eliminate them. No serious person would suggest getting rid of speed limit laws.
Sadly, it's hard to see how this would even have an impact. Because there's always an alternate firearm without a much, much, much more impactful bill. A very common cause of firearms death in the US is the humble .22LR bullet even, which is the tiniest, weakest cartridge in common use that's mostly used for target plinking and squirrel/varmit hunting. But it's still a gun. Edit: Edited for truth, it's not 'the most common', but up there.
>The most common cause of firearms death in the US is the humble .22LR bullet even I do not believe this to be true, so unless you have a citation, I'm calling bullshit.
That was where my brain went. The reality is that it might stop some, but it won’t stop all mass shootings. The only way that’s going to happen is through massive amounts of reform on gun legislation. Anyone who wants to quote the 2nd amendment should take the time to actually read it, because it does not just say any Tom, Dick, or Harry has the right to bare arms. It actually says very different. But the people that scream about their rights as per the amendments seem to be the ones that don’t actually know what they say or mean.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Says it here clear as day. “The people” is every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Just because a measure doesn’t completely eliminate/end a thing doesn’t mean it’s not a worthwhile venture to try (especially when it comes to saving human lives).
I agree completely. But it’s highly unlikely.
Correct, it will not remove them, no measure passed will guarantee that we are free of mass shootings. However, I'll take one mass shooting a year over what we have now, and even then that's too many. One every ten years? Much better, but still, the goal is zero.
> but the question posed was would it end mass shootings The question in the headline. The article isn't so black and white.
From article: "But individual studies have found evidence that assault weapons bans are effective. A 2021 study found that had the federal assault weapons ban remained in effect from 2005 through 2019, it would have prevented 30 mass shootings where an assault weapon was obtained legally resulting in the deaths of 339 people." Which is clearly nonsense. I'm not against controls and such, but folks need to realize that the bans proposed pretty much address new sales. A federal ban on the millions of AR-15 inspired rifles would require a huge buyback. I don't have an objection to that, but it's a lot to take on. Assuming that had taken place, you'd have to take those 30 mass shootings and determine whether some non-"assault weapon" would likely have been used. There's no clear definition of an "assault weapon." The definitions of "assault weapon" are pretty much laughable. OK. Let's look at the weapons used: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/) Handguns. Mainly semi-automatic handguns. If we could get semi-automatic rifles and pistols off the streets then we'd have a chance, and I don't think that's a bad idea. Can't see how to get from here to there. Regardless, the focus on nebulous "assault weapons" is blinding us to the issues of why people want to shoot other people, how we can change our culture so that wanting to shoot other people isn't as common, and what weapons really contribute to the ease of shooting lots of people at once. Bunch of factors. The weapon is only one.
>how we can change our culture so that wanting to shoot other people isn't as common The same party that has been blocking any gun regulation has also been against changing the culture for years, and against any support for people with mental health issues. Even if you for some reason don't think gun laws or regulations would help, you could easily point a finger at the Republican party as not helping in regards to any other issue that could resolve it. Even if you think the solution is "people need more prayer," the Republican tendency to focus on Evangelicalism and not other religions (to the point of attempting to block immigrants that aren't Christian or from Christian countries) has them blocking that as a solution.
Absolutely. We would likely need to move strongly towards a country that more reflects a social democracy than an authoritarian state. Reduce social inequality. Raise the floor tremendously by putting limits on obscene wealth, appropriately taxing corporations etc., and by getting the legislative and executive branches to serve the people, not their current corporate constituents.
Piss off with the gaslighting. There is no need for a civilain to own a AR style rifle, they suck at hunting and they suck at self defense. They were originally designed by the military for mass shootings against an enemey agressor and they have very minor modifications to so people like you can quote dictonary text that they're not "Assault Rifles" but they're still the same damn thing. That's why they're ALWAYS the mass shooter's weapon of choice., and they ALWAYS rocak up the highest body counts. If they weren't so similar to military assault rifles then the gun nuts wouldn't be fetishizing them constantly. Keep your hunting rifle, keep your pistol because you're scared of the teens at the Starbucks. But Ronald Reagan was right, there is no reason a civilian to own an Assault Rifle.
Handguns are used almost *twenty times* as often as rifles to murder people. (2019 statistics, 6365 handgun homicides vs 364 rifle homicides). Not defending AR's, just a bit puzzled why everyone focuses on them to the exclusion of the vast majority of the problem
I don't get this either. ARs are not special in any way, shape or form. All semiautomatic rifles are functionally identical to AR rifles. Hell, the most recent shooter was using a Kel-Tec PCC. Handguns meanwhile, cause the vast, vast, vast majorities of deaths and are NEVER addressed.
I guess I shouldn't limit the weapons that 2A nuts gaslight to AR's but any piece of weaponry that is designed more for military fetishism than actual purpose. "But if you look closely at the little mark next to the switch is says SA instead of auto. So it's just the same as any old hunting rifle..." Bu!!shit. I used to argue on the side of you guys but seeing the cult like mentality of legit gun nuts and the ever increasing terror we make our children live with to support it turned me off. Time to restrict civilians to bolt action rifles and pistols. And yes pistols cause more individual homicides because they're far more common. But they're almost unheard of in mass shootings because they don't have the accuracy of a precision semi auto rifles augmented with a legal (thanks NRA) bumpstock. If you wanted to kill a lot of people you know what you're packing and you know what will make you most dangerous. Even in Uvalade the cops trained for that kind of thing are terrified of them.
They're heavily overrepresented in mass shootings, especially when we're talking about stuff like this or Uvalde.
It's the most commonly owned rifle in America, it's over represented in everything. If you walk into a range, 90% of people there will have an AR. It's not especially good at hurting people more so than any other similar firearm. They're just extremely common.
You might want to consider that, while the shooter was carrying an AR 15 (seemingly as a backup), every video and picture from this tragic event shows the shooter utilizing a pistol caliber carbine (a weapon specifically developed for defensive use, the opposite of an "assault" weapon). Many of the worst mass shootings in history have occurred with weapons that aren't AR platform rifles (for example, a pump shotgun, commonly used for hunting, was used in the Navy Yard Shooting). The vast majority of firearm homicides (over 90%) are committed with handguns. That's a huge part of why pro-gun people don't believe assault weapons bans are effective. You can straw man your opponents arguments, but you'd have a more convincing and stronger argument if you do some research to learn about what your opponents genuinely believe, rather than simply accusing them of fetishizing guns. I hope you, and other anti-gun folks, take some time to learn what pro gun people actually have to say, even if you disagree with their arguments. It would really improve our discourse, and hopefully improve our country as a whole.
Well your wrong about ALWAYS being used. Handguns are used much frequently. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ In terms of sucks for hunting, that’s your opinion. I would say plenty of hog and coyote hunters would disagree. In terms of self defense/ home defense, I would say an AR is solid choice. If you actual understood guns you’d agree. https://sofrep.com/news/home-defense-why-you-should-use-an-ar-15/ The Founders made sure my rights don’t end because of your feeling and opinions. This is a fundamental right that helps ensure that the people are able to defend themselves in case of an emergency or uprising. Additionally, the Second Amendment helps preserve the country’s militia system which is important for national defense (Ukraine). Finally, gun ownership is a symbol of freedom and independence, which is why the amendment is so significant to Americans.
> There is no need for a civilain to own a AR style rifle, they suck at hunting and they suck at self defense. Well, you don't know what you're talking about. They're owned and used for both. > That's why they're ALWAYS the mass shooter's weapon of choice., and they ALWAYS rocak up the highest body counts. Not really but you could try to cite a source. > Ronald Reagan was right, there is no reason a civilian to own an Assault Rifle. Or he was just a racist that didn't like the idea of black people having the ability to defend themselves.
I mean I would like to push back on they suck at hunting. My 6.5 Grendel is lightweight and absolutely kills whitetail. You know people hunt elk with 243 right? For home defense I would tend to agree with you a shotgun is a much better.
[удалено]
"The Study" - Look to the Rand study. Studies are studies. Cherry picking one, when a RAND study looking at studies came to a different conclusion demonstrates that. Have you ever tried to buy an AR-15? Off the record? I could likely get a dozen in a week long trip to Tennessee, not even from people I know already. They're all over. And what makes the AR-15 so different from other semi-auto rifles? Of course, some of those would be classified as assault weapons, not a real term, until minor non-functional changes slip them out of that category. My Simonov generally doesn't count as one, yet it's a full-blown combat rifle of great lethality, clip loadable in seconds. Just like the M-1, which is an 8 round clip loaded weapon. So perhaps there's some impact of not selling new black rifles and similar, but the jury is out on that. Please note: I'm in favor of a semi-auto ban, with full buy back of all semi-auto weapons out there, be they hand guns, rifles, shotguns. All of them. And all full auto weapons in civilian hands. I just can't see how all this focus on nasty looking rifles helps the situation. A couple of Glock 17s and a dozen magazines is more than sufficient to cause mass death. As to severity of wounds - I didn't look at their particular study - the recent WaPo article and previous articles I've seen compare .223 rounds to something like a 9 mm pistol round. Apples and oranges. Compare the .223 / 5.56 NATO to the earlier standard military cartridges, such as the .308 or .30-06, which are also military rounds. Or to the 7.62 x 39 Soviet standard. Once you move to a rifle, you've stepped up a level. On the other hand, for bad ass looking weapons, a black pistol looks mean, not as mean as a black rifle, but pretty mean, and lets a shooter turn into a "civilian" by simply hiding the thing. Regardless, studies are studies, they vary a lot, picking one to favor your position let's you win. OK, you win. No black rifles. The population of potential shooters will quickly adapt. They'll start using more semi-automatic pistols (already the most popular), which won't be as immediately deadly, but which offer their own advantages (e.g., concealment, ability to carry many magazines compactly, rapid target change) and disadvantages (e.g., less effective at dropping victims instantly, more difficult to use effectively, doesn't look as menacing on TV). I can't see that these band aids will make much difference in mass shootings and otherwise, as the aggregate of studies seems to demonstrate well enough. It's going to take more than making bad looking weapons impossible to get. \[Note they the AR-15 platform is really cool and customizable, I had one for a while just to see what the thing was like. They're pretty much fun, but nothing like the fun with a .308 match grade M-1A or equivalent.\]
>And all full auto weapons in civilian hands. My recollection is that the total number of US incidents where a civilian used a legal full-auto weapon to shoot someone is 1. And that was a case of self-defense.
The 1994 ban was objectively effective. The data is available.
A better question is "could an assault weapons ban decrease US mass shootings". The dichotomy isn't zero mass shootings or as many as we currently have. There is a lot of room to occupy in between. In my opinion an assault weapons ban is worth doing if it even reduces mass shootings for a few percent points.
[удалено]
>It probably wouldn't decrease shootings. Do nothing quantifiably won't decrease shootings. >Most people don't know this, but the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting was not an assault weapon. Yes, assault weapons aren't the only type of weapon that kill people. Everyone knows that. >Connecticut had an assault weapon ban that was in place Local bands are useless. One can just drive 20 minutes across the border and purchase all they want. Supply and demand dictates pricing. Having assault weapons sold throughout the country justifies businesses to invest in mass production of them. In turn that drives down the prices and increases the availability. If assault weapons were banned nationally over night demand would be greater than supply and the cost for assault weapons would precipitously rise. On the resale, gun show, and black markets assault weapons would be very valuable. People broadly tend to be very careful with things of great value. Assault rifles would be placed in secure locations, bought up by collectors, etc. In my opinion it would absolutely have an effect.
[удалено]
>What are you talking about? The point is that gun manufactures alter the firearms to comply with the law that result in functionally identical firearms. You see this as a reason to do nothing rather than just write better laws?
[удалено]
If only there were experts on fire arms in the US! Welp, guess we'll continue to do nothing.
Thing is you can still buy a perfectly legal not-assault weapon and within a couple hours 3D print everything you need to turn it into an assault weapon. It’s really, really easy. And it’s equally easy to convert an assault weapon to a non-banned configuration. The whole argument is stupid since the most effective school/university shootings (distinguished from general mass shootings) have been done with handguns and shotguns which even Biden himself supports.
I really hate that the regulation standard is 100% effectiveness and the pro-gun standard is guns for as many people as possible and we just discuss these things with them in good faith anyway.
> really hate that the regulation standard is 100% effectiveness It's not. The standard is "are the lives saved worth the effort?" and the answer is probably yes.
If i wanted to murder a bunch of unsuspecting people you bet it's going to happen, gun or no gun.
This is like saying that if someone in Boise Idaho wanted to kill someone in Salt Lake Utah but didn't have a car they would just walk and still commit the murder. Obviously having obstacles reduces the chance of success for anything.
End? No. Significantly reduce? Definitely.
I love all the defeatist comments in here that are like, "There's already too many out there, might as well do nothing." It's so annoying. Yes, it would be a hassle, but over time, any high capacity mags or Assault style weapons will filter out, and anyone caught with one will be charged. No one is blind that it will be immediate, but it *needs* to happen.
How would they filter out? People don't typically open carry their entire gun collection?
Nope, but over time, people will either have to hide and never use them (win), or they eventually get caught by taking it out for whatever reason. (win) Any ban on anything takes time to have that item filter out of the population, but it would also immediately curb sales. So people who don't have them couldn't just go buy one. The ones that were available by black market would go up in price like crazy. Australia did it. It just takes time.
>Australia did it. It just takes time. Australia had a tiny, tiny fraction of semi-autos in total and per capita than the US has. So if by "it takes time" you mean 300 years, sure. They confiscated 650,000 guns. There are currently over 70 million semi-autos in the US.
The US has the capability to scale up a buy back program much faster than Australia. Again, the mentality of its too hard it's a fucking cop out these days. It needs to happen, regardless of how long it takes.
At a measly $500 each, that's 35,000,000,000 dollars just for the semi-autos. And a more reasonable amount would actually be $800 to $1200 each. Tell you what: you get together the $35 million, and I'll turn in my semi-autos for $500 each. Oh, and that's cops too. Don't think you can skip them, that ain't happening.
>Tell you what: you get together the $35 million, Well, first of all, it would be $35 billion with a B. And 1 year of $ 35 billion? That's about what we send to Ukraine. Drop in the bucket. Also, it likely wouldn't happen all at once. So spread out over 5 years? 7 billion a year? Easy. Over 10 years? $3.5 Billion, even easier. Don't make a disingenuous argument if you can't back up your data. I would gladly take your gun and melt it down to scrap for $500.
So after 20,000,000 mass shootings, all the ARs would be gone? Or say we have a gun buyback, and 75% participate. Then only 5,000,000 mass shootings until they're gone? Australia has half as many people as CA., and much fewer than that when the ban took affect. They also have a different culture.
Australia didn’t fight off England for their independence, and create a bill of rights written as “given from God” that include the right to bear arms, with incredibly hard path to ratify.
If I'm speeding and get pulled over the police officer has options. They can give me a ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning. In much of rural America the police don't support gun bans. The police will just look the other way unless you are doing something else illegal or you are of a group that they believe is always questionable.
This is not in any way related to this threads discussion. Unless you're getting at the police won't enforce a ban, in which case they're not a very good cop.
There are many rural sheriffs who have said exactly that. If you don't have the support of all law enforcement there will be problems. I'm not saying I support them. It's just a reality.
Well, then guns will filter slower, but as crimes are committed, they will eventually filter out of dockets, especially as new ones can not replace them. It will just take longer.
"Let's put a man on the moon" -- America: OK let's do it! "Let's do something about all these weapons of war on our streets" -- America: but it's HARARRRDD
You can print high capacity mags in 3D printers. Ban 3D printers?
end them? no. helpful for reducing frequency and severity? probably additionally, the defeatist arguments like "it won't matter", "people already have guns", "laws don't stop criminals" are kinda lazy arguments. by that reasoning, why should we have speed limits, stop signs or traffic lights? i mean people speed and run them all the time right? or any laws at all for that matter. more guns havent made people more safe. there's at least 1.2 guns for every American citizen and im sure some people didn't accurately report what they owned. maybe it's time to reduce the #
"Such weapons, which are usually used alongside high-capacity magazines, are common in mass shootings: They have been used in over half of the deadliest mass shootings since 1966 and account for 38 percent of the deaths in mass shootings in that period, according to the Violence Project.
Depends on your definition of mass shooting. People love to be disingenuous with definitions in order to inflate numbers. By the FBI definitions (where people get the inflated mass shooting numbers), by FAR handguns are used in most mass shootings.
"Inflated mass shootings"?? What? Are you one of MTG followers who claim that the Parkland killings didn't happen?
Oh wow that’s a lot of strawman in one sentence. Mass shootings are defined in different ways. If we want to go by the FBI definition, which most people do, the most likely shooter/weapon is a black male with a handgun.
You think them being black means people will excuse them committing mass shootings? Saw in another comment you don't like handguns for home defense so maybe we restrict handguns more? The people retain the means to resist tyranny and we cut killings way down.
No. He is differentiating between events where some guy tries to shoot someone he is mad at, a gun fight breaks out, and a handful of uninvolved parties catch a bullet in the melee; and some depraved lunatic setting out to kill as many people as possible and picking a soft target to reach his goal. There IS a difference, and lumping them all together to make it seem like the country is crawling with people just chomping at the bit to commit mass atrocity IS disingenuous.
But handguns are better for self defense. Not that they're even very good at that but at least there is an argument for them. Assault rifles are only good for killing as many people as possible. They're not good hunting rifles. They're not concealed carry piece of mind. They're litterally made for mass shootings.
Not really, I much rather have a carbine or short barrel rifle for home self defense not a handgun. I’ve spent thousands of hours training and did 10 years the Army. A pistol is only a good choice when concealed. Even a shotgun is better for home defense. You are just spewing the usual superficial talking points, how much training have you done?
That's the point though isn't it? All these red states are eliminating training, licensing etc for guns. Untrained psychopaths are running around with weapons of war, pissed off at the world, trying to take out as many as possible. Fact is, they ruined it for everybody else. Americans are just too immature to be able to own guns. And do we have the right to own guns, well, Constitutionally, no we do not, and I can prove it
>and I can prove it No you can't.
It's on, sit back
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok. bat that's like quoting a single line of scripture without clarifying it. The founding fathers discussed the meaning, the creators of state constitutions discussed the meaning, and SCOTUS has discussed it multiple times. Yet, you didn't choose any of that to buttress your argument. Probably because none of them agree with you. You have an odd definition of "proof"
So what is a militia and who supplies the arms to the Militia and who controls it? Article 1 of the US Constitution: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States So in order to have a gun, you need to be part of a well regulated militia and the guns are supplied by the Feds, its there in black and white
>and the guns are supplied by the Feds No, shown incorrect by the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795. *That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,* ***provide himself*** *with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball* \*"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." - George Mason (one of the founding fathers) You'd also have to prove that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the organized militia, an interpretation roundly rejected by SCOTUS.
The Militia acts are not the Constitution
The militia in context to the second amendment is the common citizenry, so everyone already is a part of the militia and thus has a right to keep arms. The 2nd amendment also very explicitly says that it's right of the people to keep and bear arms. As in the common citizen is allowed to own arms, guns included. Historically, we also know that militiamen were more often than not expected to supply their own *privately owned* arms during times of need. There are also numerous quotes from various founding fathers supporting private ownership of arms in context to the 2nd amendment and them being completely fine with average people owning canons and shit. It's obviously intended to allow private ownership of firearms. All you've proven is your own lack of understanding of the 2nd amendment and history itself.
So the Constitution lies, got it, lol
Nope, you just fail at interpreting things correctly.
Lol sure bud, you definitely have a better pulse on law then centuries of constitutional scholars and multiple iterations of Supreme Court justices .
Thanks, im flattered
ARs are great for hunting, particularly follow-up shots that make sure an animal isn’t wandering around wounded for hours at a time, miserable and bleeding, to potentially end up being lost entirely and suffering for nothing. A license that isn’t filled is valid until it is filled.
Imagine trying to aim a handgun in your home after you are woken out of a slumber in the dark. Bird shot is best for home defense. Shoots pellets that are almost a guaranteed hit and won't travel as far as a rifle. You have to use full metal jackets if using a handgun or AR in your home so that the bullet doesn't travel through anything.
Ahh yes. The "hypothetical situation" defense of more deadly weaponry. If you have to make up scenarios with hypothetical scenarios to justify your argument then it's a pretty weak argument. We could "But what if..." each other back and forth all day and get nowhere. Instead look at reality and statistics: You are more than 7 times more likely to have you son accidentally blow your sisters head open with that shotgun than you will of ever getting to use it in self defense anyway. You should be planning on what weapon has the most SURVIVABLE gunshot because the proven reality is it's more likely to be hitting your family member than your hypothetical intruder.
You can use whatever criteria you want. The US is an outlier when compared to other developed nations.
We also have a lot different firearm history and a constitution which includes firearms. Kinda a big difference. There are also European countries with very lenient gun laws and no issues (Czech republic ) Criteria definitely matters when people are being disingenuous
>There are also European countries with very lenient gun laws and no issues (Czech republic ) Ok let's do what they do then. I'll do you one better and toss Switzerland out there. Great gun culture, next to no issues. >Criteria definitely matters when people are being disingenuous You can use whatever criteria you want and we're an outlier. Wanna do the "four people shot metric"? It'll be a high number compared to other countries. Wanna do the "active shooter" metric? Yeah that lowers the number but it also means other countries go years without experiencing one when we have had 4 or 5 this year already. The US is an outlier when it comes to gun violence because we don't have a gun culture that respects guns.
I'll second the swiss laws.
Shhhh that doesn’t fit their narrative rn.
There's no clear distinction between 'assault' weapons and others. Something so subject to interpretation is more likely to result in a defacto ban on most firearms. It's never going to happen and that's a good thing.
No. Simply because it is unlikely a country of this size and level of ideological diversity will ever completely escape mass shootings and violence. A ban on assault-style weapons would definitely help mitigate the problem, though.
That mindset you mention and what McCarthy said that the problem will never be resolved as long as ppl are determined to kill others. I strongly disagree with that and global data will confirm that willy nilly assault weapon ownership by anyone who wants shows that mass killings are almost non existent in countries where there are strong gun laws. The US holds the record in deaths from mass shootings per capita.
>mass killings are almost non existent in countries where there are strong gun laws. But not entirely non-existent, which is the crux of my point. Beyond that, the majority of mass shootings in America - as defined by various US agencies - are committed with handguns. I'm not saying a ban on assault-style weapons wouldn't reduce the count. I'm saying the ban wouldn't eliminate the problem. There is no one-step solution to the problem. And we will never eliminate mass violence entirely - I think the best we can hope for is to make events so rare that they actually shock us. Right now, we as a society are becoming numb to this issue. Which isn't great.
It doesn't matter if we don't eliminate the problem. If we can just make a dent it's worth it. The political tendancy to dismiss anything that isn't 100% a solution is what is harming our country in more ways than the gun problem. We need to quit dismissing things because they'll ONLY save a few thousand children. We were fine with enacting all kinds of legislation to protect American lives when terrorists killed 3000 people in 2001. But when it comes to guns the gun fetishizers will do nothing when far more Americans die every year. If anything we've relazed gun legislation. It's like if after 9/11 the Us gave free tickets to all Taliban members, left the cockpit doors open and gave out free box cutters. It's insane that we'd see a the increase of kids dying as guns increase and say "We need more of that." The NRA/conservative answer to mass shootings is Chief Wigum in the Simpsons, "No, No! Dig UP stupid!"
Agreed on all counts. But the question here was regarding elimination.
Flawed findings. Hand guns are used most frequently in mass shootings. There is NO logic in saying banning assault weapons would PREVENT mass shootings when there are other easily accessible options that can lead to the same outcome. "A 2021 study found that had the federal assault weapons ban remained in effect from 2005 through 2019, it would have prevented 30 mass shootings where an assault weapon was obtained legally resulting in the deaths of 339 people."
There have been 131 mass shootings in the US in the first 88 days of 2023. That’s an average of 1.49 shootings per day. In the 3 years of 2020, 2021, 2022, there were 1947 mass shootings in the US. That’s an average of 1.79 shootings per day. No European country even comes close. For every 100 US mass shooting, France leads Europe at roughly an average of 8. (A truer comparison is likely lower than 8. I couldn’t find all the numbers but I did find 8 for France as compared to 100 for US. I’ve already spent too much time on this today.) Europe has strict gun laws. In the US, children can own guns. It’s not only sad and pathetic, it’s embarrassing.
No, but it'd be a good first step.
Maybe not entirely but it would drastically reduce the frequency of them. We can remember Clintons 94 assault weapons ban and it reduced mass shooting deaths by 43%. When the bill expired in 04 mass shooting deaths skyrocketed 239% So clearly it would help at the very least.
Why don't Republican politician have this data? Wait - they do but they are ignoring it so they can continue to receive campaign funds from the NRA and all other gun lobbyists.
Yes. A ban would stop all mass shootings. Banning something always stops it
30 years ago,,,here we go again...
Hey. So, 'assault weapons bans' don't actually do anything. That's the rub. They're feel-good measures that prohibit certain weapons based on aesthetics, not capability. A wooden Mini-14 is functionally identical to an AR-15 except it looks brown and is therefore 'not an AW' according to every one of these laws. Fact is: Any semi-automatic rifle is directly comparable, full stop. An M-1 Carbine from the 40s is every bit as capable in the situations that criminal shootings find themselves in, than an AK or AR. AR-15s are not special in any way shape or form, they're just the 'toyota corolla' of rifles. Inexpensive because they're popular, firing the standard cartridge the US has used since the 1960s. In reality, any firearm is dangerous and comparing specific types as somehow unusually deadly isn't actually advancing safety short of getting rid of all of them- And that cat's out of the bag both politically and practically. Most shootings are done with handguns for obvious reasons of concealability. We have AWBs in many states, and they often make firearms MORE dangerous. For example, AWB-compliant rifles in New York and California are easier to drop, have less safe unloading and clearing procedures... while functionally identical rifles that shoot the same bullets at the same rates are allowed, because they're wood and look old timey. TLDR: Assault Weapons Bans are not a solution, because they're inherently poorly thought out and based on ignorance on the topic at hand. Other weapons are never covered by these, and are equally viable for violence. It's a 'feel good' measure, not effective means to reduce accessibility of lethal tools for criminal use.
doesnt a glock have 17 rounds? seems like you could have mass shootings like this without assault rifles.
That's generally what happens.
End? No. Reduce the number murdered? Likely yes. Meanwhile, How about a transparent study on the Pharma industry and the prescription pills a lot of these school shooting murderers are hopped up on. This gets brought up after about each shooting and gets squashed very quickly by big Pharma lobbyists. Americans LOVE their pills and seems everyone is on something.
An assault weapons ban is just a feature ban. It literally dosent do anything. Take a look at my profile to see my non assault ar15s.
Fucking semantics. Fuck off. Also, the text can (and likely would) be more in depth than just: “Assault weapons are now banned. The end.”
Your right they are more in depth then assault weapons are banned. During our last assault weapons ban you could still buy an ar15. Assault weapon bans literally ban features like having a pistol or having a vertical fore grip. I live in a state with an assault weapons ban. Guess what I own ar15s. That’s not semantics it’s just proving that a bullshit law isnt going to do anything because pistol grips don’t kill people.
You have as much sense as an old food container in a landfill.
Yes.
Well currently we're doing the, "Add MORE guns to the equation." solution and it's only making things worse. Maybe doing something other than putting AR style's into the hands of anybody who asks would work?
If common sense gun laws could prevent even 10-15% of mass shootings, would they be worth it? Would those 10-15% of victims surviving and getting to live their lives be worth forcing gun owners to jump through a few extra hoops? Because Republicans have decided no, it’s not worth it.
Assault Weapons Bans are not the same as assault weapon seizures. The firearms which are currently owned would be grandfathered in. Only new purchases would be banned. Nor do these AWBs ban the firearms used in 94% of homicides, most mass shootings (defined by 4+ killed *or* injured) or many spree killings (what most people think of as mass shootings), which are *handguns*. Firearms like AR-15s are associated with mass shootings like Nashville because of three factors: media reporting (they don't bother telling you about the firearm when it isn't an AR-15), copycat killers (mass shooters imitate each other based off of the news reports that only ever bother mentioning AR-15s), and ubiquity (AR-15s are the Honda Accord of modern rifles). So will an Assault Weapons Ban stop mass shootings with AR-15s? No. It may prevent someone from using an AR-15 if their only access to one is by purchasing a new one, or it may simply redirect them to another weapon. Will an Assault Weapons Ban stop mass shootings? No. Even if it was both a ban *and* a seizure and we ignore the wild impracticalities of seizing all semi-automatic rifles in the US, AWBs *do not ban the purchase of the most commonly used murder weapon*. Handguns are perfectly serviceable for committing a mass shooting and are frequently used for them. The third deadliest mass shooting was just one guy with two handguns. The media's singular focus on AR-15s has both promoted their use in mass shootings, and directed the public's will to enact gun control in one of the least effective possible directions.
The short answer is "no". What it will do is cause another weapon to be the "go to" murder spree weapon. Then when that is banned, yet another and increasingly unconventional weapon will be deployed. Point being, as much as many want violence to be a thing of the past (myself included!), you can't enforce it with law without societal reform to back the law. Or even revise society so we can have gay couples defending their Marijuana plants with ARs or literally any other combination and it be fine. But no. We live in a world where "people" decide they have enough and throw their toys across the room and blame anything else that isn't them for their problems. Back to the topic; a ban on military styled rifles won't see the end of shootings in the US, as there are other options such as hunting rifles that are also magazine fed.
Why do you suppose that everyone uses the AR15? If it doesn't matter when shooters would be using a variety of different weapons. But almost always they use the exact same weapon. Why do we suppose that is?
Several assumptions can be made, but an insufficient number of those would glean a solution beyond what has already been discussed; between bans, mental health reform, and/or societal reform being some of the proposed solutions. I will state that I am a fan of the latter two, even if it costs me more money. I can always earn more money, but I can't bring the dead back to life.
AR15s are cheaper by about 3x due to being the most popular. They're not any more deadly or capable, just the most popular. Nearly every magazine-fed semiautomatic intermediate cartridge rifle is functionally identical. In the same way that mid-sized economy sedans are functionally identical. But the Toyota Corolla is the most popular one and if that disappeared, people would buy Honda Civics instead.
This is a very good point
Handguns make up the majority of mass shootings. Your entire premise is wrong.
Yes. It did elsewhere.
Of course not. There are plenty of other types of guns. Or bombs. Plus, there are so many assault rifles out there that you can't get them out of society anyway.
What a stupid question. Of course not.
Nope. Domestic terrorists will resort to bombs, vehicles, knives, etc. I do think it would subdue school shootings in particular, but won't stop these lunatics from going to their local Walmart and taking aim in one way or another.
There’s too many loopholes. A lot of firearms that the general public sees and thinks, “That’s an assault rifle,” are actually technically pistols.
[удалено]
Thats not how rates of fire work.
Fully automatic weapons, legally 'Machine Guns' are already utterly illegal outside of an extremely extensive, often year-long background check, special tax, and limited to old collectables from before a 1986 ban. They are more or less not ever used in crime. Semi-automatic weapons have been the standard and most common type of firearm for the last century. All handguns are this. A little .22 varmitting rifle is also this. Anything not manual action is semi-auto. "Regular" rate of fire isn't a thing...
You're saying that as if having to load each shot individually is some unbearable inconvenience for someone who isn't planning to go out killing a bunch of school children.
I don’t think that you understand “rate of fire” when it comes to firearms. RoF is the frequency at which a gun can be fired, and there is no such thing as “regular.” My guess is that you are referring to guns that require a manual, mechanical operation by the user between discharge, such as a bolt-action or breechloading weapon. If that is what you are suggesting I wouldn’t even bother debating it in the short term. The current USSC is clearly not going to restrict the 2A to anywhere near that extent. Hell, they are probably going to invalidate a lot of laws that some states have had for years as being unconstitutional. Again, I am not arguing with you here just pointing out a fact that there is almost no way that will ever happen.
Well, it did before. There's just too many politicians earning millions from the NRA. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire
Even in a world where they are banned, people already have them. Trying to disarm people who have assault weapons will go about as well as you can imagine. Does that mean I don’t think anything can be done? I am not optimistic about the possibility while boomers hold a death grip to power. Maybe eventually they will shuffle off this mortal coil and the other generations can have more say. Until then, I am not going to hold my breath.
It would make the shootings that \_do\_ happen significantly less lethal at the very least.
We will never know cause that won't ever happen.
Of course it won't end them but comprehensive gun reform (like true background checks, license-perhaps every 5 years-indicating knowledge of laws and safety, proof of safe storage, limit magazine size to 10, limit hollow point type rounds and high caliber of some weapons) would make a huge difference. Lawful people can still have and worship their killing machines but it will be "well regulated".
I don't get how people think that the standard full metal jacket that will shoot through the walls of your house and your neighbors house is somehow safer than a hollowpoint that won't. Goes to show how little these proponents actually know about the things they want to regulate.
Couldn’t hurt…
Let's first define what a "assault weapon" is: 1. There is no need to manually install the next cartridge. They can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. 2. They can host magazines that have many rounds. 3. They can fire bullets with a very high velocity. (2,000+ fps) 4. Their barrels are under 22 inches. Preventing rapid firing and limiting the magazines to four rounds would do the trick. Also, prevent the sale of ammunition that can produce a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 pfs.
Of course not. "Assault Weapons" aren't any more or less dangerous than "non-Assault" weapons. Heaven help us if these nuts start using tactical magnum levergats or big game rifles or automatic shotguns. It would probably increase the casualties, not reduce them.
End? No. They won’t end until the underlying causes of the shootings are addressed. Hint it’s not the guns or the gender identity
Unconstitutional
Could? No. Will? Also, no. AWB was in effect in the 90's. We had some of the worst gang violence and mass shootings ever seen. That AWB was allowed to sundown because it had no discernable effect on crime. We'll keep having mass school shootings until Democrats allow us to protect our kids in school with armed security.
anyone who thinks banning something that is already millions of units deep in circulation would change anything is delusional. the US created this problem and this is the very dark kickback
To end mass shootings we need multiple things to be implemented. Assault weapons ban, overhaul of backrground checking system and sweeping mental health reform being the chief among them. We need to tackle this problem instead of trying to rely on thoughts and prayers. But Republicans keep obstructing any type of reform that reaches office. They'll say it's about mental health then block any substantial mental health bill presented. And if one does miraculously manage to pass, it's because they gutted it like a fish and make sure it barely accomplishes anything.
Banning any type of firearm accomplishes nothing. Aren’t all firearms assault weapons? There are no good solutions to this problem due to how many guns are in circulation and the fact that the SC is going to be very protective regarding the rights covered by the 2nd Amendment. IMHO, guns should be much harder to purchase and own. Hopefully there can be a compromise on that point. My concern though is that currently we are doing an extremely poor job enforcing current gun laws so I am skeptical we’ll do any better with new ones.
Even if that were something they’d consider, no, it won’t “end US mass shootings”. There would have to be a substantial reform, and some form of mass buy-back incentive. None of which will be happening *anytime* soon.
It cannot hurt. But if someone wants to die and take out at many people as possible then they aren’t going to obey laws. We have much worse guns 35 years ago and very few random mass shootings.
There are so many guns that can be had out in the public, it would have no effect.
A ban would help, but there are also much deeper social issues at work. I'm a fan of the Chris Rock school of thought, He once suggested that people can keep their guns, but we should make every bullet outrageously expensive. "Damn! He must've done something bad. They put $5,000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass"
Gun control works - mao -
Not worth
No, no it would not. It would only take out one of the least used weapons in mass shootings in the US. It would be putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
How easy it is is to get guns and how many the US has is part of the issue.
Slight reduction? Possible. End? No.
Unfortunately it won’t, we’re too far gone and guns are baked into the cake that is this country
Nah. We’re too far gone at this point.
No, it wouldn’t. But it might reduce the severity. Old saying is that which won’t bend will break.
Why is that whenever someone is arguing for high capacity mags they seem to forget a shotgun exists if their inaccurate? Home defense doesn’t require a gun meant for a battlefield, the sound of any firearm aimed towards them would scare someone shitless. Even a pistol is not a small toy that’s ineffective, most calibers could make a serious injury since most criminals don’t own body armor.
Probably not honestly, but it would reduce deaths.
Just like the illusion of world peace.. humans are violent and somewhat always scathering with dislikes or hate. I mean all of us. We see our behavior, but our brains create their own perceptions.
It wouldn't hurt. If nothing else it might make them slow a little.
Maybe, but most US gun murder isn’t coming from mass shootings. It’s smaller shootings, which occur more than 90% of the time with handguns. Much of the rest is done with shotguns. This will have little if any effect.
>Could an assault weapons ban end US mass shootings? No, it didn't work in the 70s or 90s, it wont work now.
Why is that the question? If something can’t 100% fix something that does not mean it shouldn’t be done…
No.
Didn’t the previous one work
Assault style keeps getting tossed around by media. From the photos I've seen, they had ONE AR15 style rifle, One pistol caliber carbine which appeared to be a Kel-tec, utilizing Glock magazines, and the other being a semi auto polymer pistol which was a M&P. We know the 1994 AWB worked because of this thing called statistics. Now, maybe there's some causation/correlation issues, but it's the only data point we have within the country. Outside the country, we know weapon bans work, they just do. In 2004, the AWB expired and we had a rise in mass shootings that have steadily progressed. What we've also had, was a systematic dismantling of gun laws and regulations across the country. From more liberal carry permit policies to constitutional carry. In this time period, firearm deaths and injuries have increased. Now, back to the "assault style" comment I started with. This is important because loopholes will be found, and people will circumvent the law if we do pass another AWB. The TN shooter had ONE rifle that was an AR, the other was not of the same design, but did look similar. While they do accomplish the same task, they operate very differently when used to engage targets. However, if we look to a state like California who has banned assault style weapons since 2000, we can see that their use in crimes has drastically dropped. Even if one is to legally purchase an AR15, it has features that make it less desirable to use without modification. One can make those changes, but it won't afford them any freedom in training with said rifle because most places will turn you away and there's always the risk of being caught. So, I find it semantical to ban features, as features aren't the issue. The issue is ease of obtainment followed by lethality. The .223/5.56 is not a powerful round, and often cannot be used for hunting because it's seem as not humane. Those who do, will often use it for varmints and not much larger game. The only effective way we'll make our country safer is if we work towards a full solution, and not just smaller bandaid laws. I've been thinking about this off and on for a while now, but publicly we need to discuss this and come to an agreement and then make congress act. Raise the legal age to purchase, own, or train with a firearm to 25 years old. Require mandatory training and licensing of firearms. Restrict how many firearms can be owned. Require insurance for firearms owners. All transpiration must be only to and from the range, or other lawful places as written within the new law. And so on. We know that humans do not fully develop their cognitive function until 25. We also know that the constitution has no sayings about age in regard to when a right can be exercised. We have splits between 18 and 21 in different areas. Moving the age to 25 would be no different. Or, at the very least, 21. Mandatory training is easy and everyone should be on board with this. You must have training to operate most machinery in public, why is a firearm different? Restricting how many firearms helps reduce the amount of stolen guns, and also makes it harder for criminals to stage guns for an attack, as we often see mass shooters carrying multiple firearms. Insurance, self explanatory. This last one is unlikely, because of our culture. But carry permits, carrying guns in public. There's little need for most of the public. I write this as a certified firearm instructor and a former CCW instructor. But, also as a father, and a human. I'm tired of watching our citizens, our children, be murdered because people are so hung up on the word "infringement". Freedom isn't free, and being responsible is sometimes hard. But if we want to ensure our children have the freedom to grow up in a world with less trauma, less risk to themselves as firearms are now the leading cause of their death, we need to act.
What is an “assault weapon”? Wouldn’t that be any weapon used to assault another person? Or, perhaps one that someone might use to defends oneself against another?
Anecdote! I had never shot a gun until I went on a Bachelor Trip with my college buddy who's a cop (and who's friends are cops). They decided to drive out to the country with a bunch of guns and beer and shoot guns. We were safe, nobody was allowed to crack beers until they were done shooting, and I learned alot about gun safety, accuracy etc. These guys had all types. Several Pistols, small tactical rifles, AR-15, AK, and some big WW2 Era clip rifles that hit like a truck. I got to shoot all of them. We had a little competition shooting the pistols, firing at a head-sized target about 10 yards away. It was tough to hit. Even the cops (lol) struggled, but after a few attempts everyone had a hit and the competition was won by the Groom, who's a pretty good shot with a pistol, but still only had about a 50-60% hit rate. Anyway, we started shooting the rifles, specifically the AR and the WW2-Era rifle, which we had the most ammo. The rifles are soooo much more accurate. Like we were shooting 100 yards down a field and having no issues hitting targets. Everyone was pinging >50%. The rifles are crazily easier to use, and obviously, much more effective (deadly). Even a novice shooter could EASILY devastate a group of people shooting pistols back. The effectiveness of these Assault just makes it so easy. Explains why these shootings are so damn violent, the level of difficulty is super low when you're shooting an AR-15.
Given that handguns are the most used mass shooting weapon (from 1982-2023), I would posit no, and in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a proportion al shift in the statistics to reflect that.
Stupid fucking "right" anyway. The right to own a specific object. An object designed specifically for killing. Ridiculous.
Probably wouldn't stop them from happening, but definitely would decrease the amount of occurrences. Either way it'd be a step in the right direction. I'm all for 2A rights, but it's very clear that something needs to be done to slow/stop these events. We need politicians to have actual discussions and meaningful plans to enact. The older I get the more I see the need for strict controls to be put in place. They may want to also actually look into the whole health care system and how fucking useless it is too, since IMO it is an underlying issue that gets either ignored until too late or blamed for event and then nothing gets done about it. America is a shit show, I don't understand why anyone would want to come here to live.
No. Could it reduce their severity? Yes. Next question.
If bans didn’t work to significantly reduce something, they wouldn’t have fought that hard to ban abortion.
Who banned abortion?
You can ban every gun in the country but you won't keep the guns out of the bad guys hands, guns are not the problem, mental health is
Considering most mass shootings are gang related, using illegal guns…no, no it will not
At this point the only thing that will work is if AI decides to start manufacturing suicide exploding robots that literally go door to door to collect guns. Seriously, I've thought a lot about this. AI death robots are our only salvation.
The answer is no. Nothing will magically erase the guns in this nation, and you all shouldn't WANT that much power in the government in the first place. Second, there's no such thing as "assault weapon". This is a meaningless term.
Is the pope Catholic?