Aahahahaha! This is hilarious. Not only does the guy not destroy his rifle, he commits a felony by creating a short-barreled rifle. They are regulated like machine guns and there is a lot of paperwork done to create and sell one. I'm glad this idiot has one less functional gun but he really shouldn't be giving anyone advice on guns, ever.

You didn't hear a word he said. Perhaps you watched it muted.

It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

His facebook page shows a later image of it cut again into a 3rd piece https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1994023067524786&set=a.1448058838787881.1073741832.100007513365065&type=3&theater

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 6:37am PST - promote requested by spawnflagger.

Nice to see someone whose heart is bigger than his gun fetish.

Quality reasoning.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by notarobot.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

The intent of the 2nd amendment was so that The People could rise up against a tyrannical government and overthrow it, should the need arise. That was practical back then, when both sides were just a bunch of dudes with muskets.
Nowadays, it would be impossible to rise up and overthrow the military (and militarized police), even with the best assault rifles. So an overthrow-by-violence just isn't practical.

I think it would be OK for active military or SWAT police to own and practice with AR-15, but I support a ban for everyone else (similar to what was in place 1994-2004). I like your idea about allowing them at shooting ranges too, where they are rented, not owned.

Some AR-15 owners say they use them to hunt coyotes, but give me a break- you can use any rifle for that.

But if the police can have assault weapons and citizens can't, you remove even the appearance that armed citizens can stand against authority...even local authority. That might be a good idea, but is a really hard sell in America.

True, the idea that even a well armed militia could stand against the smallest of federal law enforcement groups should have died with Koresh. They had more powerful guns than you can get today, and more than they could use. Didn't help a whit in the end.

Yes, people should be able to have the same weapons their local police have. If a weapon is too powerful for the public to have, the cops don't need it either. If the shit gets too hot, call in the national guard. As far as spawnflagger saying active military or SWAT owning an AR15, why wouldn't they just train with it and keep it at their department? There's no need for them to own it themselves to be able to use it.

A big part of any overthrow of government is getting the police and military to defect or refuse to fire on the resistance. Peaceful revolutions work much better for this than armed ones, although it seemed to work in Ukraine.

You have inner city gang killings that no one cares about.
Thousand youths murdered yearly and no one cares.



You have mental people killing children at schools and now we must ban guns.
50 murdered / year and all hell breaks loose for gun control.


When American stop being two faced then may be we can address the issue.

You're not wrong...soooo ban them all? Wow, never thought we'd agree.

You know what's really good for stopping tyrannical governments? Free and open elections.

How about instead of perpetuating this fantasy where a bunch of guys with AR-15s are gonna take on a government with fucking PREDATOR DRONES, you try and fix your insanely broken electoral system?

Start with repealing Citizens United, then you can move on to fixing gerrymandering, dismantling the electoral college and finally, find a way to get rid of the lobbyist block.

Do all that, and you won't need to overthrow your government. Not that you could anyway.

What was important in this video was seeing someone doing some hard thinking, and making a decision that goes against a big part of his identity because he decided it was the right thing to do.

That's such a hard thing for a person to do, and it happens really rarely. I just watched someone change themselves for the better, and the first comment is a dipshit mocking him.

All good points, but that's another problem.

I don't think the vast majority of gun owners have government overthrowing in mind when purchasing guns anyway.

Why can't I own bombs & shoulder mounted firing rockets? That's because governments are sensibly enough to think these weapons don't belong in the public.

Should that bar for publicly-available weapons set above or below these AR-15 type assault rifles? I think that's the legitimate discussion. It's not "all or nothing."

I don't really have a problem with owning guns and it's certainly not "all or nothing".

My issue with the gun arguments in the states is that they're asking the wrong questions. The problem isn't the guns, it's why you seem to think you need them.

No other developed nation has this issue. The rest of the world all have guns, we're just responsible with them. We're ok with reasonable legislation and we don't have a lunatic fringe screaming about tyranny if we can't own assault rifles.

Most importantly, no civilised country thinks you need a gun for self-defence. A) we have police for that and b) most of us just aren't afraid that someone is coming to kill us... because they aren't.

I don't think there's an easy fix to America's gun problems. Fundamentally I think the issue is cultural rather than regulatory, but honestly, at this stage, you're like a bunch of kids, who need their toys taken off them until they can prove they're mature enough to use them properly.

If someone is an alcoholic, the most important thing isn't taking the booze away, it's getting them to admit there's a problem. But sometimes, you need to take the booze away long enough for them to sober up and admit there's a problem.

Well, in the Ukraine the 'revolutionaries' are backed by a major super power, indeed the civil war was started by Russians, so that example is an outlier unless the anti federalists decide to defect. Not impossible, but I hope unlikely, although Trump is certainly moving his people in exactly that direction. We should be vigilant against more Russian interference in our country, they aren't our friends, they're our enemies.

What about where there aren't police? Where I live, we only have highway patrol, and they can take 15-30 minutes if none are near, longer if they're busy. If I catch my meth head neighbor breaking into my house (and my neighbors have), I'm not waiting to see if he chooses fight or flight before grabbing my 12 gauge. Even here in Humboldt we have home invasions...meth is a hell of a drug, and it's everywhere these days.
I'm not living in constant fear of home invasion, but I do think it's enough of a possibility, and the possible consequences of being unprepared so dire that it's prudent to be able to protect yourself and not just expect a timely rescue.

...but i am in America, and you did say no CIVILIZED country, so maybe I'm exempt? ;-)

Invading Crimea might have started the shooting phase of the civil war, but supporting opposition groups to overthrow Yanukovich was necessary for that to even happen. Removing an elected government from office would signify the start to me, even if things quieted down for a while afterwards.

Ahh yes...I had actually forgotten the original 'revolution' kicking out the Russian installed president before the Russian counter revolution.
My bad...I'm wrong then. They did do it peacefully.
Thanks for reminding me.

"There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort."

I disagree. Petrol and cars/trucks. Both are legal and easily used to commit mass murder (and have been). I'll add swords (long knives) into this with a caveat - you need to be a highly trained swordsman to commit such an atrocity.

Cars are so dangerous that they have killed more people in the US in the last 50 years by accident than guns have on purpose. It took 50 years of concerted effort by subsequent US administrations to get the yearly death toll by cars lower than that of firearms (the curve for cars only recently dipped below that of firearms).

Knives can cause as much or more vascular damage than a typical firearm wound. The difference is that knives require the smallest interpersonal confrontation distance (it is hand to hand combat - people don't like this), and to consistently achieve high levels of vascular damage requires a higher degree of training.

The right of non-restricted people to own firearms has little affect on murder rates. E.g. Australia has a higher rate of firearm ownership now than before its lauded firearms laws came into effect in 1997. The majority of studies done on this topic conclude that the restrictions had no effect (or no measurable effect) on the continued reduction in firearm fatalities.

I think the greatest issue in the US is that some people see the use of firearms as a solution to some problems where it is not a good solution. I.e. it is a cultural issue.

Possible, yes. As easy, not at all. Most large outside events make it impossible to get near crowds with a car these days with barricades. Even where they aren't, vehicular murder takes far more effort than pulling a trigger.
Swords and knives, get real. You cannot be serious, so I'm walking away.

One of the two of us has a paramedic degree and worked as a paramedic... I spent 3 years at university learning what and how things make holes in people and how to plug them up and keep them alive.

So yes. I'm serious.

The barricades are an interesting point. The movable concrete blocks don't stand up to small trucks or larger. Large steel bollards on the other hand will stop everything bar a tank.