Simply banning guns on a knee jerk reaction is not the way.
it needs to be depoliticised and needs a culture change.
it’s crazy that a country thinks it needs weapons to overthrow a government.
That is not how democracy works, you have the right to vote, the right to strike, to not go to work, a government would collapse far quicker or cave in if no one went to work for a week.
A single cyber attack against an oil pipeline brought part of the us to its knees.
Imagine if all people in the energy sector did not go to work and caused a mass shut down.
then all those in transport and logistics.
Could the country survive a month if that occurred across all states?
If a country needs weapons to overthrow a government, then it’s democratic rules, legislation, regulation is not sufficient, you should be able to democratically remove any sitting government.
The US does need to look at why it needs to have so many weapons, in a few years it will be 6.8mm rounds that are standard, these are replacing the 5.56mm, as they are designed to kill and not simply wound.
Simply doing nothing just means another school shooting, another shooting at a shopping centre etc.
If it’s because you have the right to a militia, then get rid of national guard and everyone with a weapon must by law be part of the militia and serve the community, state as required, doing all the stuff the guard did. Then see how many actually want to own a weapon.
make it a proper legal process in owning a weapon, background checks, assessments on mental health on security of firearms and ammunition in the house, checks on other family members. Having to have mandatory safety checks at a proper range, fail it and you have to re qualify, yearly or every two years. Add costs to getting a firearms licence, also lack of firearms licence and caught in possession means jail or community service type of punishment.
Print the photographs of children on ammunition packs and firearms.
change the culture to one where you can trust the democratic process, where yes you can own a weapon, however you also have to prove you believe in the reasons for it and serve your state, change it so it’s not so bloody easy to simply walk in and walk out with a weapon,
thing like magazine size are not a huge deterrent as you simple tape two mags together.
It needs to be a culture change, people need to look at the yearly deaths of innocent people and even suicides and realise that is the price their country pays to have something sitting in a cupboard or draw.
So in 1994 there was a automatic weapons band in the United States. On September 13, 1994, Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 took effect. Under this legislation the gun band was set in place for 10 years at which time Congress would have to extend the legislation or let it expire. Congress did not extend the automatic gun band and allowed it to expire on September 13, 2004.
Based upon the data collected during the 10 year ban on automatic weapons, the data shows there was a drop in crimes in which banned weapons were used to commit crimes. So the short terms effects of the ban reflects that crime rates dropped... but long term effects of the ban resulted in more automatic weapons sales. So prior to the gun ban gun manufactures produce as many automatic weapons as they could prior to the band taking effect. This meant that there was a large supply of automatic weapons ready available for when the band expired. Automatic weapon ownership in America doubled in the decade following the expiration of the ban, and has steadily increased since.
www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
In the same time frame the number of gun lobbies more than doubled from 1994 at 2.4 Million to over 4.8 Million by 2011. So as crime rates were dropping before the expiration of the gun ban, the gun lobby more than doubled... spending over 4.9 BILLION is spending. So essentially the ban expired because congressmen were paid off not to vote on the extension of the bill.
This was so that the gun manufactures could make money on weapons sales and use the 2nd Amendment argument to gain support in order to protect their right to make millions on sales of weapons that used to kill people. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people... but more and more people are getting and using weapons that were solely designed for one purpose... to kill people.
www.opensecrets.org/.../summary
During the ban automatic Weapon crimes dropped 39% after the ban was lifted automictic weapon crimes increased by 183%.
www.judiciary.senate.gov/.../studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
In the 8 years following the expiration of the gun ban the crime rates for automatic weapons has increased 4 times past it low in 2003.
A I am not about banning gun ownership in America... but I am about banning automatic weapons.
My shotgun is a semi-automatic weapon. However, it only holds three shots and then must be very slowly reloaded. It's not a threat weapon. It's a hunting gun.
So, semi-automatic is NOT the culprit. LARGE MAGAZINE, semi-automatic weapons are the problem here.
If you can shoot 17 rounds, one after the other, using a large-capacity magazine, that is a dangerous weapon. The magazines are a big issue.
NO ONE, not a single hunter in creation, needs to have 17 rounds available to them. Only people seeking to shoot people want this option.
Handguns are semi-automatic. They shoot from 6 to 11 rounds. And handguns are not hunting weapons. They are sold for "self defense." People killing.
So, if you outlaw ALL semi-automatic weapons, the only guns left will be rifles and antiques from earlier centuries. All weapons today are semi-automatic.
You'd be outlawing all modern guns of any kind. I like hunting and only do it once or twice a year to get wild duck. Let's aim at the magazines and assault-style weapons.
Also, sell guns at state-registered gun stores ONLY: NOT at gun shows, pawn shops or anywhere else. That closes loopholes. Private sales mean you'd have to transfer the GUN LICENSE, just like buying a car. The person buying the gun from a private owner would have to give info that's sent to the state and show ID for a sale. And let's have GUN LICENSES for those 21 and older, with a junior license for young hunters being the only exception.
A background check for criminal offenses would be part of licensing. Just as a person with DWIs can't have a license, someone with felony offenses can't get a gun license.
Yes, this is all a pain in the ass for owners who've done nothing illegal or onerous or criminal with their guns. But there's always assholes and sick fishes who ruin it for the rest of us. I say, cut out the assholes and sick fish.
none of these things are the culprit... there isn't a problem here to fix related to guns at all
@007kingifrit Guns ARE a problem if anyone can get them with no licensing requirements and background checks. Cars aren't weapons and we're required to have licenses and driver training to use them. There's NOTHING required to own a gun. And they're available at sporting goods stores, pawn shops. Gun ownership should be a privilege, just like driving is. And there should be safety requirements like training, licensing, age requirements for use and background checks. None of these requirements will prevent ALL gun deaths. But many can be reasonably curtailed.
And though people with guns kill people, with all the above requirements in place there will STILL be gun deaths due to black market sales, criminality and accidents. People will use OTHER easily obtained weapons to kill people, as is done in the UK, where knives are the most common weapons used in gang fights and killings, I was told.
I think the problem about guns being used to kill people is that guns are an effective "distancing" tool. It is far easier to kill someone when you don't have to get bloody, or use your bare hands. One can coolly mow down people from a distance. You're not ACTUALLY involved. You don't get close enough to see their eyes, smell their fear, hear them scream.
gun ownership is the sacred pillar that holds up the empire, i would be wiling to let millions of children die to preserve it. rights are more important than human life.
it's no big deal the paultry number of people killed by guns
@007kingifrit I know you're just being ridiculous when you say this. You willing to have your children die? Your brothers and sisters? Your nieces and nephews?
Rights are more important than human life? The only reason to have rights is to safeguard our humanity. 54 percent of gun deaths are SUICIDES! 43 percent are murders. 3 percent are accidental gun deaths.
The Constitution holds up our democracy. And the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment is about having a militia to prevent a tyrannical government from destroying that democracy. It's not a GUARANTEE of gun ownership in light of the issue inherent in modern guns' killing power. The guns that existed in 1781 could only fire ONE mini ball at a time and had to be plunged, powdered and re-lit to fire a second round, with far less fire power than today's guns.
But with a squeeze of a trigger of a 9mm or 45 colt seven to nine rounds can pop off in succession. It's a different world. Owning a gun is a privilege and requires training and registration to keep guns out of the hands of felons and off the black market.. It also requires responsibility on the part of gun manufacturers.
Gun selling in a business that makes money. Just like tobacco, the only thing the manufacturers are interested in is selling their product, no matter how dangerous or detrimental that product can be in the wrong hands.
Some of these guns might not have ended up in many of these young killers' hands and innocent people, children, teachers would be alive today.
The fact that you could say you are OK with millions of children and adults DYING for your right to keep a gun shows where your priorities are. It's rank ignorance not to acknowledge that the combination of guns, people and gun manufacturers are linked through a product primarily used to KILL PEOPLE that are the problems.
Though you and I don't use our guns in this manner does not negate the fact that suicides and murderers misuse guns in self harm and the harm of others. We are the ONLY NATION on earth that has this giant gun problem because of Old West attitudes. Change is necessary.
Why does anyone in the general public need a semi or automatic handgun or rifle?
If you are defending your house - and not just using guns to boost a weak pathetic ego & compensating for little ball syndrome by seeming to be tough - there is absolutely no reason for the public to possess such weapons. No legal or law obeying reason that is.
An old smith & western police pistol will kill any intruder just as efficiently.
For starters, it's none of your god damn business what I do with what I own. Sorry you're such a tyranny sympathizer that you need to blame all gun owners for the actions of a deranged few.
Secondly, we have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own firearms on a "shall not be infringed" basis, something opportunistic twats like our so called "representatives" still haven't figured out yet.
Finally, our own government continues to prove its distrust from the self-serving, greedy, shit-on-the-constitution assholes who dare to call themselves representors of the American people.
Ask the jews in 1940, s Germany why anyone would need a semi automatic gun
@captain_voidwalker The comparison doesn´t work because she´s arguing to take away one kind of weapon not all weapons.
Second of all the US is far away from being comparable to the Nazis.
So was Germany at one point. And if you let them take one type of weapon they will take them all. It happened in Australia and the UK.
it exists so we can kill as many government officials as needed. that way they fear us. that's what the 2a is for
@SimpleGuy95 she is arguing to take away a type of weapon that is 90% of weapons...
Well said, for a government that fears the people is a government ruled by the people
Firstly, semi-automatics are necessary for using as a polar bear gun when hiking in the Yukon or North west territories. Second, it is fun shooting different types of guns as a shooting range. Third, anyone can take a gun and make it semi-automatic. Fourth, crime isn't caused by guns types but the people who choose to use them. So instead the focus should be on reducing the symptoms that lead to crime - ie, better family bonds, better community, deal with poverty, restore religion and tradition. etc. Ever since North America chose atheism they took on these issues as consequence. Removing guns is a band-aid solution. People who choose to do crime will find a way. Is North America going to band kitchen knives next?
Ask Bob Miner why shall not be infringed matters. Or better yet, the victims of Ruby Ridge. Government attracts pure evil. When taken over by the treacherous, it must be cleansed. Every citizen needs the ability to do their part. That's the responsibility of every free republic. Clearly, no one learns true civics in school anymore. The state only exists legitimately when it makes God's will enforceable pragmatically on Earth. When it usurps its way into a contrarian role, it loses all legitimacy.
And accursed usurpers cannot be deposed lawfully with smiles and good feelings. They're violent criminals, and respect only the millstone crushing their skulls to a fine powder. Every citizen's responsibility to see to that. Without this law and order, the necessary evil of the state become an unnecessary evil.
@007kingifrit I assume she's only talking about assault weapons and rifles.
Assualt rifle / weapon is a nonsense term. It dosen't mean anything
@captain_voidwalker I´m no expert, sorry. I meant weapons that look like the AR-15, they´re just called assault weapons by wikipedia.
Thank you, I agree
Someone has been listening to Ben Shapiro too much. Do you people seriously believe the government will turn tyrannical and genocidal?
People only own those weapons for the exact reasons she mentioned above.
Also, you have to remember, when that Ammendment was written, people only had muskets, not fucking machine guns. You wanna play with machine guns, join the military.
@SimpleGuy95 if she's too stupid tos ay the right thing she's too stupid to be taken seriously
When the amendment was written is people owned private warships with cannons. You can shove the musket argument up your ass. Also yes governments have a natural tendency towards tyranny. Look through a history book. As a point if fact weapons confiscation is the precursor to a government turning tyrannical in every recorded case
@Child_Of_Dust Atheism isn't the reason, tightened gun regulation is why this is happening.
People who don't believe in an afterlife value the only life they have far more, its the religious people who tend to think otherwise. A person who thinks they get an afterlife isn't going to fear the consequence of death, so they are far more likely to be dangerous.
@Child_Of_Dust I do however agree with the solution being "better family bonds, better community, deal with poverty"
Awwwwwww! Look at all the hypocrite Conservative snowflakes getting triggered and swearing. It's people like you that are the reason Biden was elected. It's hard to take you people seriously, when you indulge in the same sort of behavior you claim to hate.
And which side do you think will turn the government tyrannical, the Left or the Right?
Take your machine gun and shove it down your pants to make your teenie weenie look bigger. Just be careful you don't accidentally set it off, because I know how you rednecks are when it comes to firearms safety.
You people claim to love this country, yet you are contributing to it's bad image. The entire civilized world is shocked by you
@KostasKouvalis There is no such thing as left or right, it's the same thing, and liberal begins with liberty, as in more rights, not less, stop acting like a child and grow up.
There are a large number of victims to shootings who, if still alive, would disagree that carrying inferior firepower than an intruder or mass shooter or whoever else, is a sane idea.
@KostasKouvalis Well I'm not American so you can't state I claim to love your country. Facts, everything was great in North America 60 some years ago. Question is, what changed? School shootings, youth suicides, those are all new concepts to North America. North America is several hundred years old. There were machine guns and semi- automatics 60 years ago that were not used on people. So the problem is how society changed. This, again, would be my argument in favor towards religion keeping things together. The constitution was written on Christian principles too. Religion aside, it provided morals, ethics, responsibility, community, family values, being hard-working, etc. These things deteriorate along with the removal of religion. Society is choosing band-aid solution as problems arise out of the lack of morals, ethics, etc. If you want to put these attributes back into society, it requires believing in something that is larger than people or governments. Of course their are dangers with religion, I'm not going to deny it. It has to be beliefs that bring people together, that cares for individual people and society as a whole. Although people who are religious believe in an after life, they still believe in consequences for their behaviors too. So atheists and religious people may equally fear death but for different reasons.
Sure wasn't conservatives who spent the summer of 2020 burning down cities and murdering people who didn't agree with thier politics. So yeah the left us the tyrannical side if the political isle.
@Child_Of_Dust Okay, so what's that saying? Americans have nothing to be proud of. Instead of moving forward they've gone backwards. The Right criticize Muslims, when they're no better. Any normal person will see that being an American is nothing to be proud. "America number 1"😂
American people have such a sensitive ego, that they feel they need to shoot people to be respected. Even Samoan gangsters were complaining that they had to buy guns, because American gangsters don't want to fist fight like real men. So you're right that it's society and the people that are fucked up.
Being an American is nothing to be proud of.
@captain_voidwalker You are going to have to provide more context to your claims.
So your argument is we should stop gun toting tyrants with our... fists. Tell ya what you can throw hands, ill stick to slinging lead
@KostasKouvalis Oh simple answer, if a system is working with 70% efficiency but has something wrong with it, throwing out the entire system isn't the answer because then you would be swapping to a system that is even more defective. The system simply needs to be improved upon. Yes, society is going backwards and getting worse than what it is. Things are spiraling out of control and the solutions people are bringing forward are not solutions. We had a functioning system but now it is becoming less functional to disfunctional. The whole capitalist vs liberal polarization is also part of the problem. Polarization is bad period. Both systems have a role to play and need to be working together. Unfortunately we are only human which makes it tough to create a government that self checks and has the best intentions for everybody. The theory was having a government with polarized parties would keep each other in check. But if both systems want to increase the size of government to control the populace, it doesn't matter what party gets voted in. Rather, the polarization is used as a method to manipulate people to swing the pendulum back and forth as a distraction from what is really taking place. So sure, both systems are tyrannical. I can agree with that. But for all the things people are arguing about, I decided I mind as well add my own level of controversy. I'm going to argue as a solution that Christianity needs to be reinstated into the school system. Governors and political members should be christian. They should be tested on their christian values via charitable acts. Then hopefully, we have a slightly larger chance of having people who govern honestly and want the best for society, and be interesting in solving issues of crime and suicide based on value systems and not band-aid solutions.
@Child_Of_Dust What changed is gun laws got stricter and less people carried, a criminal has less to fear today than 60 years ago by 99%, they rarely even give the death sentence or shoot them on site in most states anymore, despite them commiting murders. As for morals, you get better ones from science, science gives evidence, evidence gives logic and empathy and sympathy, and those give morals.
@captain_voidwalker I will never understand why people think they are safer by being defenseless. It's quite possibly the dumbest claim ever spoken.
@TheSpaceGnome Well great! You are speaking to a scientist right now :) I'm actually working on two scientific papers and a third is in the acts of publishing. I've steadied quite in depth between science vs philosophy vs religion. So right now, think of me as wearing my philosophy/religion hat. Though I'll put on my science hat now.
Science is the testing of the observable world through methodologies that examine the natural state of things. All models are wrong and inefficient, because they only reveal according to what the scientist scripts. The hope is through repeatability, multiple studies approaching a scenario at different angles, will eventually reveal more of a picture... There are certain things science cannot answer because it is outside of the scope and purpose of science. For example, science cannot speak upon morals, ethics, religion, philosophy, or spirituality. Science is simply indifferent because it is numerical. The numbers change according to models, which is influenced by the scientist. Science only focuses on the physical. If the physical is influenced by the spiritual, science is completely blind to this.
@Child_Of_Dust I think you may be relying too much on bias, science is a method, you can't tie an agenda to it or insert beliefs into it and get accurate intepretations of data.
Alzhiemers and dementia prove you need a nervous system to think, so souls can't exist. Opposites prove omnipotence is impossible. And infinity makes creationism impossible.
Science over and over again proves religions are incorrect. But yes, relativity and quantum mechanics have to be misinterpretations, because they conflict with eachother. Hence the search for a unifying theory.
And yet we have accounts of brain dead people forming memories of things they experience whilst unconscious. We also have accounts of people who remever past lives. So there is evidence of a soul.
Yes but the UK and Australia have a much higher rate of violent crime overall. They love to play the word game and and only track "gun" crime when making the comparison. Speaking of Australia weren't they putting thier own citizens in camps against thier will during covid. Sounds like Australians could use some firearms to tell thier government to back off.
Opinion
106Opinion
I think it will never happen, no one is going to give them up. If they try to take them, going to be over the news how the feds are coming for you guns which will mobilize people to fight and thus civil war starts.
The real problem without lawing a certain type of weapon is the border is not secure... so legal people can't have semi auto's, but guns are trafficked at millions per year, across the southern border... for criminals to buy. Thus technically there is no way to actually get rid of semi-automatic cause those criminals, MS-13 and others will still have them and now law abiding citizens won't.
Around here though, people carry AR-15's out in public, which is fine... open carry is perfectly legal and guess what? No one has ever started shooting up others.
Mental health is the way to go, get to the root of the problem... cause I'm an hour or more away from a police response, if someone is coming into my house with a semi automatic weapon and all I have is a single shot, load... shoot load, and its a cartel member, I'm dead or worse, kidnapped into sexual slavery.
I have nearly been kidnapped into sexual slavery by the cartel, just a FYI my friend got taken and I barely escaped. So the only way I'm giving up a semi automatic is over my dead body. The government will have to kill me to take it... so lets kill a bunch of citizens who aren't a threat to protect others... makes no sense.
Only machine guns are automatic, which is already illegal. All other guns are semi automatic. If you ban semi automatics you're really just banning all guns. So there's no point in making the differentiation.
It's a straight up assault on the 2nd Amendment and no not on board. At the end of the day the purpose of Firearms being a right is to keep a government in check if it decides to get tyrannical.
That is THE purpose. Secondarily protecting you and your family. I don't believe that some crazies going buckwild justifies removing the right to protect yourself and your family. Nor do I think people really understand the primary purpose of the second amendment.
There are countries in recent history that banned guns and within 5 years became dictatorships. Because... what are you gonna do about it?
As shitty/scary as it might sound. One of the only things keeping our government from completely going against the will of the people is that we have more guns than people and objectively we would win a war against the government longterm.
I´m not really sure if it´s helpful because I think it´s a symptom and not the real problem.
The real problem I see is a younger generation that lacks hope and sense in life like those guys don´t do that because they really appreciate what they´re doing rather because they don´t see any value for or in life.
They use anything that looks impressive to get some acknowledgement and their life through it´s not like they care what weapon to use.
The problem I rather see is a mental health and a purpose issue. Looking at my own life and I think especially guys need a reason to be their best and if you don´t have that reason because you´re socially awkward and no one likes you while also coming from a broken home it´s hard to find it yourself.
I think raising the age to buy certain weapon could be helpful to prevent a depressive guy that doesn´t see value or hope from buying guns.
Because I find it extremely interesting many of the shooters were under 21 and I rather see there are a possible way to operate.
Because they are still looking for a way to become adults and are still in a time where they try to figure out who they are.
I find therefore try to reduce their possibilities to get to weapons.
So us"civilians"can't have them but the bloods and the crips will still have them because they were obtained illegaly. Let the controllers have our gun rights what other rights they gonna take because they will slowly strip us of our rights you won't be able to do anything except go to work and go home. Dont leave until you work again. most people here where i live that own there own house can't even plant a flower garden in there yard because its not in the plans you can't park certain things in your drive way yoy can't have lawn decorations you can't paint your house a diffrent color "control" is all they want hell the government would rather just kill off about 30 or 40 million people because they are well aware that our life support systems are collapsing and they would rather keep everyone occupied with all this bullshit none of this matters when our biosphere is unable to support our population in 5 years you wonf be able to go outside for more than a few minutes at a time with no ozone there is little to none of that left. How sthpid does it sound when they say another planet like earth descovered, are we looking for another planet , because we ruined this one. Your vote never mattered if it did they would not let you vote in the first place voting is just a thing they do to make us think we matter when they could careless about you. And for us its too late to give a shit now everyone is content as long as walmart and mcdonalds are open
I think its an idiotic idea, the shootings keep increasing despite gun laws being tighter than they ever were. This crap wasn't happening when I was a kid, and people were allowed to own a lot more kinds of weapons, conceal carry, etc.
The problem is that, out of the civilian population, only criminals have these weapons now, and if you outlaw them, its going to stay that way.
Regulations are already suffocatingly tight, they need to loosen, not tighten further.
You cannot fight crazy people who out gun you in a department store by using words, A security gaurd lost his life recently, because he was poorly armed and the criminal wasn't! And his failure to protect himself and others cost almost a dozen people their lives.
History has also proven that every single time a government takes weapons away from it's people, the government becomes a dictatorship, and slaughters the civilians who resist.
Learn from world war 2, we do not need the US to head down the same path germany did, when they disguised tyranny as peacekeeping. And one has to question how so many "isolated" shootings are happening at once... Rather convenient I would say for anyone who wants to push the narrative of disarming the public.
You can try passing laws to ban these semi-autos but just understand that it isn't going to bring the violence down. The fundamental flaw with that line of thought is the assumption that criminals will magically obey those laws.
They don't. They, by definition of being criminals, do not obey.
Police and law enforcement are going up against the same criminals in the street that you and I do (and they don't discriminate between cop or civilian) And the government saw fit to equip the officers with automatic weapons.
The same politicians who cry "ban all 'assault weapons' are themselves surrounded by secret service and law enforcement armed with "assault weapons"
Gun control may sound good to some people in theory, but in all examples of it being tried it has only made it worse. Look at Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, DC, New York, New Orleans and so on.
Its not a gun problem, its a crime problem.
In addition, the same people who want to ban guns just got done praising Zelenski for anding out full-auto AKs to his citizens.
The same people who want to ban guns voted for a Comander in Chief that just armed the Taliban.
I'd also just like to point out that on December 15th, 1791 when the second amendment was ratified, all guns were "military style".
No. I dont.
The opinion of a celebrity who lives in a secure gated community, on property surrounded by a wall and access to top of the line security systems and a panic room is insignificant. Celebrities dont occupy the same world as us commoners, they are entertainers, their purpose is not to decide how we live, their purpose is to act in movies and otherwise shut the fuck up.
Where I live a woman recently had a home intruder break into her home and sexually assault her for hours. I wish she had a gun so she could have left that piece of shit squirming in agony with a chest full of lead. I wish she came out of it safe, and far less traumatized then she is now.
Matthew McConaughey will never have to worry about his wife or daughter facing something like that. So disregard his, hollywood's, and politician's opinions on the matter, they all have armed security. You probably do not, so purchase a firearm, learn how to operate it, and do what you will. Noone can protect you from someone whos already in your home.
Ban guns, and watch gun crime continue, and crimes as a whole skyrocket. The US is not in the same situation as australia or the UK. It will not work.
The impact of communism or socialist dictatorships have a higher death rate on people in countries where guns are illegal, in comparison to capitalist countries where guns are legal. People need to be able to protect themselves, at very to keep their own government in check. If you want to solve the problem of gun misuse, just have stronger restrictions against people who have mental illness. People in North America are lonely and isolated which leads to higher rates of depression, suicide, aggression, etc. Community is a better solution than banning guns.
Agreed.
Going in the wrong direction. Australia is now gassing its population as it sees fit, because they can't fight back to depose tyrants. Full automatics should be every citizen's. Every citizen should be able to join a militia, and have the same abilities as the military. Ammo should all be laced with red phosphorus. All who would disturb the peace shall meet hellfire! Especially corrupt politicians!
Put the fear of God in the Mexican cartels! All this pussing around with gun bans is only making the bad guys stronger. McConaughey is a flaming moron. That shooting was a government false flag. And if teachers were armed, the kid shooter would've been stopped dead in short order. Then, agents would have to expose themselves to have their dead child quotas met. And then we wouldn't need Hogg making a fool of himself on Twitter to expose the real agenda.
Time to end the puppeteers, to end the puppet theater!
I doubt if he knows what a semi-automatic weapon is. And reading through the comments it seems like half the people on GaG don't what it is either.
Semi-automatic is a technical detail about how the weapon operates. It has almost nothing to do with how fast a weapon fires. It fires one bullet with one pull of the trigger. Just like weapons have been doing for the last 100+ years.
The average person could not fire a semi-auto any faster than the old style revolvers. Someone highly trained might be able to fire one a little faster, but the average person couldn't. Both revolvers and semi-autos are capable of firing much faster than the average person would be capable or comfortable doing.
Don't confuse the "auto" in semi-auto with a fully automatic weapon. That's not what it means. These days, most weapons are semi-auto.
I seriously do not think anything of the such is going to happen and shouldn’t happen. I live in Florida, so, I do feel like our governor and citizenry will not vote in laws here that would further restrict firearm ownership, purchase, carry, etc. If you do not like such things, then you can choose any of the other 49 states of the US. People like their freedom of protecting what is important to them (freedom, country, family, etc). I believe the second amendment ensures this and has proven this in the past plenty of times. I don’t think sensationalization of mass shootings is going to do anything serious to the red states that support the second amendment/firearm ownership.
•Do we need to do something? Yeah sure, I can think of several things.
•Does it have to be banning firearms? No
but is so many " semi automatic firearms " in the US , thats such a broad category of firearms it would be impossible to get gun owners to agree to such a things and it wouldn't stand out to a legal challenge at the supreme court if it was someone ( unlikely ) able to pass senate
and after the russian invasion of ukraine , seems unlikely gun people eager to give up there freedoms after seeing what happened over there and the need for small arms to defend there country from invaders
NOPE! Criminals still have and get whatever kinds of guns they want. Criminals have and tendency to, I don't know, NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!! People like me though, that's almost 40, have never been to jail, and has never even been pulled over or got a parking ticket..
Besides, how are you going to get the guns? I own 3 semi-autos and a shotgun, open carry is legal here... gee, wonder why there's less crime?
Evil people exist... and they end up choosing places like a school because they know their victims cannot fight back. They'll wait for the police. Police that end up standing outside and stopping parents from going in to try and save their kids.
Outlawing semi-automatic weapons would be unconstitutional. People who don’t understand guns get scared hearing the term. But actually a semi automatic really just means there’s less levers for a person to manually press before being able to shoot. Which in a situation of life or death means a lot of time saved that you don’t have to take extra steps before defending yourself (from either people or animal). Semi-automatic handguns typically have external safety’s as well as a trigger. The gun doesn’t shoot unless the person wants it to. And even so a semi-automatic, you still have to Press the trigger every time you want to shoot. Fully automatic guns that shoot on their own are harder to get because there is more government paperwork involved and typically are not in stock at a gun store they’d have to be ordered. Therefore a mentally unstable/criminal would be more likely to seek unlawful methods of obtaining one.
Sorry what’s even legal in the UK? And that’s a possibility.. really a 15 rounder magazine is sufficient for self defense purposes. They make 50 rounder for some handguns which typically go unsold because there’s really no need for it. However in a situation I could see something like a 30 rounder in a rifle being necessary. (But rare circumstances.) One question I worry about with Magazine restrictions is, in a chance of government tyranny when the people become their own military you’d want high capacity magazines because you’d want equal weaponry to that of other militias right? it’s the citizens rights to be able to defend themselves against a government as well.
@goaded the UK put bans in place after Hungerford and Dunblane.
It is still possible to buy and own something like say an AR-15, however the semi auto side of things is limited to.22, then single shot is.223 (effectively 5.56mm but lower pressure).
Rifles are not limited and you can own a 0.5 BMG such as Accuracy International, Barrett or one of these www.cadexdefence.com/.../
Hand guns are pretty much banned unless using fixed grip setup.
Shotguns auto type limited to 3 rounds.
There are work around for the.223 which just means working parts held back and you thumb a release leaver, which makes rate of fire fairly quick.
Only 3-5 rounds? You’d die 😂.. did you know that some aggressors take at least 10 shots = 10 rounds to stop the threat from chasing after the person defending themselves. Especially in cases of someone that’s on drugs they don’t feel the shot right away and will keep attacking that’s why 15 is so important in self defense. You can’t have a army with each gun having 3 bullets when your aggressors would have 1000 round magazines coming from automatic guns in tanks.
It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Semiautomatics have been common for over 100 years. It's old technology.
Machine guns and explosives are already illegal. That's enough compromise.
Supporters of more "gun control" are uninformed and lack the ability to reason. They just parrot what they are told by their trusted sources. How liberal of them to advocate giving away other people's rights and increase the power of authoritarian government.
No modern liberal is happy unless they are bullying and threatening somebody.
Almost every weapon sold in the USA is "semi automatic" whether it's a double action revolver, pistol or a modern sporting rifle. One trigger pull, one round. Black powder, lever action single action revolvers and pump action shotguns aren't. The intent of the Second Amendment is clear. Anyone who thinks it is reserved for sport shooters, the military and cops never studied civics. Firearms will never be outlawed. The Second Amendment is the enforcement wing for the entire Constitution and if the Left succeeds in banning or confiscating any firearms, Patriots will use the remainder of 400 million guns in our possession on them. We have put up with you long enough. We know that the Left is coming for our Rights, and we will "counteract" them when that becomes necessary. And it likely will.
Even if it was outlawed do you think people wouldn't find a way to get their hands on it.. Maybe outlawing the weapons isn't the approach to make, because there's always going to be a way to get them illegally.. but making it more difficult in trying to buy them instead, make psychiatric screenings longer and more involved, make the age limit older to buy, enforcing a law where training must be taught before to ensure the person knows the responsibility of handing a tool not a toy.. but the real problem is the black market
I am sorry but I personally think its good that people are allowed such firearms because people have shown countless times that if they want someone dead, they will fine a way to do it. We need to focus more on the mentality of people who kill other people and find a way to stop it. Banning weapons will simply make people think more about how to kill other people and ways of making silent or something. At least with such high powered weapons, you can spot them. Unlike with a bomber or gas of some sorts.
Criminals are just going to commit murder anyway, so why bother outlawing murder? Why should we outlaw terrorists from getting nukes when they will get nukes anyway? Outlawing nukes just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get their hands on nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
There's no point in making any laws at all when people just break those laws. We should have total anarchy and a purge.
They had to pay an actor to lend them a glimmer of credibility.
Weekend at Biden's has what a 30% approval rating now?
Guy can't even keep inflation in check, he's got no business trying to mess around with the constitution.
Did you know that these shooters were get this... Already breaking lots of laws? It's almost like they aren't following the rules and adding more won't help.
I'm also wondering where that 18 yr old shooter, with no job or credit cards got 10000$ worth of weaponry or why the police just stood there for 45min doing nothing, and even preventing parents from going in to protect their kids.
There's some really creepy behind the scenes on this situation. I kind of get the vibe that whoever is puppeteering the Democrats would do just about anything to disarm the public, and not for altruistic reasons.
Hitler, Stalin and Mao we're big into disarming the public too, how'd that go?
Most laws I view as bandaids for bigger problems that we are not willing to address more effectively.
That being said I think the leadership or administration, parents police, even friends around these violent acts need to be investigate for incompetence or collusion.
Also we need to take a real look at young adults 13-21 being held accountable for there actions. More discipline can go a long way in improving our society.
Mental health seams like a catch all. Really doesn’t make any sense. Medication might be a greater link to these actions than the actual mental illness.
Just my opinion I’m sure there’s professional in a better position to make a assessment.
No, all gun laws is violation of the second amendment
Read the second amendment closely
Constitution of the United States Second Amendment Second Amendment Annotated 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. Second Amendment Second Amendment
Do you see that part "shall not be infringed" but with every new gun law, is another attack.
By the way, once the guns are gone. Nothing will stop them from killing us
To be honest. Outside of a war, gang fight, or school shooting there is no rational reason to own a semi or full automatic weapon.
To be fair if you need more than three bullets, you're out of your league or doing something illegal anyway.
You tell me how you plan to get those guns from the criminals and then we can start talking realistically. Funny how literally nobody, no politician or any civilian wants to talk about that. What, do people think criminals, gangs, or any other criminal is just going to suddenly have a change of heart and willingly give them up? So when all the good people give up their guns... then what? Now they are defenseless and all these stories of people protecting themselves against criminals will suddenly end. But you know, nobody wants to talk about that so... screw it, right?
It is a terrible idea and is not what I would call a compromise at all. I don’t see how outlawing any firearms and preventing the law average, law abiding citizens will solve anything. The criminals aren’t getting their guns legally anyway. That aside, disarming the people in any capacity, including putting restrictions on their rights, is a critically important step towards implementing government oppression and tyrannical control of our lives.
You have no idea how happy it makes me to know that someone who works in law cares about second amendment rights being needed to protect ourselves from criminals, sanctioned or otherwise, thank you so much for caring!
I do view them as a useless device for non military purposes, but the weapon itself has never hurt anyone. Some retard pulled the trigger each and every time. In my mind it's national background checks, 21 years old to buy any weapon for a start. Then education. If they outlawed the semi auto firearms today, what about the millions and millions already in the hands of the public?
As I understand it, existing legally held ones would be left alone. Banning high capacity magazines is also a major life-saver. (And the moron lawmaker saying his gun would be banned under planned legislation doesn't seem to understand that the magazine isn't an integral part of the weapon.)
I would prefer if there were just more regulations around who can have one. Such as an in-depth background check. less unhinged and underaged people being able to own as a result. People have the right to bear arms it's just the unhinged ones that dont need to.
The strict regulations that get tighter each year are why the shootings increase in number, almost no one has the means to defend themselves anymore, and bans do not stop criminals from illegally obtaining weapons, they only stop decent people from surviving the criminal's attack.
People keep calling for bans, but if you live in most large cities, they already have bans on automatics, semi automatics, and concealed carry, and people still use all of that to commit lethal crimes anyway, while a disarmed public looks on in horror as the few security officers are shot dead by the murderer, because the criminal has an ar15 and all the guards had was pistols or tazers..
Don't agree at all they're not the issue it's fatherless homes and mentally unstable Young teenagers and young adults that are committing these problems that go under the radar nobody else needs to be punished for something that these young kids are doing
and the media, turning people into shooters by showing their faces and names and causing copycat crimes by making fame seekers
Banning semi auto rifles is wishful thinking. The best they can do is ban the sale and transfer. Those which are legally owned will remain in owner hands under a grandfather clause, which was included in the 1994 assault weapons ban. Too many guns are owned and transferred via private transactions it is impossible to know who has them or not. And its unconstitutional to indiscriminately search and seize weapons in peoples homes. So all a ban really does is drive the value sky high.
Personally, when I see a school shooting, I see a broken person who's been bullied, abused, destroyed by the their peers, and abandoned by the teachers and/or parents.
Taking the guns away would surely limit their rampage, but I imagine the US would have a suicide epidemic. But people don't care about children committing suicide, compared to children committing mass murder.
Here is a better idea. We should just like ban murder you know? Like if we banned murder, criminals would just stop murdering people?
Thanks for the chuckle. Needed that.
this is a really innovative idea, like how did you come up with this? you must have studied years at a prestigious inistitution!
@007kingifrit it’s certainly working against illegal drugs, money laundering, embezzlement, corruption, electoral fraud, etc🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Sixgunsound whenever some one says you don't need a 30rnd mag or a AR. Remind them that they don't need a car that goes over 80 miles an hour either since typically excessive speed in car crashes kill more people than guns.
I like your style. Totally true. I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with a faculty member in English about how many people her car killed after starting itself up and driving away. She didn’t have an answer for me but I could see the mental wheels turning. I hope she figured it out but she left the school a few weeks later.
Some idiots will then find other ways to murder their fellow citizens.
But a restriction in certain kinds of firearms (and ammunition as well) may buy some time and will slow down U. S's. cultural deterioration.
I doubt that it works. You guys over there are just too violent in average.
Lol compromise.
https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
Here is simple math: Ban product (X) and a market of illegal trade will become more popular for product (X). That's what happened with alcohol (it failed miserably), it's still not working with drugs (still failing miserably and then some). So why in the hell would you think its gonna work on anything else, especially as constitutionally important as firearm ownership?
Trying to be neutral. A mental gunman could just as easily be taken down with a handgun. It only takes one well aimed bullet in a good moment. Folks in CA survived for years with that ban. Want and need is a decent question.
@Panzer21 If someone isn’t a safe shot under stress, should they be carrying in public? (Not a poke. Genuine fair Q for discussion sake)
@Panzer21 Agreed.
Did you ever hear that after every Dirty Harry movie the sales of the 44 magnum hand gun went through the roof.
Now since every shootem up movie uses fully automatic guns that never runs out of bullets. Maybe that is causing everyone to want one or more with magazines that hold a case of shells.
So, my answer would be to only allow the movie actors to use single shot 22’s so then people will want to buy them instead!
Do you want a second civil war? Because this is how you get a second one?
I'm all for stricter gun control, mental health screenings, banning gun shows, ban lobbyists and special interest groups, etc. But I'm not for an all out ban or ban on semi autos. You'd have to be a fool to think we could peaceably collect all semi autos.
There's just no way. America is saturated with automatic weapons. Outlaw them and watch the worlds biggest and most lucrative black market of weapons emerge. And the worst types of people will be the ones buying them.
America has made its bed and must now lie in it. If you're an American, my advice is get a gun, learn how to use it and be ready for the worst.
I think the only solution is a compromise. We need to have 3 month certification classes to buy assault rifles. Taught by the Law. To exclude anyone that thinks guns are cool or wants to hurt people vs good people that want to protect themselves. Its like.. we have to take classes to drive a semi, or clean up toxic waste. Why not to buy an assault rifle?
First of all, idolizing actor to make life decisions. That's top notch stupid. Second people should read the constitution. Third of all, and this one is the main one. The laws they are requesting are already in play for years. Except 21 and over for rifles. All this talk is mainly to disable the right minded people from defending ourselves. If we end up like China, Venezuela, Russia and bother places. You who cry for this laws won't make it pass a week alive.
Banning semi autos from law abiding citizens helps no one but the criminal who will still have them and probably already has full autos. Government wants to ban guns? Then it is a sign they have gotten too big for their britches time to cut them down to size.
To be perfectly honest I think that Outright banning semi automatic weapons such as an AR15 is Outright wrong however I support the idea of age limits on certain weapons specifically assault type weapons such as the AR15/AK47 the age limit to purchase should be 21 Years or Older that I support 110%.
About damn time.
I live in Africa where we have REAL game animals and we don't need an ar50 to hunt them.
If you need them to protect against the government then I seggest you learn how tanks work
maybe you don't understand how tanks work because there isn't enough gas to move them around a country as big as america and men with guns will easily destroy their fuel supplies.
an armed public will stop tanks
Well said!
Gun's can be completely outlawed but if someone really wants a gun they can obtain one for example urban neighborhoods USA where there is least one shooting every week ex. Chicago. I remember reading about prohibition where alcohol was illegal but people were still able to get access to it
But you don't have to outlaw semi-automatics. You could raise the age. You could allow background checks. You could restrict magazine size.
You could do a lot of stuff before outlawing certain weapons.
we already have background checks
and restricting magazine size is an egregious violation of our rights. we are entitled to enough rounds where we can defeat the military (the U. S military has never won a war against a geurilla fighting opponent so don't start)
@007kingifrit Not true. And you it isn't true. You can buy a gun from lots of dealer who aren't licensed.
The thing that continues to amaze me is your ability to post blatant lies and not even be embarrassed.
Restricting magazine size isn't a violation of your rights. If you need more bullets than a single clip to hit a target learn how to fucking shoot a gun.
No, most firearms sold are semi automatic. Even a 6 shot revolver can be considered semi automatic.
The only people that need those kinds of weapons are the military. No civilian needs semi automatic weapons
I agree
what a stupid woman, you don't even know what a semi automatic weapon is
Huh me
They would be better off working on a way to jam the firing mechanism of any gun from 100 yards or so.. Then anyone can buy what they liked and people can just buy jammers.
#1) It is never a bad practice to secure that which the government is about to ban.
#2) It is never a bad practice to avoid that which the government is actively promoting.
not the place for celebs to be sticking their noses.
i'm not a gun freak, but if they want mine, they can come and (try to) get them.
until then, 2a remains in place.
always remember that second ensures the first.
It's fine. We don't need them, but in that case, law enforcement shouldn't have access to them either.
If they find themselves in a situation where they might need to use them, they can call in the military.
Yes a hundred times yes. Nobody needs a semi-automatic weapon period
1) Learn to spell. Holy shit.
2) Hollywood Boy can get raped.
3) A gun grab starts a civil war. So do it. :)
Semi-auto guns shoot one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. What are you going to have people use instead? Fucking single shot rifles? Muskets?
The most viable gun you could use if you ban semi-auto guns is revolvers.
A dangerous person is dangerous with or without a gun. Banning Semi-Automatic civilian firearms does not make America safer. It actually makes us less safe from left wing mob style terror attacks that we have seen frequently in recent years.
Only if we first take them away from the police, the military, and other government organization.
Start with the government organization.
It should be done. No one needs a killing machine like that in the home! Period.
I think it is people's perceptions that need adjusting. Guns are meant for hunting to provide food on the table. Guns have different purposes depending on the species, etc. Bear guns are also necessary for hiking. In the Yukon and Northwest territories people use semi-automatics as bear guns because it is the only weapon that will be effective on polar bears. Guns shouldn't be seen as killing machines. They are also a hobby and used for gun ranges. It is fun trying out different guns. Also, anyone can make a gun into semi-automatic so it is pointless to remove them simply for the purpose of 'reducing' crime, because criminals can still make them. Some guns, it is a matter of just swapping two pins, 15 minute fix, to make it semi-automatic. I think it is city people who don't understand the purpose for guns and think they are only for killing, which is wrong. Also, if you study any country that descended into tyranny and socialism, removing guns are one of the many steps. The government needs to fear the people and not the other way around. If the government does a poor job at protecting their people from robberies (ie, if they removed guns from police), how else will someone defend their home? If guns are killing machines and should be banned, so that is also cross bows, recurve bows, paint ball guns, air soft guns... That's another thing, air soft guns can be equally as dangerous if not more so than semi-automatics. So let's band that as well. In fact, how about Dollarama stop selling play guns... This would solve all crime right? Wrong! What solves crime is bringing Christianity and tradition back into North America, family values, community, fixing our broken marriage system, teach kids to take responsbility for their lives, etc. Taking away guns is a band-aid solution that fixes nothing. It only allows the government to have more control over citizens.
@Child_Of_Dust The question is on a semi automatic rifle. You don’t need that for hunting.
Guns are fun for shooting ranges. Shooting a gun at a target doesn't kill anything. Maybe you should give it a try? Fact is, if people are mature with guns there isn't any need to remove them. Removing toys is what you do with children. If people are being childish with guns, it is the people that need to be dealt with, not removing the guns. This is a form of bubble-wrapping people. We live in a chaotic world. Our system is about reining in the chaos. But to bubble-wrap people as a form of dissolving chaos will only weaken people and cause more issues, Ie we have 1 bad leader who turns everything into a socialist tyrannical state. Then, there definitely will be war and blood shed. Guess who will have the semi-automatic rifles? The police. Not you.
it's always the old cows. your generation lived in safety too long. you're not ready for the coming wars where there won't be police anymore... there already aren't in most places
@Child_Of_Dust < Shooting a gun at a target doesn't kill anything. Maybe you should give it a try? >
No, thank you.
@Child_Of_Dust < Removing toys is what you do with children. If people are being childish with guns, it is the people that need to be dealt with, not removing the guns. >
Try that with all the mentally unstable, sick people that have guns in their homes NOW. Yes, guns should be removed from any home. That's my philosophy. They should not even have target practices "for fun". Japan boasts over a million people in their country and their homicide rates are about zero. They yield to strict gun laws in their country and have to go through a lot of tests, including tests done in hospitals, written tests, and much more just to get a rifle or shotgun. No other guns are allowed them. THAT is why their homicide rate is so low--and ours is #2 in the world after Brazil. Proof guns are not the answer to less voilence--on the contrary, they make life here potentially much more violent
you need to accept a certain degree of innocent people dying is inherent in freedom
@007kingifrit. That doesn't make sense. In wars, yes, not in the street when innocent people are killed buy crazy people.
freedom inherently requires the innocent to die, because freedom needs to let bad people make bad choices
@007kingifrit You wrote: freedom inherently requires the innocent to die, because freedom needs to let bad people make bad choices
That makes no sense whatsoever. We have to right to LIVE. Period. We try NOT to let people make "bad" choices.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
humans are inherently imperfect, them making bad choices is not preventable
@007kingifrit Yes, they are preventable. It's top to the government to try and control what goes on in the minds of crazy people. They can make it very hard to possess a gun in the first place. Japan has a very low rate of homicide crimes due to arms. In 2019, in a country of more than 25 billion people, the homicide rate die to guns was 007. So it IS preventable to control the crazies.
humans are inherently violent and freedom lets some make bad choices, you must allow them to make bad choices to support freedom
@007kingifrit NO, you dont.
It's tricky I think that guns should be regulated definitely but I'd all the bad guys have guns and we have nothing how will we defend ourselves.
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions