I can't understand the "assault rifle" thing. It's already illegal to have a fully automatic without a special license, and any semi-auto gun fires one bullet per trigger pull. What difference does it make what the gun looks like if they all work the same?

Gee, there's a surprise...mo guns=mo gun problems. Who knew?

The "they protect us from our government" argument has been ridiculous since the advent of mechanized warfare. Your rifle can't stop their F-16. Just ask the Syrians.

It's not the cash that the NRA spends lobbying that their power comes from, it's the willingness of their members to jump when they say "jump". Their political power comes from the ability to push politicians out of power through voting, not cash.

The AR-15 is a red herring. My Ruger .22 can shoot well over 45 rounds per minute, as can almost any semi-auto rifle. It's the clip size that makes a difference. If you have to reload after every 10 shots, you simply can't shoot 45 rounds in a minute. I just don't get the outrage over guns that OPERATE exactly the same as nearly all other guns. Either these people simply don't understand guns at all, or they're total liars and they're trying to 'trick' us into banning all semi-auto firearms.

i think they're focusing on the AR-15 because it's so symbolic of the gun problem.

it seems to me one of the biggest issues is the unevenness of state laws and the ease of movement of guns. i think a uniform, federal law/requirements for gun ownership, BG checks, and collection of statistics would go a long, long way, even if there was no additional gun ban. it would also create the opportunity to maintain and adapt the law based on real information instead of intuition, which is the current method.

Although I'm in favour of sensible gun regulation, I'm not sure legislation alone will solve your gun problem.

The problem in the USA is, IMO, cultural.

The idea that you would need a gun for "protection" is quite foreign to almost every other country in the developed world.

But, as we've seen in threads here since Orlando, people in the US seem genuinely afraid that they will be "defenseless" if stripped of their arms.

Why is this?
When I've asked people before, I hear responses like "it takes the police 10 minutes to get to your house". Er ok, fund your fucking police?

But that doesn't address the fear of home invasion in the first place. Is it really that common in the US? And if it is, WHY is it?

It's simply not a concern for anyone I know in any other country (excluding war zones, etc). Clearly, if it is such a problem, having a gun isn't deterring people from doing this.

Maybe instead of looking at the short-term symptoms, you should be asking yourselves what is driving people to be so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives breaking into other people's homes knowing that the occupants are potentially armed.

The problem is essentially escalation ( the "Chicago Way").

10: "All the criminals have guns, I better have one too"
20: "Shit, if I'm going to rob that place, they probably have a gun, better go armed"
30: goto 10

Breaking this cycle means addressing inequality, racism, and poverty. People in the US aren't inherently worse than everywhere else, but your system is set up to incentivize criminals to carry a gun.

But FFS, at least stop burying your heads in the sand and let the CDC study this.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Then you end up with people taping mags together and reloading within a second or so.
Even faster if they count shots and stop firing at capacity-1 before reloading.
There are work-arounds...




Realistically, the end game of the political left is a gun ban + confiscation. The end game of the political right is total gun deregulation.
Each side needs something to argue to excuse their existence, so they will argue in their direction so long as there is anything left to argue, and those are the natural consequences.
Gridlock is literally the best thing that can happen for folks in the middle.




Syria isn't the best example. The people were not armed, and they turned to foreign auxiliaries to fight for them. They invited and gave shelter to all sorts of foreign militants to fight against their government, and made a mess of things. They would have been better off with a home-grown insurgency.

Not like a home grown insurgency would have done much good either way. The Syrian Arab spring was a democratic call for ... Islamic law. It originated in Hama, where an earlier Islamic insurgency was put down (the muslim brotherhood) by Assad's father. Half the country didn't support the insurgency against Assad, and anyone who is non-muslim or secular, or even moderate, is sitting on Assad's side of the country hoping he holds out.

But generally speaking, insurgency with small arms is what defeats occupiers over time. Not in pitched battles, but by making occupation so expensive and tedious that the occupier loses interest over time.


-schehearazde

That's basically it.

Folks that don't have guns also view guns through a utilitarian lens. No need to have them unless you need to kill something. With that mentality, they're bound to see guns and killing as a combined issue. When they look at a modern rifle that has the same ergonomics as a war rifle, they think of killing people.

For gun owners, harming other folks is real far down the totem pole. They have other uses for guns, uses that aren't killing people.

Many non gun owners look at pistols and think 'oh, well, maybe one day I'd buy one to have just in case, just for protection'. They think of them as defensive arms, and not as the firearm category with the most kills associated.

So, yeah, it boils down to imagery and symbolism.

-scheherazade

That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

If there was only some method where you could make guesses, (let's call them "hypotheses"), test them, and then either confirm or refute that original "hypothesis". I bet we could learn a lot.