Your people are pleading guilty to everything you blamed on liberals.

A man from Texas pled guilty to shooting into a Minneapolis police station during the 2020 George Floyd protests. He wanted to sow chaos so he fired an AK-47 style weapon into the police station, hoping the protesters would be blamed.

A man named Ivan Harrison hunter 24 was in Minneapolis protesting the killing of George Floyd. The Texas man pleaded guilty on September 30th to a federal riot charge. He admitted he traveled to Minneapolis after George Floyd died to sew mayhem. Ivan Harrison Hunter 24 admitted he traveled from the San Antonio area to Minneapolis after Floyd's death and fired 13 shots from an AK-47 style semi-automatic rifle into the Minneapolis Police Department's third precinct building on May 28, 2020. footage taken that night shows the hunter in a skull mask giving someone a high five after firing the shots and yelling justice for Floyd. Hunter admitted he traveled to Minneapolis to sow chaos during the protest following George Floyd's death. He is a self-proclaimed member of boogaloo boys, the far-right anti-government extremist group…members appeared at black lives matter protests, committed crimes, and pretended they were BLM protesters.
Boogaloor's believe a second civil war known as the boogaloo is imminent. and will result in the overthrow of what they believe is a corrupt political system.

Your Trumpists, Bob. Not BLM, not ANTIFA, but Trumptards pretending to be BLM shooting police, starting fires, setting off bombs, looting, fighting, drive by’s, riots….you want these to stop….stop your friends. They’re responsible.

Yet we are still at war in Afghanistan and policing other middle eastern countries. Sometimes all it takes is a few people with the will to not submit.

I know I would not live long in such a fight, I'm too old and I am disabled. But as long as we have the right to own semi automatic rifles with high capacity clips, we still can pay lip service to an armed public that can dismantle a tyrannical government. Take that away and you basically remove even the slightest chance that we as a people can challenge the government.

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

The thing about bump stocks that people are not realizing is that they are simply a mod that allows you to do the same thing you could already do with many semi-automatic weapons, emulate automatic fire.

There is a slightly more dangerous method which can be done simply by not bracing the stock and using the pistol grip. Many semi-auto weapons also can easily be 'broken' to cause slamfires, where the rounds are auto-fired as soon as they are loaded due to a stuck firing pin.

I highly believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But this latest tragedy has finally done it. There is simply no need to have that many semi-automatic rifles in one's possession. We need to re-enact the AWB from 1994, we need to set a cap limit on how many semi-automatic rifles a person can own, and we need to clearly state that ANY modification that can simulate automatic fire is illegal.

We have fostered a state where the mentally ill are no longer being treated or taken care of, except by drugs. Since it is clear that we have multitudes of people separated from becoming the next mass murderer simply based on whether to not they took their meds (or were diagnosed correctly to begin with), we need to make a stricter environment that prevents these people from getting the weapons to make it easier.

I would guess Nevada law. I don't think they know yet what guns he had (legal or illegal) and any modification or add ons he used to fire so rapidly.

I found this interesting (terrifying) in how easily a semi auto gun can be made basically into an auto. https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/

BTW, you can own Bombs/RPGs/Missiles/etc.

Just fill out a form4 to get one transferred to you from a current owner, or a form1 if you wish to make a new one.

If you get a class 7 firearms license, and make sure to make whatever you make available for sale to LEO/military, then you can also make new automatic weapons for yourself (usually by converting semi auto to auto).

You can also own tanks and fighter planes.
There are clubs where folks hang out and drive around in their tanks, and fly around in their fighters, and shoot heavy weapons, etc.

Granted, the expense and paperwork of all of these makes them something only wealthy/organized people can afford. And realistically, anyone who has the cash to play with these sorts of things has his ducks in a row to begin with. (eg. An automatic rifle runs around the 20'000 usd range.) With a median individual income of around 26k per year, practically everyone in the U.S. can't afford such items (or is unwilling to).

Things called NFA items (rockets/artillery/etc) are registered, but not denied. Since AFAIK the mid 1930's, only a dozen NFA item owners have been convicted of a serious crime, and none of those crimes involved any NFA item. Only one shooting involved an automatic weapon, and it was committed by a police officer that lost his mind.

Other than a periodic flashy event like Fla, practically every gun crime is committed by cheap pistols. Crime and lack of wealth go hand in hand. Poor people are less likely to be educated, less likely to be from a stable well adjusted home, more likely to grow up in a strife ridden neighborhood, and less likely to be able to afford more than a cheap pistol. This is why you never hear about rockets/tanks/etc regarding crime - if the typical criminal could afford them, he wouldn't have to be a criminal. Realistically speaking, the U.S. is wealthy as a nation, but as individuals, people are not that well off. Majority of the country lives hand to mouth. TBH, that's the real problem. That's not to do with exceptions/unicorns like Fla - only with the most common/likely case.

As a side note, Swiss civilians are more heavily armed than U.S. civilians. But as a people they have their heads on straighter, so gun attacks are rare.

-scheherazade

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

You are correct, they do not break down suicide by method, so some portion of that 20k could be guns. There are also 34 mass shooting deaths this year and 726 people shot by police. Then again they didn't add together some of the other items, like all vehicular deaths.

In any case, I was not fudging numbers, I picked the most obvious option and listed it.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that the deaths from guns don't count, it is that the level of attention paid to them is far and above that paid to other forms of death. It's the same thing with people getting bit by sharks. The total number is incredibly low compared to other deaths or injuries from being in the ocean, but whenever it happens, you will see nothing but that in the headlines. That is what I was trying to say. It sucks that people have died from guns, but if we are going to sensationalize those deaths over others, it is nothing more than an agenda to demonize them.

I am all for implementing more restrictions on guns or other weapons, especially in ways that will make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get their hands on them and also methods that will help police identify guns that have been used in crimes. In many cases, the problem is not totally with the restrictions, but with how lax the enforcement is of the ones that are in place. We need to look at this as well. But the video is not about that, it is about making guns the villain. It is the same thing with semi automatic rifles, people with an agenda will call them things like "Military weaponry", "Assault Rifles", and "Automatic Machine Guns". They use buzz words to make them seem more than they are and yet you have clueless people like Joe Biden who says things like "get a shotgun", not realizing that a shotgun can easily wound and kill people faster than a semi auto rifle.

As far as the 'helpful' gun statistics, I would consider them to be subjective based on the situation. I found this site: http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/, which might or might not be accurate. I wouldn't rely on it, because I don't know what they use for verification.

In any case, as I stated before, I don't mind regulations. I would mind bans and it is clear that many of the more hardcore anti gun people want that to be the end game.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center

“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.”
– Nancy Pelosi, US Congresswoman

“US Senator, If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
– Diane Feinstein, US Senator

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell, Actress

“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

“We must get rid of all the guns.”
- Sarah Brady, Widow of James Brady

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.”
- Ed Koch, former NYC Mayor

“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
- Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor

“an assault weapons ban is just the beginning...a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.”
- Jan Schakowsky, llinois Congresswoman

“governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms
- Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa state Rep.

Now, this was with a quick search on Google. I am sure there are more, but I just thought I would give a sample. Additionally, the really rabid activists have learned to rephrase statements to avoid the term ban. They aren't stupid, they know that they have to soften the phrasing to make it more palatable to the everyday citizen.

I've played airsoft like this for a few years now off an on so feel well enough qualified to comment.

It's largely a matter of range. Most sites allow up to 500fps on snipers (and some american ones go up to 800 or so I believe), but they have a minimum engagement range (usually about 25 meters, presumably more for the silly american ones).

Basically, non automatic sniper rifles are allowed to be significantly more powerful than the 330fps (400 in some countries) other weapons are limited to, but as a result can't be used at short range (that's what pistols and compact SMG's are for!).

If you are close to the minimum range limit and it hits unprotected skin, they sting really badly, enough to draw a little blood sometimes. It's not entirely dissimilar to being whipped by a wet towel, excruciating for about half a second then it tails off to just stinging and swearing.

If it hits your vest, glasses, hat etc. then it wont really hurt at all (but you still felt it you cheating bastards! ), likewise if you are out beyond 50meters or so as the power drops off with range as you'd expect. (My brother can sometimes make shots out to 70-80meters with a VSR but you can barely feel it)

Shoot at point blank and your target can be forgiven for walking over and punching you in the face....right after they stop swearing and get up off the ground. (entirely possible to penetrate exposed skin at that range)

In practice though, trying to storm a building/room vs automatic rifles etc. tends to be far more painful an experience than being sniped. Unless that is someone snipes the inside of your nose sideways on (it hurt as much as you imagine it did).

We also once had a guy knocked clean out by a grenade launcher to the face at point blank . But it was a Co2 powered thing and I believe they aren't allowed inside buildings any more (can't think why).

Re: paintballs, in my much more limited experience, they are waaaaay worse than BB's if they are full power and reasonably close range. Concussions, broken bones and broken skin are all entirely possible (though not likely), but bruises and welts are basically standard issue.

I believe some sites run compressed air guns (rather than Co2) at much lower power levels, so I imagine they are a lot more tolerable.
Paintballers tend to be more on the extreme sports side of things (wheras airsoft tends to be more biased towards military geeks/gamers), and so many sites have a bit of a "pain is weakness leaving the body" attitude to power levels.

In the UK at least the velocity limit for paintballs at competition level is 300fps, for most airsoft sites the limit is 330fps. You only have to look at a BB vs a paintball to see what a discrepancy in energy that equates to!!!

Yes, I did know that.

We have those same equal restrictions here in Australia.

The differences I am talking about is the availability in NZ of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, whilst Australia effectively banned them (only an incredibly small subset of the population can get them for work reasons).

The "fit and proper person" clause is in each Australian states' legislation as well. Except it is much stricter here. They can also deem you not fit and proper for having the wrong friends, being related to a criminal, or for just about any reason they want really.

5 minutes on youtube will tell you that Cracked is full of shit...again. Dude puts shower curtain to prevent blood spatter. Silencers do work in a tactical situation, an are used in them.

Automatic rifles can be shot continously for several minutes, most military grade fully automatic rifles are chain fed, so if you got the time, you got the ability to shoot for a long time..and no the barrel won't explode...accuracy goes to shit, but it will still fire. Full automatics are used for supressive fire techniques so accuracy is not crucial anyway. So their premise that fully automatic shooting only takes place in a matter of 4 seconds is bullshit.

You still need to chamber a round...so yes you need to "rack a round" for both pump actions and semiautomatics. and no the bullet dosen't fly out of the first racked round because it gets placed into the chamber.

Basically this whole video is total bullshit, and I think they did it on purpose so people will comment on the utter and complete ignorance of the guy who produced it.

Yes, but they restricted the types of firearms for all of those groups in nonsensical ways.

Example: IPSC shooters can only own up to a .38 caliber handgun. Anything larger is not allowed - even though larger calibers are what most IPSC shooters world-wide use (it has to do its scoring system). But if you do Steel Target Shooting or Western Re-enactments you can have up to a .45 caliber.

If you buy a .22 rimfire rifle it is classed as a Category A rifle, but if you buy a .17 rimfire it jumps into the more dangerous Category B category (because they forgot to specify other rimfire calibers in the legislation).

They made .22lr semi-automatic rifles Category C and D firearms (very restricted dangerous firearms), effectively banning them - even though a .22lr high velocity round only has as much energy as a fast ball in cricket.

You can have a .308 pump action rifle with a 30 round magazine, but you can't own over a 10 round magazine for your much, much less powerful handgun.

Interestingly, firearm owners in Australia are the most law abiding group of people in the nation. Everyone with a serious criminal offence is automatically barred from owning firearms and other criminal offences are considered on a case by case basis (e.g. you did have an assault charge from when you were 18 years old - you'll be waiting 5 to 10 years before they let you own a firearm - if ever). If you commit a serious offence while owning a firearm, expect a knock on the door to take them away.