Do you live in an open carry state?

[ambermonk]

I find the whole situation frankly terrifying. Why anybody in the world should need a fully automatic assault rifle to "protect" themselves tells you everything you need to know about the 21st Century and where our society has headed to.

 

Unfortunately it has now got to the stage where I'm going off the idea of ever visiting America again.

I've yet to see anyone in public who aren't military police brandish such a weapon where I live (I show my ID to one every day on my work commute). If that were the case, pretty sure the city cops would be surrounding them.

[Soloman Tump]

The Ak-47 seems to be the "go-to" weapon of choice for mass killings, was used in Pittsburg iirc. Although agreed it seems to be mainly handguns that make up the numbers.

 

Also, this from the bbc is quite interesting / frightening:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

[joshuatxuk]

 

I find the whole situation frankly terrifying. Why anybody in the world should need a fully automatic assault rifle to "protect" themselves tells you everything you need to know about the 21st Century and where our society has headed to.

 

Unfortunately it has now got to the stage where I'm going off the idea of ever visiting America again.

I've yet to see anyone in public who aren't military police brandish such a weapon where I live (I show my ID to one every day on my work commute). If that were the case, pretty sure the city cops would be surrounding them.

 

 

 

The Ak-47 seems to be the "go-to" weapon of choice for mass killings, was used in Pittsburg iirc. Although agreed it seems to be mainly handguns that make up the numbers.

 

Also, this from the bbc is quite interesting / frightening:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

 

I think you mean semi-automatic rifles in general specially the AR-15 and it's many derivatives, clones, and copies in the U.S. AR-15 and AR-15 like rifles became really popular in the US over the last couple decades (and objectively they are affordable and quality marksmanship guns) but they are still essentially M16s for civilians. The look alone of them is alarming, especially if it's not on a solider or SWAT police officer. That used to be their only context in terms of public appearances. They also became a notorious catch-all for all semi-automatics after the Sandy Hook massacre.

 

Semi-automatic rifles are essentially military grade assault rifles without full automatic setting. Many simply erroneously refer to them as "machine guns" but they are not. Machine guns are another beast all together. Gun rights folks point this out regularly but to be honest it's a cop out, nit picky smarmy argument because:

1. Semi-automatic is actually used as a setting in combat to save ammo and maximize efficient shooting...it can still be quite rapid

2. Guns can be readily converted into automatic mode

3. These guns can accommodate large clips

 

While the AR-15 (like the AK-47) is a well known model the actual models and manufacturers varies tremendously - dozens of major manufacturers and hundreds of niche ones as well produce, legally, semi-automatic rifles. For example this Las Vegas shooter also used, at the very least - a Daniel Defense DDM4, a FN 15 semi-automatic rifle and a SIG Sauer MCX. The first is probably a small American gun company and the other two are European models likely license built stateside. There are plenty of add-ons to make them fully automatic or suppressed that are currently quasi-legal, legal, or simply not criminalized. 

 

The weird thing about guns in the US is the spectrum of owners varies so much - from people who literally only have guns in a mode to fire at shooting ranges and no where else, literally treating it as a hobby - to people who pack heat everywhere they go and flaunt it openly. Over 300 million in circulation without being a developing world warzone: we're a unique case in history for sure as a country. still, something can and should be done: keep in mind the GOP is literally doing all it can to deregulate gun ownership to the point where anyone could buy any gun and carry it in public without any backlash, including questioning from police.

Hell I know people who own AR-15s and other crazy military grade rifles, shoot them for fun in rural Texas, but are reasonable people who would not dare flaunt that shit in public. Do they deserve to be affected? Probably not in principle but at this point we all need to pay a price to cut down on deaths. I don't want friends, family, and loved ones living in fear of sociopaths mowing down people in public in the name of defending some vague, bullshit "interpretation" of a antiquated line of the Bill of Rights. Sometimes legal progress has to mean a sacrifice upon law-abiding citizens as well. We need to realize gun ownership is more of a privilege than a right.

[goDel]

What I don't understand, is the attempt to deregulate ownership.

 

Even from the point of view of an owner, I'd argue (although I don't own a gun). Because when you own a specific kind of gun, which is only possible under strict conditions, it can make the life of an owner easier. You can basically prove you're a responsible owner because you've done X, Y, Z, ... That means a bit of paperwork exists which people can use to validate/justify ownership. The idea that regulation is a step towards keeping people from owning guns is such a cop out. It's similar to owning a drivers license. A drivers license is something you can be proud of when you're 18. A piece of paper that is proof of you being able to drive a car. (a responsible car owner) How good is that?

 

But it's not a rational debate to begin with, so why bother, I guess. :/

[joshuatxuk]

What I don't understand, is the attempt to deregulate ownership.

 

Even from the point of view of an owner, I'd argue (although I don't own a gun). Because when you own a specific kind of gun, which is only possible under strict conditions, it can make the life of an owner easier. You can basically prove you're a responsible owner because you've done X, Y, Z, ... That means a bit of paperwork exists which people can use to validate/justify ownership. The idea that regulation is a step towards keeping people from owning guns is such a cop out. It's similar to owning a drivers license. A drivers license is something you can be proud of when you're 18. A piece of paper that is proof of you being able to drive a car. (a responsible car owner) How good is that?

 

But it's not a rational debate to begin with, so why bother, I guess. :/

 

They'll claim why, why why anytime you hint at any government regulation, oversight, policy. Pull the same "our founding fathers" and "but our liberty" and all that rhetoric. Then of course a day later they'll ask you why it isn't unreasonable to force people on food stamps to do mandatory drug tests, for people to show two forms of picture ID to vote, or berate you for even daring, daring to question military spending. They think this is a god-given right. They only backtrack on the faults of the US constitution to save face on slavery, which they'll likely not even want to discuss other than it was a long time ago and we need to get over it.

 

They'll also hint that we need the 2nd amendment in case we have to hypothetically fight our government, something they seem more readily open to when a Dem, not a Republican, is in office. They'll also do so while plastering "blue lives matter" and pro-US military stickers on their cars. Ask them if they are hypothetically ready to kill cops and US military personal and they'll probably change the subject, or say that's likely how you feel as a liberal, or even go into some rant about the UN and NWO. 

 

It's the privilege to be ignorant and selfish. Plain and simple.

[cwmbrancity]

well said

[xox]

.murica?

 

Sorry, itz a bad show.

[Hugh Mughnus]

Isn't what happened in Edmonton (vs Vegas etc) a great example of how gun control works?

 

Or am I missing something? Other than brain cells I mean.

 

The guy had intent to kill, couldn't access a handgun or semi-auto rifle (or even regular long-gun, since he was investigated for extremism in 2015). Low access to those weapons overall means there wasn't much of a black market for him to buy a powerful weapon. He resorted to using a vehicle, police did excellent work, no one killed.

 

Shit, side note lol I don't believe police even fired a round at him. PIT maneuvered his truck, Taser action, custody. Police had less reason to discharge their guns (putting public safety at risk) etc etc. Polar opposite of a situation like Vegas.

[goDel]

God-given rights? Is there another book I haven't read? One with all the God-given rights? Or have we basically entered the stage where the US Constitution has become a religious document?

 

How about a: there are no god-given rights?

 

*goes to the library to make a little edit into bible texts with regard to god-given rights... god needed to clarify that bit*

[scumtron]

Owner of a weapon shop in Las Vegas was interviewed on Norwegian television yesterday. He argued that people inside the concert area should be allowed to carry a gun. "Of course they couldn't prevent the shooting from the 32nd floor from that hotel, but at least they wouldn't die feeling defenseless." So you die, but at least, in the moment of death, you know that you also have a gun. What a prick.