801–810 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just tax bullets and gunpowder so they cost $10k per shot.
Sure, create an environment for black market cartridges. Turn every hunter into a criminal. Forget standards on these black market cartridges so they are blowing up in people's guns.
Question for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?
When people bring up this I don't think they realize that there are already very few limits on what you can own in the US... if you have the money. There's nothing inherently illegal about owning fighters or tanks, for example [0] [1]. If you browse through [2] you'll find plenty of examples of fully functional civilian owned large caliber cannon and artillery. So if you want your jet or tank to be fully functional t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah so the ruling class with be armed, while the rest are not. sounds great
That’s already the reality. By definition the ruling class rules, this of course includes armed forces. All the privately owned weapons in the united states are a joke compared to the weaponry possessed by state. If private weapons were a threat to the state, they would not be allowed.
Question for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?
I think a good test is the risk an accident poses to others. An accident with a nuke, tank or fight jet can easily kill 10's, 100's or millions. With guns, a bullet is a bullet for the most part (if we are talking about human fired calibers), an the risk any given undirected bullet poses is effectively the same. Larger magazines don't increase accident risk, while being automatic or explosive does. I.E. if you're a r…
In a town, city or school or church the two guns would be completely different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you enforce that in the era of 3D printers and consumer grade CNCs?
Here in the UK, we haven't had a school shooting in decades - despite the availability of affordable CNC machines and 3D printers. After all, I have no gun and also no bullets, and also no gunpowder or primers, and also nobody I could show a DIY gun off to, and also nowhere I could shoot a DIY gun, and also if I use it to defend my home, the cops can put two and two together. Criminals generally just use knives. Obvi…
Of course America will never get to where the UK is today. We don't want that shit. We want freedom.
Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.
Talking about repeal of the 2nd amendment is equally useless when there are probably more guns than people in the US, and there's nowhere near enough support for that. There are some ideas, such as increasing the age of ownership, and many others, which should be considered. You'll actually be able to achieve results. Banning guns completely in America is simply impossible now.
As a foreigner, I do not see it as productive to seek any explanation or expect any reaction when yet another news story like this comes along. It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live, and it is their perogative to do so.
> It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world. There is some amount of friction, different in each country but not zero anywhere, between “what people want” and “what is the law”. Do you think North Koreans prefer living under a corrupt dictatorship? Why don’t they just make the dictatorship illegal? That’s…
Well, you don’t really need activists if you don’t really have a problem. So it is not really surprising that countries with saner gun control policies have fewer activists.
Also, the number of activists does not correlate with the opinion of the people overall. Even though the US is not perfectly democratic, the situation does seem to reflect how a majority of states and a large fraction of the people want to live. This is utterly terrifying to us watching from the other side of the pond, but that’s the way it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a saying that god may have made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. The right to use lethal force in defense of self is pretty widely accepted, but we should acknowledge that some of us have dramatic advantages in that regard. Being taller, having been in more fights, having a physically active job, being male... Firearms, more than literally any other weapon, level that disadvantage. So to acknowledge the…
This is an appealing idea, with a great soundbite, that has literally no large-scale evidence in its favor. The epidemiological evidence is pretty clear on this; the prevalence of self-defense use of guns is minuscule. Even where guns are used in self-defense, it's often in the context of an escalation of an argument rather than in the scenarios people imagine. People who do use guns to protect themselves in the cour…
How about having a mandatory committee that seriously investigates {physical, social, cyber, etc.}-bullying more instead of just ignoring it? We can both work on stringent gun laws and take the mental health of children/teenagers more seriously. There is a clear pattern of which demographic of people consistently commit such crimes. Using this subset of gun owners to dictate gun ownership policies is going to be a ho…
Anything that violates the tight seal that the nuclear family has relative to society in the United States is universally hated. All the problems start in the family but you are not allowed to go there here, probably because of religion. It's just the way we are, unfortunately.
Why are kids plotting mass shootings? It's not because they have access to weapons. It's because something is VERY broken in their family nucleus and values.
I understand your point that there's no way the government can police family education. But what I would suggest is to make parents and legal guardians directly and fully responsible for their kids crimes.
Your children killed? You are charged with accessory murder or manslaughter. Your daughter stole? YOU are charged as well.
It is YOUR choice what you decide to teach or not to your kids. But on the flipside, it also becomes your responsibility.
This would also work with the problems the UK had (I lived there several years ago) of delinquent kids. You had 10 year olds doing crime who just got ASBOs (collectable paper for them,) and the parents were nowhere to be seen. Charge the parents for their children crimes, as adults.
As a foreigner, I do not see it as productive to seek any explanation or expect any reaction when yet another news story like this comes along. It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live, and it is their perogative to do so.
I have learned that some Americans consider it crucial to arm themselves in case there is a tyrannical government in the future. This seems nuts to almost everyone else in a first world country, and probably many other Americans. But these people, who are not in fact nuts or cretinous, actually believe this and consider it of paramount importance. In one sense, the point can't be argued. My view: If the US population…
OK but you realize that some in this case is a small percentage. Most people just want to defend their homes from intruders, defend their property from animals, hunt a few days a year, plink on the weekends, or just don't want to turn in the cherished firearm that was passed down in the family.