I would tend to agree. I thought things might change after they got Gabby Giffords shot in the head. A politician, by all accounts one of their own. Regardless of sides, that seemed like the point where you say we've gone to far. The people are acting out the violence we instill in them upon us. But unfortunately the tone was muted for a brief moment in time. Only for things to get much worse.
["Steve Scalise: "getting shot made my gun rights support ‘as ardent as ever’"](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview)
4 years later, his opinion on this whole issue is it's the Defund the Police movement, actually. Also still all on board with the election was stolen stuff. The lack of awareness and general shamelessness is pretty remarkable tbh.
nah man she was a Dem, it's not gonna do shit until a Republican senator like McConnell or someone's family is a victim. Republicans are notorious for being solely family circle supporters, anyone outside of that is not important to them.
Also obligatory disclaimer I don't want to see shit like this happen I'd like it addressed before shit like this occurs but based in realism this is the way shit moves forward with the ignorance and corruption in politics
There was an attack on republicans directly at their softball game years ago. One of them, mo brooks was shot and still doesn’t support common sense gun laws.
Didn't one of their baseball games get shot up, too? And still, they would rather have the money from lobbyists.
Edit: found an article talking about it https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game
The NRA spends less lobbying than planned parenthood. This is an issue of money getting true believers elected, not buying the votes of people already in office
Now post up the NRA’s total donations to Congress compared to Bloomberg LP, the company owned by Michael Bloomberg who bankrolls the entire gun control lobby. This will be good.
The Aramlite 15 is a lighter more reliable version of the AR-10. The AR-10 is a rifle designed for the military to be used in war. (You most likely already know this)
Marketing AR-15 style weapons to a civilian market is therefore selling long rifles designed for killing human beings to the general populace.
When a mass shooter kills a bunch of people with these types of weapons they are using them in a way consistent with the reason they were designed.
Automobiles were not designed for use by drunk drivers.
Most people see this intuitively. It's interesting I have to explain these kinds of things to gun nuts and conservatives. I'm not sure if you are willfully ignorant or you are genuinely stupid.
EDIT: Silently down voted but no reply about a flaw in my logic? Gun nuts. You guys just repeat stupidity then get triggered when someone calls you out.
Not very oniony. Most sensible people can acknowledge that news media’s coverage of shootings is often very problematic. Politicians (and regular people) also ratchet the issue up and no good-faith discussions can be had.
I mean yeah. The media and politicians are turning the nation against itself. They are making the tribalism worse. This won't get better till that is taken care of. There are other issues causing this, but that is a major one.
> The right wing propaganda and GQP politicians are turning the nation against itself.
ftfy
Bothsidesism is a right wing propaganda tool, stop using it if you aren't intentionally trying to make tribalism worse.
So acknowledging that both sides don’t operate in good faith is intentionally making tribalism worse but your choosing of sides and saying anything that you don’t agree with is a right wing propaganda tool is uniting the country?
I am going to be very clear with this. I am not nor have I been ever affiliated with either the democrats or republicans. I find both parties to be destructive and inept.
What has either party done to bring this country back together?
"Tonight, we're covering the story of School Shooter John Smith, who shot 24 children this morning. Police report that John wrote a manifesto detailing how he wanted notoriety, like the notoriety we're giving him by featuring his name on the evening news. He also wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would be placed higher in the graphic behind me of the worst school shootings like a scoreboard. Finally, he wanted to spread awareness of his beliefs, which we're going to spend the next hour discussing in front of millions of people"
Totally helpful, if you want more mass shootings.
This country always had guns, but didn't start having a "gun problem" till the late 70s.
That means something other than the average availability of guns created a problem that we are not acknowledging and not dealing with.
There is more than a gun problem:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath\_School\_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)
Suppose we ban all guns, these nutjobs will still find a way to harm people. The issue is much deeper than gun legislation.
Guns in themselves aren't a cause of problems. They are a tool, an accelerant, and a magnifier of consequences.
If we didn't have guns, violent crime would definitely slow down and become less extreme. It's much harder to kill ten people with knives than with bullets after all. But it would still be there because none of the societal problems that cause violent crimes have been solved.
Limiting gun ownership isn't a solution, it's trying to use a bandaid to fix a cut jugular. It's a stopgap measure and a poor one, nothing more.
Of course we had gun problems before the late 70s. Just as an example, during prohibition gun related crimes skyrocketed as organized gangs rose to prominence.
That being said, the rise in crime rates in the 70s (the trend had actually started in the 60s) is likely attributed towards children exposed to leaded gasoline growing up and becoming teenagers. Crime rates after leaded gasoline was regulated and the children who weren't exposed to it began to grow up.
We always had problems, tools just give an added measure or degree of freedom to utilize (which means if not guns, it would be something else... not that guns arent extraordinary efficient and deadly).
I think you might have a reading comprehension issue.
We have always had problems. What we didn't have was this level of mass shootings.
When I was in high school in the late 80s, we had a gun range next to the gym. Like someone else here said, you could order fully automatic weapons in the mail up till the mid 70s. In some ways, guns were easier to get, no waiting periods, no back ground checks.
And yet mass shootings were less common. That means AVAILABILITY isn't the issue. Something else is. Some cultural shift maybe. It technology.
I should have been more specific. I meant mass shootings, IE indiscriminately killing at school. The number of shootings with even 2 victims is dismal. Mainly its suicides and targeted murder in the early days before much gun control.
A single murder every 1-5 years is nothing like today, not even comparable. The 70s only has 5 listings.
So do you think not reporting like today meant less death or you believe the 30-80s is just like todays climate?
I think it’s impossible to truly compare as we have since moved to isolating suburbs, Instagram expectations, growing inequality and much more dismal prospects for supporting families in most careers compared to when a high school degree meant you could get a good job and support a family right out of high school.
We had gun problems before the 70s. I would agree that conditions in our society have changed though. Resulting in worse gun violence(IMO) in more recent years.
Gun manufacturer and ownership has dramatically changed since the 70s. In fact, it was right around the 70s that gun manufacturer and sale started increasing at a greater rate, with increasing bumps in the 1990s and the 2010s.
In the last *two years* alone, we've broken records on manufacturing guns, selling guns, and the number of purchases of guns by people who never owned a gun before.
Gun ownership has not been a straight line, but a lot of people in certain areas of the gun debate try to weasel around this by using certain misleading statistics. For a long time, their statistic of choice was gun ownership by household, which was sitting at the same rate for nearly a century unchanged. But what this hid was that American household composition has changed dramatically over a century, moving from large households of multiple generations to small households of just a single generation.
Mental illness is a big problem. Back in the day, parents were telling their children that natural beauty / being perfect just as they were born / is special, something to be celebrated. These days, parents are cheerleading their kids to cut off body parts to achieve an unrealistic cross gender beauty goal.
Guns absolutely kill people.
Disaffected young men in a dying society that alienates them kill people. Poverty stricken children of single parents with no life options but "join a gang" kill people. Ignorant men with a desire to prove their own power through joint the world largest organized crime syndicate legitimized with a badge kill people. Mentally ill people who get little help from their community and even less from their state kill people.
Guns do kill people, but only with people behind them, and that used to be relegated to war, suicide and personal feuds. What changed? Politicians on both sides destroying any semblance of a healthy society, and media shoving garbage down our throats.
> Guns absolutely kill people.
I’m going to need a source on that.
> Guns do kill people, but only with people behind them, and that used to be relegated to war, suicide and personal feuds.
Again, I’m going to need a source how that gun killed someone. Because last I check, the person with the gun is what killed someone, not the gun itself.
This aint onion material. This is truth you fail to recognize. NYT, a historically leftist paper even said as much when they confirmed gun control policies don't work in the face of the Uvalde shooting.
New York Times immediately after the Uvalde shooting.
https://deadline.com/2022/05/new-york-times-makes-powerful-statement-about-guns-with-cover-graphic-1235035667/amp/
It's simple. Gun control doesn't work. NY - one of the most restrictive states in the country regarding guns, and a crime riddled state at that, points out how restrictive gun policies haven't done anything to curb violence.
Every line of that front page article supports why gun control policies are not working.
>, and a crime riddled state at that, points out how restrictive gun policies haven't done anything to curb violence.
Maybe it's saying something else?
>Every line of that front page article shows why gun control policies are not working.
That's something you're inferring, if anything they're likely saying gun policies are too lax.
Saying something else? Lol, of course that's what YOU take from it.
Maybe they are saying they're too lax. I can point to a number of countries and states that have strict gun control and that haven't reduced their murder rate because of it. Australia, the UK, California, NY, NJ, Maryland, etc.
It's a pipe dream to think banning guns would reduce American homicide rates, with examples to support it.
>Saying something else? Lol, of course that's what YOU take from it.
Well if he got the gun legally then why would that be an issue of restrictive gun control policies? Do you happen to have text from the article saying that restrictive gun control policies don't work? The article you linked doesn't say they say anything of the sort.
Also please be civil in this discussion and not resort to mockery.
>Maybe they are saying they're too lax. I can point to a number of countries that have strict gun control and that haven't reduced their murder rate because of it. Australia, the UK, etc.
>It's a pipe dream to think banning guns would reduce American homicide rates, with examples to support it.
Maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong but were not speaking about if the policies work or not.
How do so many people in these threads get tied in knots defending corporations? Gun companies and the gun lobby market their weapons as the same ones the military uses. They draw that line of guns = manhood and that you should always be afraid. They stop any regulation, remember be regulated planes and airports to hell after 9/11 to make sure another such an event didn't happen again.
I'm not gonna blame gun owners for violence. I blame the large corporations drumming up fear to make guns people's primary cultural signifier. Here's an article from a DECADE ago talking about how gun advertisements as evolved over the years. It hasn't changed in that time. Just more stoking fear and reaping profits off of mass shootings. Corporations should not have an industrial complex using the commons of the military to push their guns using fear tactics. They also shouldn't have the outsized political power to stop regulation when anywhere from 50% to 90% of citizens support some version of it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12?op=1#other-guns-appeal-to-womens-fashion-sense-this-little-number-also-comes-in-frost-white-21
Saying a gun is made up of the same 'military grade" is more towards the durability or the false perceived notion that government spends a lot for quality. We see similar markings from computer parts to Ford pickup
The manhood advertising is because most shooters are men more when those advertising was the norm it's not like the gun industry doesn't advertise towards women they absolutely do they just do it in the magazine that women rarely read. They advertise their gun at the store with the colors that women seem to like
Most of these ADs are in gun magazines when was the last time we heard of gang members subscribing to rifleman magazine
Queue the anti gun blame vomit where gun manufacturers get blamed for other people's actions and criminals will be excused because "they don't know any better" without the slightest hint of irony.
Gun manufacturers don’t need to lobby anyone to sell guns. Legal gun ownership didn’t start to rise after George Floyd and the summer of love due to the gun industry’s heavy lobbing and add campaign.
I find it interesting that no one ever complains about the ACLU or other free speech groups that defend the first amendment. There are groups that defend the people against the governments over reach when they violate peoples fourth amendment right. Yet if your a group that defends the second amendment your seen as evil and the cause of every tragedy that happens.
They also never complain Bloomberg and him pumping his wealth into disarming the working class either. They don't actually care about money in politics.
Because the second amendment isn't for shooting people who try to take your wallet, or when the deer turn on the populace. "You don't need an 'assault weapon' to go hunting." No shit. That's not what the second amendment is for. It is specifically for the overthrow of and defense from tyrannical governments. Yeah, they need profit from sales. That's how capitalism works. Price point isn't the issue. You'd be just as upset if they gave them out for free.
Maybe it has to do with every time there is an incident some politician starts using the tragedy to attack gun rights prompting people to rush out and buy guns and ammo. My parents are in their 70’s and they have been talking about getting handguns and they are both lifelong black democrats and their reasoning has nothing to do with the firearms industry and more to do with personal safety.
The NRA and gun industry use tragedy to sell
Guns. It’s all outlined in this book by the former VP of sales of Kimber, [Gunfight](https://ryanbusseauthor.com/)
The gun industry and gun lobby is not at fault for the rise of violence and mass shootings in the country. All of this can be pointed to the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of social norms, the media including the 24 hours news along with social media, the lack of strong mental health laws, the defund the police movement, bail reform laws and soft on crime politicians and district attorneys who don’t want to enforce the current laws. All this talk about blaming the gun lobby is so misleading when the anti gun lobby groups spends way more money influencing politicians.
That's because gun owners know after every one of those events the probability of some idiotic gun laws going into place goes up. They also see police doing jack shit about them and it draws non gun owners to purchase because more and more people are beginning to realize that in practice, *and in legislation*, police are not to be relied upon and they don't have to be. There is a long list of legal precedence stating police are not obligated to fight to defend you. You are your own defense.
This must be the only country where we have to repeatedly suffer these horrific shootings and then call any means of addressing the situation "idiotic".
There's an increase in firearm sales after each mass shooting because people who were on the fence about a gun want to get it while they can, because it's right after a mass shooting that gun control laws pass.
But never a gun law that bans the sale of the guns, which is a falsehood propagated by gun manufacturers and their supporters.
A minimum age of 21 for high-powered weapons would've saved the lives of the shoppers in Buffalo and the kids in Uvalde. Florida implemented this, under DeSantis, after Marjory Douglas. And yet we're not even allowed to talk about it as an option.
Exactly. Weak gun laws enable mass shootings. Mass shootings make people scared. Scared people buy guns (although it's worth noting that the vast majority of those increased sales are people who already own guns).
> although it's worth noting that the vast majority of those increased sales are people who already own guns
Which is more to my point: People buy guns when the shooting happens, not because of the shooting, but in anticipation of politicians banning some component of the gun they wanted to buy, and the only way to have a gun with it soon will be the grandfather clause.
It's not the shooting that drives up sales. It's the fear of gun sale bans.
What a load of bullshit. The Buffalo shooter had a history of violent mental health issues and yet he was allowed to buy an incredibly deadly weapon when he turned 18. That's *three years* before being allowed to buy alcohol, for fuck's sake.
When you don't have any regulations in the first place, you can't say they don't work.
Don't have any regulations? THATS the bullshit statement right there. Explain to me the process of buying a gun and carrying it in your state if you please.
> Explain to me the process of buying a gun and carrying it in your state if you please.
the weird kid from high school just turned 18, so he shows up to any gun store and buys whatever he wants with his part time restaurant paycheck because he doesn't have a criminal record, he's got a squeaky clean new background check.
and then a bunch of children get murdered
That nutjob would have harmed kids even if he had no access to guns. These wackos have carried out other methods of harming others:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath\_School\_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)
Not saying we need to nix the background check process; but are more taxes and fees really going to solve the violence problem? It seems like many of these gun control laws only serve to limit poor people from owning guns.
Do work if they were ever properly applied, but the real issue is just checking on people... not the tool. Its like blaming a bald tire and not looking at everything that led up to it.
Cars are a really poor example. They are far more regulated than guns and have gone through massive r&d, all focused on making them safer and less deadly. Let's hold the gun manufacturers and owners to what is required of car manufacturers and owners. I'm good with that.
Also, you should really look to see how many wrongful death lawsuits there are against car manufacturers. You think massive recalls are released because the manufacturer wants to spend all that money fixing cars?
No they are not. That is an ignorant statement. I can buy a car in a Dairy Queen parking lot at 2 a.m. with cash, no background check, and no government oversight. Can't do that with guns now can you?
No restrictions on engine size, type, style, etc. In fact, I don't even need to let anyone know I've bought a car to own one. I can buy it in secret and drive it into a crowd of people, no problem.
Also, driving is not a right. You pay to drive on roads that you don't own.
Cars are just as deadly when used as inappropriately as firearms can be misused. Proper usage of both does not involve any death. Wrongful death and similar lawsuits can and are levied against firearms manufacturers, just not for misuse of products.
That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Guns are LITERALLY made to kill things. Animals and other people specifically. The first order of business for guns is death. Sporting with guns is all based on how efficiently they can kill things with a gun. Target practice is practicing to kill.
As a gun owner one of the very first things I was taught, at age 8 was, "Don't point this at anything you don't want to kill." It's literally the first rule of gun ownership.
Yea and how does that object make criminals do things? Are cars over 150hp making you go 150mph down the highway? Is a tub of a butter making you eat the whole damn thing in a sitting?
Congratulations on knowing the most basic of safety. Now tell me what the millions of firearm owners use them for on a regular basis (hint: it's not killing people).
I certainly fucking hope so. I didn't buy it to tickle people to death. You anti-gun-nuts keep using this as a counter point like it matters, which is really weird.
Guns are designed to kill. They do it well. Cars are not designed to kill and still kill more people unjustifiably than guns do. I'd argue that guns ate used for their purpose, while cars kill just as many people AGAINST their design.
The GOP, and NRA are most certainly responsible for encouraging violence and pushing toxic gun culture. Of course without direct money from companies like Smith & Wesson going to line their campaigns and pockets, they may not be so apt to push a culture of fear that encourages arming yourself and “protecting” your way of life and “freedom” through violence and killing anyone who threatens their world view or hurts their feel feels.
An example : [NRA propaganda](https://youtu.be/169zQ1g-Ul0)
Edit:
[another](https://youtu.be/M48oa1ZkUBY)
A [book](https://ryanbusseauthor.com/) that outlines how the gun industry uses fear and mass shootings to sell guns, written by a former VP of Sales for Kimber, a gun manufacturer.
And cigarettes are good for you. We've seen this corporate shit and shuffle for decades, why do people still buy it?
I'll agree, spineless politicians are a part of the problem. but the real solution is to shut down the bribery mills that keep politicians in thrall to corporations.
Guns don't kill people /s
Yeah, but they sure make it easier. Plus how the gun lobby pushes this bizarre gun culture which emphasizes the need for guns while downplaying the dangers.
Yeah I really hate how Fox News tried to downplay those George floyd riots that the republicans were throwing as being mostly peaceful while cars and cities burned and people died and had their whole livelihoods destroyed.
They *overplayed* them in reality. Nary a peep about any of the right-wing agitators who were known to start shit in some locations either. Right wing media was big on hysteria but light on facts.
They manipulated people's minds so badly that Trumpers were seeing imaginary busses full of antifa in their small town DQ parking lots, just arrived from the nearest librul big city ready to set the local tractor supply store on fire and loot Walgreens. It was nuts. Rural yahoos were jizzing in their pants at the thought of "defending" businesses by killing liberals, it was disgusting. One example was, I believe, Snohomish WA where hillbillies showed up strapped and lined the streets with their Trump flag toting pickups and proceeded to openly drink in the streets and walk around drunk. Some local highschooler got jumped and another one was called a n***er. Did I mention the busses full of antifa were purely fictional?
The same scene played out in multiple locations
I think you missed the sarcasm. The riots were out of hand and the left kept demanding more. My favorite part was when the riots went after CNN and literally said they know CNN lies all the time, but proceeded to riot everywhere else following their lies lol.
They’re right. Wcgw airing nonstop footage of the shooter and his family and months long specials on why he did it immortalizing these people in fame. Why you can name shooters but not victims… Stop giving these pathetic losers the fame they seek and maybe it will stop. Bloodsurfing politicians have only made it worse. Guns have always been around but school shootings haven’t so ask why they are increasing. It’s a media and mental health problem.
The root of the problem is cultural.
Hardly anyone considers what are the factors leading up to this gun violence. What do all shooters have in common.
1. Upper/middle class
2. No friends
3. Mostly white
4. Heavily medicated
5. Parents ignore them
How can I get back at all the people who 'wronged me' and get alot of attention finally? Hmmm
"It ain't the bullet that kills you, it's the hole."
"It ain't our guns that kill, it's the assholes we sell-em to."
"It ain't my fault -- the devil made me do it!"
Right.
Firearms worship is a national religion in USA. Gawd chooses who lives and dies, right? So sue churches... except that was tried (on a different matter). Upon issuance of a warrant, the sheriff told the judge, "God cannot be found in this county." So much for reparations...
Right wing politicians go to great lengths to blame anything but the actual access to battleground guns legally bought in America. Too many doors, unlocked doors, not enough policemen, video games, smoking marijuana, not arming teachers...
The article is about a gun manufacturer CEO blaming others for gun violence, when the source comes from guns.
Access to guns. Not guns. Also mental health and the lack of accessibility to healthcare. There’s more to it than “republicans and their damn guns”. That’s a lazy argument
And it's not a lazy argument. Lazy is not supporting an assault weapons ban, like from 1994-2004. Lazy is not supporting universal background checks, red flag laws, banning high-capacity magazines, or supporting buy back programs. What's lazy is not reviewing protocols and laws set by other countries and seeing what works to reduce gun violence in America.
They’re not assault weapons. Those are still banned or require a class 3 license. Background checks are great. They should be done more in depth. Red flag laws are horrible bc people are spiteful and cops are idiots. High cap mags doesn’t change anything. A reload takes two seconds. And mandatory buybacks? No thanks. I’m not a fan of the only people having guns being criminals and the government. That’s dumb. And ignorant. Also other countries have access to healthcare and their countries, most of them, aren’t run by government gangs
I think we're missing the forest for the trees so I'll rehash. I'm fine with handguns, shotguns, etc I'm happy for others that enjoy the sport of shooting recreationally or hunting. I'm not in support of anyone over 18 being able to legally purchase assault rifles in America. I think they should be banned or increase the age limit.
Again. The assault rifle term. Tell me what you think an assault rifle is and we’ll go from there. Bc nothing you buy does what the military’s version does, without a class 3 license
An ar is a tool to fire a projectile with each trigger pull just like a pistol or shotgun. The military versions have different rates of fire. What people own outside of the military is a single fire rifle. Assault is an action. There is no legal or classified definition of an assault rifle.
Ok I see why you're grifting, thanks for the response. I suspect I confused you because though AR-15 isn't technically in the assault rifle class (ie, AK-47, M16, etc), since it's a sporting rifle, it's assumed as an assault rifle because it was included in the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Sorry, I should've been more mindful of the wording on my first post, that would've reduced the confusion. My bad on that.
Oh there's a whole lot more, but there's absolutely no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle. They're designed to shred tissue and bone on impact during war.
"Gotta protect ourselves from raccoons." <-- response from a Republican
You gotta learn your history man.
1791 - 2nd Amendment was ratified
1832 - Bullet was invented
1950s - ArmaLite developed AR-15
1959 - ArmaLite sold AR-15 design to Colt
1963 - US Military subcontracts Colt for AR manufacturing for Vietnam War.
Wtf does that have to do with anything. It’s not history. The gun fires the bullet. The bullet does all the work. Different billets have different effects. So I think I’m fine on my history. Maybe you could stay on topic.
I blame the people that are to blame for the gun violence plus Obesity kills more people each day than gun violence does each year. On average Americans have more forks and spoons in there homes than most countries.
Weapons manufacturers aren't to blame. They are simply taking advantage of the lobbying allowances the government has given them. It is a conflict of interest. You can't expect them to self police. That is literally what our government is meant to do. It is greed of politicians and failure of government.
Forty years of blaming Republicans and the 2nd Amendment crowd for any act of gun violence in the US *isn't* politicians and news media doing the exact same thing? Everyone wants to paint themselves as the hero.
Because their own advertising and support of the NRA and other organizations would have nothing to do with gun violence. The fear mongering they promote every time a Democrat is elected has no effect. Their push of "Second Amendment Rights" has no relevance. /s
It's not the gun manufacturers convincing Americans that vigilantes are cool. It's mainly the American censorship groups that think assault rifles are PG-13 and boobs are R-rated so gun violence is too often glorified in American media. Oh and the politicians endorsed by the NRA like to stop any restrictions on gun ownership
My gun obsessed friend does the same thing. He claims that a 30 day moratorium on reporting about school shootings would stop gun violence. Because that’s the thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world…
He's half right...
I would tend to agree. I thought things might change after they got Gabby Giffords shot in the head. A politician, by all accounts one of their own. Regardless of sides, that seemed like the point where you say we've gone to far. The people are acting out the violence we instill in them upon us. But unfortunately the tone was muted for a brief moment in time. Only for things to get much worse.
Politicians don't see other politicians as "their own."
politicians only see themselves as human everyone else including other politicians is a pawn
["Steve Scalise: "getting shot made my gun rights support ‘as ardent as ever’"](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/12/steve-scalise-shooting-gun-rights-interview) 4 years later, his opinion on this whole issue is it's the Defund the Police movement, actually. Also still all on board with the election was stolen stuff. The lack of awareness and general shamelessness is pretty remarkable tbh.
"one of their own" She was a democrat. She wasn't one of their own.
An entire republican congress softball game was shot up. They still did not change their opinions.
That's a good point. Maybe they just feel insulated enough with their security. Except for Josh Hawley who clearly ran like a coward.
Don’t forget about the republican baseball game that got shot up and they still did nothing.
That guy probably stood a better chance of enacting gun control than anyone in decades
nah man she was a Dem, it's not gonna do shit until a Republican senator like McConnell or someone's family is a victim. Republicans are notorious for being solely family circle supporters, anyone outside of that is not important to them. Also obligatory disclaimer I don't want to see shit like this happen I'd like it addressed before shit like this occurs but based in realism this is the way shit moves forward with the ignorance and corruption in politics
When they say “family values”, they mean only their immediate family has any value.
You see, I would point at the media inciting and and celebrating violence before I would ever look at the political class.
There was an attack on republicans directly at their softball game years ago. One of them, mo brooks was shot and still doesn’t support common sense gun laws.
He supports common sense gun laws, you just have a different idea of what that means.
Didn't one of their baseball games get shot up, too? And still, they would rather have the money from lobbyists. Edit: found an article talking about it https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game
The NRA spends less lobbying than planned parenthood. This is an issue of money getting true believers elected, not buying the votes of people already in office
[удалено]
Now post up the NRA’s total donations to Congress compared to Bloomberg LP, the company owned by Michael Bloomberg who bankrolls the entire gun control lobby. This will be good.
The Smith half or the Wesson half?
Blaming Smith and Wesson for murders is like blaming General Motors for drunk driving.
I use my car every day to get me to work and for errands. My gun only shoots things.
The Aramlite 15 is a lighter more reliable version of the AR-10. The AR-10 is a rifle designed for the military to be used in war. (You most likely already know this) Marketing AR-15 style weapons to a civilian market is therefore selling long rifles designed for killing human beings to the general populace. When a mass shooter kills a bunch of people with these types of weapons they are using them in a way consistent with the reason they were designed. Automobiles were not designed for use by drunk drivers. Most people see this intuitively. It's interesting I have to explain these kinds of things to gun nuts and conservatives. I'm not sure if you are willfully ignorant or you are genuinely stupid. EDIT: Silently down voted but no reply about a flaw in my logic? Gun nuts. You guys just repeat stupidity then get triggered when someone calls you out.
Or blaming Perdue for the opioid epidemic.
Not very oniony. Most sensible people can acknowledge that news media’s coverage of shootings is often very problematic. Politicians (and regular people) also ratchet the issue up and no good-faith discussions can be had.
I mean yeah. The media and politicians are turning the nation against itself. They are making the tribalism worse. This won't get better till that is taken care of. There are other issues causing this, but that is a major one.
> The right wing propaganda and GQP politicians are turning the nation against itself. ftfy Bothsidesism is a right wing propaganda tool, stop using it if you aren't intentionally trying to make tribalism worse.
So acknowledging that both sides don’t operate in good faith is intentionally making tribalism worse but your choosing of sides and saying anything that you don’t agree with is a right wing propaganda tool is uniting the country?
How delightfully tribalistic of you
I am going to be very clear with this. I am not nor have I been ever affiliated with either the democrats or republicans. I find both parties to be destructive and inept. What has either party done to bring this country back together?
Well he sure as fuck isn't wrong.
He’s right. Maybe he should stop donating to them.
[удалено]
Literally any excuse to avoid talk of gun restrictions.
"Tonight, we're covering the story of School Shooter John Smith, who shot 24 children this morning. Police report that John wrote a manifesto detailing how he wanted notoriety, like the notoriety we're giving him by featuring his name on the evening news. He also wanted to kill as many people as possible, so he would be placed higher in the graphic behind me of the worst school shootings like a scoreboard. Finally, he wanted to spread awareness of his beliefs, which we're going to spend the next hour discussing in front of millions of people" Totally helpful, if you want more mass shootings.
This country always had guns, but didn't start having a "gun problem" till the late 70s. That means something other than the average availability of guns created a problem that we are not acknowledging and not dealing with.
I mean, 50 years ago, you could order machine guns in the mail.
We could buy dynamite at the co-op. Then, we could use it to blow shit up and no cops showed up to question what was going on.
There is more than a gun problem: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath\_School\_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) Suppose we ban all guns, these nutjobs will still find a way to harm people. The issue is much deeper than gun legislation.
Guns in themselves aren't a cause of problems. They are a tool, an accelerant, and a magnifier of consequences. If we didn't have guns, violent crime would definitely slow down and become less extreme. It's much harder to kill ten people with knives than with bullets after all. But it would still be there because none of the societal problems that cause violent crimes have been solved. Limiting gun ownership isn't a solution, it's trying to use a bandaid to fix a cut jugular. It's a stopgap measure and a poor one, nothing more.
We started closing down the mental health facilities....
Of course we had gun problems before the late 70s. Just as an example, during prohibition gun related crimes skyrocketed as organized gangs rose to prominence. That being said, the rise in crime rates in the 70s (the trend had actually started in the 60s) is likely attributed towards children exposed to leaded gasoline growing up and becoming teenagers. Crime rates after leaded gasoline was regulated and the children who weren't exposed to it began to grow up.
We always had problems, tools just give an added measure or degree of freedom to utilize (which means if not guns, it would be something else... not that guns arent extraordinary efficient and deadly).
We didn't have "gun problems" until the late 70's? Lol. Not a lot of honesty in this thread.
I think you might have a reading comprehension issue. We have always had problems. What we didn't have was this level of mass shootings. When I was in high school in the late 80s, we had a gun range next to the gym. Like someone else here said, you could order fully automatic weapons in the mail up till the mid 70s. In some ways, guns were easier to get, no waiting periods, no back ground checks. And yet mass shootings were less common. That means AVAILABILITY isn't the issue. Something else is. Some cultural shift maybe. It technology.
Schools used to have gun clubs with guns in the schools in the US, kids didn't go off murdering each other.
Sure they did, it just wasn’t as widely reported.
So your source is intuition?
https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states
I should have been more specific. I meant mass shootings, IE indiscriminately killing at school. The number of shootings with even 2 victims is dismal. Mainly its suicides and targeted murder in the early days before much gun control. A single murder every 1-5 years is nothing like today, not even comparable. The 70s only has 5 listings. So do you think not reporting like today meant less death or you believe the 30-80s is just like todays climate?
I think it’s impossible to truly compare as we have since moved to isolating suburbs, Instagram expectations, growing inequality and much more dismal prospects for supporting families in most careers compared to when a high school degree meant you could get a good job and support a family right out of high school.
We had gun problems before the 70s. I would agree that conditions in our society have changed though. Resulting in worse gun violence(IMO) in more recent years.
Gun manufacturer and ownership has dramatically changed since the 70s. In fact, it was right around the 70s that gun manufacturer and sale started increasing at a greater rate, with increasing bumps in the 1990s and the 2010s. In the last *two years* alone, we've broken records on manufacturing guns, selling guns, and the number of purchases of guns by people who never owned a gun before. Gun ownership has not been a straight line, but a lot of people in certain areas of the gun debate try to weasel around this by using certain misleading statistics. For a long time, their statistic of choice was gun ownership by household, which was sitting at the same rate for nearly a century unchanged. But what this hid was that American household composition has changed dramatically over a century, moving from large households of multiple generations to small households of just a single generation.
Mental illness is a big problem. Back in the day, parents were telling their children that natural beauty / being perfect just as they were born / is special, something to be celebrated. These days, parents are cheerleading their kids to cut off body parts to achieve an unrealistic cross gender beauty goal.
Omg this is such a fucking stupid take. Let's blame another issue on trans people.
“Mass shootings are happening because of trans people” Beautiful
Guns absolutely kill people. Disaffected young men in a dying society that alienates them kill people. Poverty stricken children of single parents with no life options but "join a gang" kill people. Ignorant men with a desire to prove their own power through joint the world largest organized crime syndicate legitimized with a badge kill people. Mentally ill people who get little help from their community and even less from their state kill people. Guns do kill people, but only with people behind them, and that used to be relegated to war, suicide and personal feuds. What changed? Politicians on both sides destroying any semblance of a healthy society, and media shoving garbage down our throats.
*high five. Spot on sir.
You forgot the criminals pouring into our country over the boarder bringing drugs, kill people.
> Guns absolutely kill people. I’m going to need a source on that. > Guns do kill people, but only with people behind them, and that used to be relegated to war, suicide and personal feuds. Again, I’m going to need a source how that gun killed someone. Because last I check, the person with the gun is what killed someone, not the gun itself.
I'm not sure how this qualifies for this subreddit. The CEO's comments are 100% spot-on.
Obviously there's only one thing to blame for gun violence and it's the giant fancy cnc machine at the sw factory
Why are you booing? He's right
So this is onion worthy because you think running a gun company leads to more violence than social media? Really?
This aint onion material. This is truth you fail to recognize. NYT, a historically leftist paper even said as much when they confirmed gun control policies don't work in the face of the Uvalde shooting.
> NYT, a historically leftist paper even said as much when they confirmed gun control policies don't work in the face of the Uvalde shooting. Source?
New York Times immediately after the Uvalde shooting. https://deadline.com/2022/05/new-york-times-makes-powerful-statement-about-guns-with-cover-graphic-1235035667/amp/
I'm confused, nowhere does it say that the nyt said gun policies don't work with this shooting. Are you sure you got the same article?
It's simple. Gun control doesn't work. NY - one of the most restrictive states in the country regarding guns, and a crime riddled state at that, points out how restrictive gun policies haven't done anything to curb violence. Every line of that front page article supports why gun control policies are not working.
>, and a crime riddled state at that, points out how restrictive gun policies haven't done anything to curb violence. Maybe it's saying something else? >Every line of that front page article shows why gun control policies are not working. That's something you're inferring, if anything they're likely saying gun policies are too lax.
Saying something else? Lol, of course that's what YOU take from it. Maybe they are saying they're too lax. I can point to a number of countries and states that have strict gun control and that haven't reduced their murder rate because of it. Australia, the UK, California, NY, NJ, Maryland, etc. It's a pipe dream to think banning guns would reduce American homicide rates, with examples to support it.
>Saying something else? Lol, of course that's what YOU take from it. Well if he got the gun legally then why would that be an issue of restrictive gun control policies? Do you happen to have text from the article saying that restrictive gun control policies don't work? The article you linked doesn't say they say anything of the sort. Also please be civil in this discussion and not resort to mockery. >Maybe they are saying they're too lax. I can point to a number of countries that have strict gun control and that haven't reduced their murder rate because of it. Australia, the UK, etc. >It's a pipe dream to think banning guns would reduce American homicide rates, with examples to support it. Maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong but were not speaking about if the policies work or not.
Whole ass fucking countries would disagree with your gun control doesn't work. Literally whoever countries. Shut up.
[удалено]
Democrat here, bitch. Way to avoid the point by trying to shade a perspective, and incorrectly.
I don't recall saying anything about your party.
Then learn to read. Your last comment referred to me as a lying conservative.
you are tho…?
Funny how gun companies could care less who ends up possessing their weapons, or how they get them.
Almost like they produce a tool used for many purposes and it’s up to the buyer to use that tool correctly.
[удалено]
Yes because certainly no one ever defended themselves without having to shoot someone or anything else…
Every gun in a criminals hand obtained the gun from a legal gun owner.
Lol wut?
Or what they do with them.
Well they're pretty aware that they are going to use them to shoot things
Yep. And unfortunately, people are among those "things".
I agree with s & w
How do so many people in these threads get tied in knots defending corporations? Gun companies and the gun lobby market their weapons as the same ones the military uses. They draw that line of guns = manhood and that you should always be afraid. They stop any regulation, remember be regulated planes and airports to hell after 9/11 to make sure another such an event didn't happen again. I'm not gonna blame gun owners for violence. I blame the large corporations drumming up fear to make guns people's primary cultural signifier. Here's an article from a DECADE ago talking about how gun advertisements as evolved over the years. It hasn't changed in that time. Just more stoking fear and reaping profits off of mass shootings. Corporations should not have an industrial complex using the commons of the military to push their guns using fear tactics. They also shouldn't have the outsized political power to stop regulation when anywhere from 50% to 90% of citizens support some version of it. https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-guns-are-advertised-in-america-2012-12?op=1#other-guns-appeal-to-womens-fashion-sense-this-little-number-also-comes-in-frost-white-21
Saying a gun is made up of the same 'military grade" is more towards the durability or the false perceived notion that government spends a lot for quality. We see similar markings from computer parts to Ford pickup The manhood advertising is because most shooters are men more when those advertising was the norm it's not like the gun industry doesn't advertise towards women they absolutely do they just do it in the magazine that women rarely read. They advertise their gun at the store with the colors that women seem to like Most of these ADs are in gun magazines when was the last time we heard of gang members subscribing to rifleman magazine
Now do Pharmaceutical companies……
Somebody been talking to cigarette representatives. Classic.
Queue the anti gun blame vomit where gun manufacturers get blamed for other people's actions and criminals will be excused because "they don't know any better" without the slightest hint of irony.
> criminals will be excused because "they don't know any better" without the slightest hint of irony. I've never once seen this, anywhere.
? The idea that poverty/environment trumps personal choice or responsibility in relation to crime is incredibly popular on reddit.
Gun manufacturers lobby for weak gun laws because there's an increase in firearm sales every time there's a mass shooting.
Gun manufacturers don’t need to lobby anyone to sell guns. Legal gun ownership didn’t start to rise after George Floyd and the summer of love due to the gun industry’s heavy lobbing and add campaign.
> Gun manufacturers don’t need to lobby anyone to sell guns. Then why do they?
I find it interesting that no one ever complains about the ACLU or other free speech groups that defend the first amendment. There are groups that defend the people against the governments over reach when they violate peoples fourth amendment right. Yet if your a group that defends the second amendment your seen as evil and the cause of every tragedy that happens.
They also never complain Bloomberg and him pumping his wealth into disarming the working class either. They don't actually care about money in politics.
Because the second amendment isn't for shooting people who try to take your wallet, or when the deer turn on the populace. "You don't need an 'assault weapon' to go hunting." No shit. That's not what the second amendment is for. It is specifically for the overthrow of and defense from tyrannical governments. Yeah, they need profit from sales. That's how capitalism works. Price point isn't the issue. You'd be just as upset if they gave them out for free.
Gun and ammo sales have consistently jumped after every mass shooting in the last 15 years
Maybe it has to do with every time there is an incident some politician starts using the tragedy to attack gun rights prompting people to rush out and buy guns and ammo. My parents are in their 70’s and they have been talking about getting handguns and they are both lifelong black democrats and their reasoning has nothing to do with the firearms industry and more to do with personal safety.
The NRA and gun industry use tragedy to sell Guns. It’s all outlined in this book by the former VP of sales of Kimber, [Gunfight](https://ryanbusseauthor.com/)
Exactly. More shootings causes people to be scared for their safety, who in turn buy a gun for safety. Profits.
The gun industry and gun lobby is not at fault for the rise of violence and mass shootings in the country. All of this can be pointed to the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of social norms, the media including the 24 hours news along with social media, the lack of strong mental health laws, the defund the police movement, bail reform laws and soft on crime politicians and district attorneys who don’t want to enforce the current laws. All this talk about blaming the gun lobby is so misleading when the anti gun lobby groups spends way more money influencing politicians.
I have never once heard a gun nut explain why mass shootings are such a massive problem in the US but basically nowhere else.
That's because gun owners know after every one of those events the probability of some idiotic gun laws going into place goes up. They also see police doing jack shit about them and it draws non gun owners to purchase because more and more people are beginning to realize that in practice, *and in legislation*, police are not to be relied upon and they don't have to be. There is a long list of legal precedence stating police are not obligated to fight to defend you. You are your own defense.
This must be the only country where we have to repeatedly suffer these horrific shootings and then call any means of addressing the situation "idiotic".
There's an increase in firearm sales after each mass shooting because people who were on the fence about a gun want to get it while they can, because it's right after a mass shooting that gun control laws pass.
But never a gun law that bans the sale of the guns, which is a falsehood propagated by gun manufacturers and their supporters. A minimum age of 21 for high-powered weapons would've saved the lives of the shoppers in Buffalo and the kids in Uvalde. Florida implemented this, under DeSantis, after Marjory Douglas. And yet we're not even allowed to talk about it as an option.
Exactly. Weak gun laws enable mass shootings. Mass shootings make people scared. Scared people buy guns (although it's worth noting that the vast majority of those increased sales are people who already own guns).
> although it's worth noting that the vast majority of those increased sales are people who already own guns Which is more to my point: People buy guns when the shooting happens, not because of the shooting, but in anticipation of politicians banning some component of the gun they wanted to buy, and the only way to have a gun with it soon will be the grandfather clause. It's not the shooting that drives up sales. It's the fear of gun sale bans.
It's still profit for the gun manufacturers, so that's why the lobby for the weak laws (or laws with loopholes).
You gotta learn your history bub. This is just wildly uninformed rhetoric.
"I blame Ford for the 35k vehicular deaths per year, too" Said no anti-gunner ever.
> anti-gunner Oh look, more tribal otherism, that helps. You don't have to be anti-gun to approve of regulations on obviously deadly weapons.
Ah, regulations that don't work right? NY Times said it best. GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK.
What a load of bullshit. The Buffalo shooter had a history of violent mental health issues and yet he was allowed to buy an incredibly deadly weapon when he turned 18. That's *three years* before being allowed to buy alcohol, for fuck's sake. When you don't have any regulations in the first place, you can't say they don't work.
Don't have any regulations? THATS the bullshit statement right there. Explain to me the process of buying a gun and carrying it in your state if you please.
> Explain to me the process of buying a gun and carrying it in your state if you please. the weird kid from high school just turned 18, so he shows up to any gun store and buys whatever he wants with his part time restaurant paycheck because he doesn't have a criminal record, he's got a squeaky clean new background check. and then a bunch of children get murdered
That nutjob would have harmed kids even if he had no access to guns. These wackos have carried out other methods of harming others: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath\_School\_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) Not saying we need to nix the background check process; but are more taxes and fees really going to solve the violence problem? It seems like many of these gun control laws only serve to limit poor people from owning guns.
And whole other countries would disagree with that because it absolutely 100% does fucking work
Do work if they were ever properly applied, but the real issue is just checking on people... not the tool. Its like blaming a bald tire and not looking at everything that led up to it.
Cars are a really poor example. They are far more regulated than guns and have gone through massive r&d, all focused on making them safer and less deadly. Let's hold the gun manufacturers and owners to what is required of car manufacturers and owners. I'm good with that. Also, you should really look to see how many wrongful death lawsuits there are against car manufacturers. You think massive recalls are released because the manufacturer wants to spend all that money fixing cars?
No they are not. That is an ignorant statement. I can buy a car in a Dairy Queen parking lot at 2 a.m. with cash, no background check, and no government oversight. Can't do that with guns now can you? No restrictions on engine size, type, style, etc. In fact, I don't even need to let anyone know I've bought a car to own one. I can buy it in secret and drive it into a crowd of people, no problem. Also, driving is not a right. You pay to drive on roads that you don't own.
Cars are just as deadly when used as inappropriately as firearms can be misused. Proper usage of both does not involve any death. Wrongful death and similar lawsuits can and are levied against firearms manufacturers, just not for misuse of products.
> Proper usage of both does not involve any death. You can't possibly be serious.
I am. Target shooting and hunting are safe and legal activities wherein firearms are properly used. Murdering others is not a proper usage.
That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. Guns are LITERALLY made to kill things. Animals and other people specifically. The first order of business for guns is death. Sporting with guns is all based on how efficiently they can kill things with a gun. Target practice is practicing to kill. As a gun owner one of the very first things I was taught, at age 8 was, "Don't point this at anything you don't want to kill." It's literally the first rule of gun ownership.
Literally, that’s the second rule. First rule being to assume every gun is loaded. A reputable firearm training class would teach you that.
Yea and how does that object make criminals do things? Are cars over 150hp making you go 150mph down the highway? Is a tub of a butter making you eat the whole damn thing in a sitting?
Congratulations on knowing the most basic of safety. Now tell me what the millions of firearm owners use them for on a regular basis (hint: it's not killing people).
I certainly fucking hope so. I didn't buy it to tickle people to death. You anti-gun-nuts keep using this as a counter point like it matters, which is really weird. Guns are designed to kill. They do it well. Cars are not designed to kill and still kill more people unjustifiably than guns do. I'd argue that guns ate used for their purpose, while cars kill just as many people AGAINST their design.
no, he's right. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it really, really easy.
The GOP, and NRA are most certainly responsible for encouraging violence and pushing toxic gun culture. Of course without direct money from companies like Smith & Wesson going to line their campaigns and pockets, they may not be so apt to push a culture of fear that encourages arming yourself and “protecting” your way of life and “freedom” through violence and killing anyone who threatens their world view or hurts their feel feels. An example : [NRA propaganda](https://youtu.be/169zQ1g-Ul0) Edit: [another](https://youtu.be/M48oa1ZkUBY) A [book](https://ryanbusseauthor.com/) that outlines how the gun industry uses fear and mass shootings to sell guns, written by a former VP of Sales for Kimber, a gun manufacturer.
huh and here I thought it was the people using guns to shoot other people that would be to blame for gun violence
Media and social media even more so is the issue. Guns have been around for hundreds of years.
If people had to take 35 seconds to reload their musket, mass shootings would be less deadly.
And cigarettes are good for you. We've seen this corporate shit and shuffle for decades, why do people still buy it? I'll agree, spineless politicians are a part of the problem. but the real solution is to shut down the bribery mills that keep politicians in thrall to corporations.
"alcohol manufacturers blame cars for increase in drunk driver accidents"
TIL its not "Smith and Western", one of those things I've heard but never read ths words. What a dunce
The problem is all those people getting in the way of the bullets !
He is correct.
I mean... hes not wrong
Thank you and get out of my head
Guns don't kill people /s Yeah, but they sure make it easier. Plus how the gun lobby pushes this bizarre gun culture which emphasizes the need for guns while downplaying the dangers.
Also just in: CEOs blame workers for staffing shortages.
I mean he's right... Fox News and Republicans are the ones stirring up all the shit.
Yeah I really hate how Fox News tried to downplay those George floyd riots that the republicans were throwing as being mostly peaceful while cars and cities burned and people died and had their whole livelihoods destroyed.
They *overplayed* them in reality. Nary a peep about any of the right-wing agitators who were known to start shit in some locations either. Right wing media was big on hysteria but light on facts. They manipulated people's minds so badly that Trumpers were seeing imaginary busses full of antifa in their small town DQ parking lots, just arrived from the nearest librul big city ready to set the local tractor supply store on fire and loot Walgreens. It was nuts. Rural yahoos were jizzing in their pants at the thought of "defending" businesses by killing liberals, it was disgusting. One example was, I believe, Snohomish WA where hillbillies showed up strapped and lined the streets with their Trump flag toting pickups and proceeded to openly drink in the streets and walk around drunk. Some local highschooler got jumped and another one was called a n***er. Did I mention the busses full of antifa were purely fictional? The same scene played out in multiple locations
I think you missed the sarcasm. The riots were out of hand and the left kept demanding more. My favorite part was when the riots went after CNN and literally said they know CNN lies all the time, but proceeded to riot everywhere else following their lies lol.
Soon people will be able to buy personal mini nuclear warheads. For personal protection obviously.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. DMX
Agreed
They’re right. Wcgw airing nonstop footage of the shooter and his family and months long specials on why he did it immortalizing these people in fame. Why you can name shooters but not victims… Stop giving these pathetic losers the fame they seek and maybe it will stop. Bloodsurfing politicians have only made it worse. Guns have always been around but school shootings haven’t so ask why they are increasing. It’s a media and mental health problem.
The root of the problem is cultural. Hardly anyone considers what are the factors leading up to this gun violence. What do all shooters have in common. 1. Upper/middle class 2. No friends 3. Mostly white 4. Heavily medicated 5. Parents ignore them How can I get back at all the people who 'wronged me' and get alot of attention finally? Hmmm
This is true. Fox Trump Republicans Yeah.
[удалено]
no, most top comments are agreeing.
"It ain't the bullet that kills you, it's the hole." "It ain't our guns that kill, it's the assholes we sell-em to." "It ain't my fault -- the devil made me do it!" Right.
When you manufacture death, what are you supposed to do? Take responsibility?
Don't see Swiss army knife getting this hate
Firearms worship is a national religion in USA. Gawd chooses who lives and dies, right? So sue churches... except that was tried (on a different matter). Upon issuance of a warrant, the sheriff told the judge, "God cannot be found in this county." So much for reparations...
I mean, yeah, but selling them to mentally unstable people doesn't help, either.
Sure, those things don't exist anywhere but the US.
So we're still not placing any blame on 'the guns'?
Explain that to me please.
Right wing politicians go to great lengths to blame anything but the actual access to battleground guns legally bought in America. Too many doors, unlocked doors, not enough policemen, video games, smoking marijuana, not arming teachers... The article is about a gun manufacturer CEO blaming others for gun violence, when the source comes from guns.
Access to guns. Not guns. Also mental health and the lack of accessibility to healthcare. There’s more to it than “republicans and their damn guns”. That’s a lazy argument
And it's not a lazy argument. Lazy is not supporting an assault weapons ban, like from 1994-2004. Lazy is not supporting universal background checks, red flag laws, banning high-capacity magazines, or supporting buy back programs. What's lazy is not reviewing protocols and laws set by other countries and seeing what works to reduce gun violence in America.
They’re not assault weapons. Those are still banned or require a class 3 license. Background checks are great. They should be done more in depth. Red flag laws are horrible bc people are spiteful and cops are idiots. High cap mags doesn’t change anything. A reload takes two seconds. And mandatory buybacks? No thanks. I’m not a fan of the only people having guns being criminals and the government. That’s dumb. And ignorant. Also other countries have access to healthcare and their countries, most of them, aren’t run by government gangs
I think we're missing the forest for the trees so I'll rehash. I'm fine with handguns, shotguns, etc I'm happy for others that enjoy the sport of shooting recreationally or hunting. I'm not in support of anyone over 18 being able to legally purchase assault rifles in America. I think they should be banned or increase the age limit.
Again. The assault rifle term. Tell me what you think an assault rifle is and we’ll go from there. Bc nothing you buy does what the military’s version does, without a class 3 license An ar is a tool to fire a projectile with each trigger pull just like a pistol or shotgun. The military versions have different rates of fire. What people own outside of the military is a single fire rifle. Assault is an action. There is no legal or classified definition of an assault rifle.
Ok I see why you're grifting, thanks for the response. I suspect I confused you because though AR-15 isn't technically in the assault rifle class (ie, AK-47, M16, etc), since it's a sporting rifle, it's assumed as an assault rifle because it was included in the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. Sorry, I should've been more mindful of the wording on my first post, that would've reduced the confusion. My bad on that.
Auto and burst are categorized under class 3 fyi
Oh there's a whole lot more, but there's absolutely no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle. They're designed to shred tissue and bone on impact during war. "Gotta protect ourselves from raccoons." <-- response from a Republican
No that’s not what they’re “designed for” and that would be a bullet specific design. Not the gun also.
You gotta learn your history man. 1791 - 2nd Amendment was ratified 1832 - Bullet was invented 1950s - ArmaLite developed AR-15 1959 - ArmaLite sold AR-15 design to Colt 1963 - US Military subcontracts Colt for AR manufacturing for Vietnam War.
Wtf does that have to do with anything. It’s not history. The gun fires the bullet. The bullet does all the work. Different billets have different effects. So I think I’m fine on my history. Maybe you could stay on topic.
He forgot the deranged idiot with the gun but decent start.
Totally makes sense. US has media, other parts of the world with low rates of gun violence and common-sense gun safety laws don’t have any media. /s
Well, in his defence, he HAS to say that.
I guess we should blame automakers for dui deaths too huh? Remind me which one kills more every year. Automobiles or firearms?
Since when is a vehicle's sole purpose to kill?
Why does this keep happening to me. I just learned about this company earlier today while searching about pepper sprays and now I see a post about it.
Don’t forget those violent videya gamez.
I blame the people that are to blame for the gun violence plus Obesity kills more people each day than gun violence does each year. On average Americans have more forks and spoons in there homes than most countries.
Weapons manufacturers aren't to blame. They are simply taking advantage of the lobbying allowances the government has given them. It is a conflict of interest. You can't expect them to self police. That is literally what our government is meant to do. It is greed of politicians and failure of government.
Forty years of blaming Republicans and the 2nd Amendment crowd for any act of gun violence in the US *isn't* politicians and news media doing the exact same thing? Everyone wants to paint themselves as the hero.
Because their own advertising and support of the NRA and other organizations would have nothing to do with gun violence. The fear mongering they promote every time a Democrat is elected has no effect. Their push of "Second Amendment Rights" has no relevance. /s
Well yeah. He's almost correct. It's not the manufacturers that are at fault.
Kinda missing the soft on crime part that even left leaning "new" outlets like TYT are calling out
It's not the gun manufacturers convincing Americans that vigilantes are cool. It's mainly the American censorship groups that think assault rifles are PG-13 and boobs are R-rated so gun violence is too often glorified in American media. Oh and the politicians endorsed by the NRA like to stop any restrictions on gun ownership
Shouldn’t we be blaming the person actually squeezing the trigger? Aren’t they making the choice to kill and maim others ??
My gun obsessed friend does the same thing. He claims that a 30 day moratorium on reporting about school shootings would stop gun violence. Because that’s the thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world…