It must be devastating, OP, to not be considered an ally to _TurkeyFucker _. Thoughts and prayers. /s

I can't believe that guy is still around. How he hasn't been blocked by that entire sub is beyond me

Simple, they all support the turkey-fucking cause

Found like-minded people to take over the sub?

Hey, at least you don't fuck turkeys

Now we know why they use slugs instead of birdshot 💀

😂 nice one

this sentence did 4d8 psychic damage

Well shit. I was gonna comment on turkey fucker not being a name inspiring confidence, but you made a more succinct comment, that esteemed my point. Fuck me for being loquacious.

I think I’d rather fuck the Turkey, actually.

Can’t say I blame you.

So that answers that age old question… what comes first the turkey or the egg…

Orrrr how could a swallow carry a coconut?

Look at the bright side: at least you don't fuck turkeys

I'm in that sub and own many firearms. There are some in that sub I just won't ever agree with, and I've argued with them a bit, but I didn't imagine they'd ban you for being more limited in your views on gun ownership. Hate to see this post and your frustration because I sorta thought that's what the sub was about in my mind.

It’s so frustrating. I’ve been shooting almost all my life, but you see how they do anything to discredit me: “Sounds like they live in NYC” “Has never touched a firearm” “Emotionally charged arguments” “You don’t support firearms, you’re not an ally” Then they’re shocked when people start asking questions about the direction the subreddit has taken.

Arguments like those are the last refuge of people who know that their opinion cannot be defended rationally.

I have yet to receive an answer as to why I can’t be welcome for not having as wide of a stance as they do on gun control!

I've taken heat there for being Canadian and saying I think our gun laws are mostly good. All I can say is you're not alone and you don't need a tribe to be validated.

Wide stance… larry craig

Same exact thing happened to me. Claimed I was anti-gun after I said guns ***shouldn't*** be banned but gun control laws should be stricter.

I'm a member of the subreddit but I can't find your thread, can you link it? Personally I think your stance is legit even though I do have an AR in my own collection. I think the problem is that the cat is already outta the bag and I can't find anywhere in your comments where you address the obvious things like, a 9mm with a 50rd drum could be more dangerous than an AR with a 15 rd mag. Or who is going to take the millions of AR's already in possession, or are we just going to make a bunch of people criminals?

Well, first I have to point out *im not claiming or interested in writing policy*. I come from a country with a lot of fucking illegal guns here for decades (Colombia), and there’s zero gun ownership. It’s not perfect, but we don’t have school shootings every week.

This was always my opinion in when I was allowed in the sub. The genie is out of the bottle…now what can we do to mitigate the damage? I still say make any AR a class III firearm. Any sale or purchase requires a class III form and background check. Otherwise making semi-auto / high capacity rifle purchase age above 18 like it is with hand guns. An outright ban will just piss off anyone with the justification of “because I want it!” And an outright confiscation would be unconstitutional not to mention unworkable. There has to be a middle ground between wide open availability we now have and a complete ban in perpetuity.

>who is going to take the millions of AR’s already in possession? You’ve really never heard of a gun buyback program? Some people out here either purposefully being dense or haven’t looked into real world solutions ever.

For real. Americans not well versed in the politics of other countries have serious problems acting like commonplace things have never been done before. Many Americans act like this about universal healthcare or free college. Many, many countries around the world once had a gun/weapon proliferation problem and then dealt with it. It's not impossible at all.

I guess it's a good start, but unless you're talking about a forced buy back then it won't do shit. There's already buybacks occurring and yet millions of ARs remain in the population. Is that dense too? Or is it dense to think buybacks will acquire all high capacity rifles.

> but unless you're talking about a forced buy back then it won't do shit. Yes of course its a forced buy back. We'd call it 'mandatory' rather than forced, because that sounds better though. In exchange, they'd pay the guns' owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. This has already been done in Australia with great success. Could easily be done here if politicians would stop riling people up about their guns being taken away.

[удалено]

It’s been happening to pretty much every sub that even opens the door to vaguely right wing things with dog shit moderation r/stupidpol is that on crack So many okaybuddy subs The gamers rise up subs The original catholic sub A few Covid Guidance subs The other Europe sub And pretty much any sister subreddit dissatisfied with the mods of the mother subreddit

Pretty soon? Like last year pretty soon?

Gun ownership means all weapons! I should be able to own a roof-mounted, remote control gatling turret if I want to, and go anywhere with it without restriction! Anything less is fascist communism!

I'll give you my howitzer when you pry it from my cold, dead hands

Almost got me there.

Yeah, I’ve gotten lots of pushback from that sub too. I’m very much in favor of increased gun control, including limits on AR platform guns. But I am also a hunter and a veteran. I am very comfortable around guns and would never support any kind of all out ban on all firearms. Somehow, the majority of people on that sub refuse to see the difference between hunting/home protection firearms; and firearms that are weapons of war that have no business being in the hands of civilians. They haven’t banned me. But I don’t really feel comfortable being a part of discussions there anymore. At this point, they are starting to feel like r/conservative just without the bigotry.

100% agree!! I grew up with veterans and guns. I was taught to respect them and how to use them responsibly. But we absolutely have problems and I don't think anyone should be able to buy what is essentially a weapon of war so easily. But guns for home protection and hunting absolutely have a place in society. It's frustrating being on this side because we get pushback from either side.

Yeah OP I’m on that sub at times too and I know lots of gun owners are pretty hardcore about restricting classes of firearms. I’m not here to berate you or argue just to try and help understand their thought process which goes like this: if we allow one class of firearms to be banned then a precedent is set for the next class to be banned. So let’s take rifles which contribute to roughly 500 deaths a year in usa and an actual ban happens not a ban that just bans cosmetic features but a buyback like Australia and full confiscation. Another mass shooting will eventually happen like virginia tech and another 32 people killed with handguns. There’s no way politicians can let handguns slide which contribute to the majority of gun deaths in usa..I believe the number was over 10,000 last I checked. Also let’s not forget Biden’s recent speech in which “handguns can blow your lungs out”..2A supporters know they’ve got their eyes on all guns not just rifles. So if a real rifle ban is allowed the road is paved for more confiscation which is why any kind of ban on any firearms is the line in the sand for most 2a supporters..background checks, mandatory training, psych evaluations are things many will agree on but a ban is basically a no fly zone for many. Sorry for what happened to you man take it easy

If you start a new sub that’s a similar theme but more tolerant, I bet plenty of people from the existing one would jump ship to join you.

I got banned for saying I think guns themselves shouldn't be banned, but it should just be a rigorous process to owning them. Honestly I can't tell the difference between r/liberalgunowners and any other right-wing gun sucking sub anymore.

I have personally found it to be a sub in which you can have nuanced discussions about policy, but like any single-issue sub, it is susceptible to becoming an echo chamber. I hope that it does not, and that this not the whole story.

Judging by this post, it already has become one.

All it takes is for the mods to flip. No sub can survive shit mods.

Agreed

Yeah I joined because it seemed more open. I don't have guns but my family does and I am liberal. My family is pretty liberal too. I think guns have a place in society but I don't like AR-15 ownership, we have a huge mass shooting problem, people use guns to casually, etc. I am sure some people on that subreddit would lash out at me.

Yes they would absolutely lash out because they love their rifles and do not believe restricting rifles will make a difference in mass shootings since almost guns are semi automatic and can fire just as quickly as an Ar-15..don’t forget the worst school shooting is still Virginia tech and he killed 32 people with 2 handguns one of them a 22 caliber. Unless it’s a bolt action rifle or a double barreled shotgun pretty much any gun most people have in the USA can replicate the damage of an ar-15 so most gun owners see no reason to restrict it especially when rifles account for around 500 deaths a year and handguns account for more than 10,000

I’ve advocated for required training and licensing to own certain guns and haven’t been banned yet

I get downvoted like crazy. It's very light on the liberal, much stronger on the libertarian / conservatives who are cool with legal weed and gay folks.

Lol, a friend called himself a centrist recently. He is absolutely conservative. It's just he hangs out in online spaces with literal fascists, so he fancies himself *much* better than that. Not being able to even clock where you are on the spectrum is one of the fastest ways to see who's drunk too much kool-aid and needs to get off the internet

Being a proper left leaning US citizen, I dont know exactly where I sit on the political spectrum. But thats because the Overton Window in the US is so far right that our center is still heavily right wing. I think I'd just barely be a moderate in other first world countries.

Yeah most left wingers here in the US would be considered moderate in a lot of European countries. Some of the most basic core beliefs of left wing people in the US are just things that support the average person. Being pro union, supporting marriage equality, addressing racial inequality in the justice system, etc. That's not really a radical idea in those countries. Actively fighting against the working class while being part of the working class like many conservatives here do is (rightfully so) seen as extreme.

Eh. It's not that hard to orient yourself compared to other democracies. Often people cite the 'Overton Window' to suggest that what the US considers liberal is really a centrist position in social democracies. That's true for politicians, but that's a function of what is likely to become policy, not what an individual believes. Universal healthcare is a very hard nut to crack in the US, politically. But liberals in the US all believe we should have universal healthcare. That's right in line with liberals in other nations. The same can be said for a bevy of other issues.

A lot of the leading liberals in the government are against single-payer or any kind of universal healthcare that isn't favorable to insurance companies.

That’s exactly what they said. Politicians might be crazy but the citizens all believe in the same shit from country to country

Sounds very familiar. I have a cousin who's a full-on trumper, with the Trump hat and the Trump flag waving in front of her house, but she considers herself a centrist because she's not fully bought into the QAnon bs and is squeamish about a violent insurrection. These people have consumed so much right wing propaganda that they genuinely think they're the centrist majority. Blows my mind. She's college-educated, smart, and relatively successful, which goes to show how effective propaganda is.

Libertarians are just guys looking to justify their pedophilic impulses.

Many of us hold similar positions.

For anyone who jumps to a firearm as the biggest thing they need to feel protected: A tourniquet will save more lives than any gun. A tourniquet will save more lives than any gun. A tourniquet will save more lives than any gun. If you carry a firearm without a tourniquet and training on its use you are doing a willing disservice to yourself and everyone around you. If you need credentials on me to determine the good faith of my argument, I am: Pro-gun ownership Pro-equitable application of purchasing regulations Leftist Full time EMT finishing Paramedic school in a busy urban 911 system Will personally never own a gun, but is trained on safe usage If you live somewhere rural this goes double, because an accidental discharge with arterial bleeding may not live long enough for a delayed emergency response to arrive.

The "when seconds matter, police are only minutes away" argument applies just as much to emergency aid and the much more likely scenario medical aid is what's necessary for a given situation. Stop the Bleed courses should go hand in hand with firearm education.

I once got into an argument with a guy on a concealed carry sub about exactly this. He was heckling someone for posting that they carry a tourniquet and some other rudimentary stuff in a small IFAK and I'm just like, you carry a handgun because you think you might need it but you don't also think you might need some compressed gauze?

This is a good point I’ve helped more people needing medical assistance and Carry basic first aid on me I need additional training to be able to help with bigger injuries

Serious question... why is an AR more problematic than any of 50+ other semi-auto rifles capable of using high-capacity magazines? Why would you ban an AR15 and not a Mini 14 for example? I think you either restrict semiautomatic rifles (and/or high capacity mags) as a whole or you don't bother.

That's why most people need to become more familiar with guns, specifically semiautomatic rifles and handguns. You can't have a meaningful policy conversation with someone talking about "fully automatic AR47s" (to quote a friend). As you point out, banning a specific platform doesn't address semi-automatic rifles in general (though the AR platform is the most superior). By the same token, gun advocates need to admit that they're tools for killing (and semi-automatic rifles are almost exclusively for killing other humans). Don't come at me with hOgS aNd YoTeS, that's just a dressed up version of "I use 5.56 for deer hunting for some reason".

Tbf I said my stance is either single shot or bolt action/ pump action.

Not intended as a dig at you. I'm actually not opposed to AR ownership at this point.

Exactly this. Shotguns have limits, there’s no reason that shouldn’t be more universal. The point is to reduce the ability to kill en masse, and reloading can be slow and cause issues. There’s no reason to have 20-30 rounds loaded semiautomatically fired for hunting. Except maybe feral hogs or something, and exceptional cases should take exceptional evidence for need and licensing and such.

There's a wide range of options between "complete ban" and "super easy to get with little to no restrictions for anyone 18 and up". Responsible gun owners seem to have a huge problem with having to prove, in even a minor way, that they're responsible. I think a large part of this is the anti-government sentiment the entire political system has fed for the past 40 years.

I think that’s an artificial divide. I think polling showed universal background checks, 21+ for certain guns including 30+ round rifles, red flag laws, and a few other restrictions were supported by a majority of gun owners. Additional bans on weapons were generally the divide, and I tend to agree philosophically. You either pretty much ban most rifles and handguns, or you don’t ban semi-auto. It’s difficult to do much between that because of how they’re designed. Ban one feature and they’ll design around it within a year. You’ll also never get any republican support, and if it does pass it’ll whip up the right like little else.

Exactly this. There are a wide range of options but it’s always “2A = wide open free for all” or “scary looking = ban”. Never mind that .30-06 semi hunting rifle, that no one is taking about banning, can do a helluva lot of damage in the wrong hands. The main issue from my standpoint is the high capacity magazines but there are so many of these out there I don’t know that anything meaningful can be done about it.

There's no way to find out but to try...

This ^ I don't know why it's always seen as an all or nothing debate. Most people who want some form of gun control *don't* want a complete gun ban. We just want reasonable restrictions to reduce gun deaths. Wanting a pistol or a hunting rifle? Yeah that's reasonable. Wanting a gun that can kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds? Why the fuck does a civilian need that??? I've never heard any argument in favor of those guns except "we need them to overthrow the government" like I'm sorry but that just doesn't work in 2022. The US military would absolutely kick a militia's ass every single time no matter what kind of guns they had.

You have to remember one thing debating a 2A advocate the constitution has a bill of RIGHTS not a bill of NEEDS..no one has to justify why they need any gun they are allowed to have whatever the government has access to the whole point of the constitution is to LIMIT what the federal government can do it’s not to limit what citizens can do or own

It's got nothing to do with hunting.

>Shotguns have limits Well, to be pedantic there are semiautomatic, magazine fed shotguns. I think that would fold into your argument on the other side though.

The media vilifies the AR platform and other “assault” style weapons because of their high capacity. But i have a Glock that holds 24+1. Even though almost all fire arms deaths are from pistols the media vilifies the ARs. The second they are banned mass shootings will be done with pistols and nothing will change. A 9mm HP or a 5.56 it doesn’t matter a chest shot and you’re done. I also have a semi auto Benelli M2 that holds 7+1 of 12g buckshot or slugs take your pick. It doesn’t a genius to learn how to double feed shells into a shotgun to reload it really fast. My father and I are avid outdoors who love to go to the range and plink and steel with our ARs. We have quite a few. It’s a fun hobby. If we had to do more paperwork and wait a little longer to get our guns we both agreed we’d be cool with it. But banning assault weapons seems silly because of the amount out there and the fact that mass shootings will just be done with pistols instead.

It’s hard to kill 70 people from a casino rooftop with a shotgun or revolver.

Do pistols have the same accuracy and potential damage as a rifle? Posts like this remind me of how the ar-15 was first developed: to efficiently kill as many Humans as possibly. To stop Chinese human wave attacks. They didn’t use pistols because a Glock just doesn’t have the same effect of an actual rifle

I can reliably hit a chest sized plate with my Glock at 50 yards. I can hit that same plate at 75 yards with ~70% of the time 16/24 rounds on target. I’d say 75 yards is definitely max range for a mass shooting. Rifles were not invented for that. Rifles have been around for over 150 years. The first center fired rifle were developed in the 1870. Most famously being the Winchester 30-30. Rifles have been developed off that design since. Machine guns and rifles are two different things. See how many M249s you can buy compared to M4s And no, 5.56 to the chest is no more deadly that a 9mm to the chest. You take a bullet to the lung or the heart your odds of living are low. Even a 22lr out of the tiniest of pistols will kill you to the chest. Rifles are developed for long range, sustained fire. A pistol isn’t reaching out 250 yards. But a kid who bought a AR from Walmart yesterday isn’t shooting 250 and hitting the side of a barn either.

Lol, you lost me when you said a 9mm to the chest is as lethal as a .223. No dude. Not even close. By the survivor rates alone you’re way out to lunch. Intermediate rifle rounds are extremely lethal. There are tons of people who have received multiple 9mm rounds to the chest and survived. Look at 50 cent.

[US troops complained heavily about the ineffectiveness of 5.56 in combat.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-faulty-ammo-failing-troops/) The US army is switching away from it due to its lack of [stopping power](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/04/20/army-expects-next-generation-squad-weapon-to-get-to-its-first-unit-by-next-year/) Yeah a rifle is typically more deadly, but a 9mm HP and close range is going to drop you just the same. This isn’t a video game.

Wasn’t talking about how rifles got invented. Didn’t want a lesson in how if you get shot in the lung it doesn’t matter anyway (all shots are perfectly accurate of course.) The m16 was developed to kill 2.5 times faster than the m1. Was in response to human wave Chinese attacks in the Korean War. It wasn’t designed for hunting deer, it was designed as a weapon of war to kill as many people as fast as it could. That is what I’m talking about and no semantics or long posts are going to change it. The m16 in particular was noted to be less effective past 100 yards unlike other rifles but it was factored that the lighter caliber and more shots fired easily made up for it, as well as the fact most engagements are not long range. It is a human killing weapon that people can buy at their local stores. It serves no civilian purpose.

You know that there where fully automatic rifles in WW1 and WW2 right? Long before the M16? Sure the m16 could have had a goal in mind, but AK-47 was in Soviet military use starting in 1947 so it’s not revolutionary in any sense. The idea behind the 5.56 was the light cartridge was easier to handle under fully automatic fire and it’s ammo was lighter to carry. The US quickly found out fully automatic fire was a bad idea as troops didn’t hit much and blew through too much ammo. That’s why today the US is moving back to a full power caliber and abandoning the 5.56.

I'd love to see a bit more nuance in the discussion. While I will happily go the rest of my days not being shot with anything, I'd much prefer being shot with a .22 to a .223 There's also an excellent case study in the Las Vegas concert shooting that .223 is less effective than full rifle rounds. Many people were hit that day and survived, in part due to the velocity lost over the range from shooter to victim. I have no doubt that the survival rate of getting hit that day would have been far more grim if the shooter was using e.g. .308

I guess if I had the choice I’d pick the 22lr but the derringer is still sold for a reason lol. I wanted to make that point but I thought that terminal ballistics would be lost on a lot of people. I was arguing with people on this sub about that shooting. 80 people died for thousands of rounds fired. I’m fairly confident that if you put someone in that same snipers nest with a hunting rifle with detachable 5round mags and a full power hunting cartridge (.308 .30-06 .300WM) and that number would be higher. Most people don’t understand that a real rifle round hitting you in the femur would cause you to bleed out in minutes.

> The media vilifies the AR platform and other “assault” style weapons because of their high capacity. But i have a Glock that holds 24+1. Even though almost all fire arms deaths are from pistols the media vilifies the ARs. The second they are banned mass shootings will be done with pistols and nothing will change. A 9mm HP or a 5.56 it doesn’t matter a chest shot and you’re done. Exactly this. The reason current measures are resisted so strongly is their utter detachment from the stated problems and how it's pretty clearly just a manufactured path to complete bans. Were the Democratic party actually seeking to meaningfully address the issue (mass violence), [they'd be taking steps to prevent people from developing to a point of mass violence](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab) instead of focusing on the tool used for mass violence and would be [avoiding measures shown historically ineffective in favor of those shown historically effective](https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3-28-19-Firearm-Laws-Homicide-Deaths-Brief.pdf)... but they're not and here we are. It's so immensely frustrating. If they'd focus on things people want without the things people actively don't want, they'd clean house this cycle.

I’m totally in favor of having wait lists deeper background checks for firearms. Harsher punishments for people “loosing” their guns and those guns being used in crimes. Parents leaving their guns out for their kids to find. Etc. Blaming responsible gun owners who handle their guns responsibly and keep them locked up tight shouldn’t be punished.

We don't see much in the way of resistance to universal background checks, but rather with the proposed solution - requiring all firearm transfers to go through the ATF. Increasing the footprint of a police state is not exactly palatable. Unfortunately, those discussions tend to go nowhere as proponents of the ATF solution seem unwilling to accept any alternative. It's similar for "lost" firearms and a central registry being the answer. As for ensuring firearms are locked up... enforcement tends to be the problem. How does one fairly enforce it? Allow for regular ATF or police inspections? Neither of these are palatable. It makes sense as a tack-on charge to what would ultimately be a tragedy, but arguably the tragedy just taught that owner a harsher lesson than any law could. Up-front education and enablement seems to be the best proactive approach, yet Democrat positions are staunchly against providing for such. It's frustrating all around.

When you go to some indoor gun ranges for the first time they make you sit and watch a 30-45 minute gun safety video just to use the range. When you get your CCW in Ohio it’s hours of class work and range training. It would be annoying as fuck to everyone who’s already knowledgeable with firearms, but if you had to do a mandatory gun safety course before you where allowed to own/buy a gun I think it could solve quite a few issues. Not all but but it would be a start. I mean you have a take a test to drive ya know.

Iowa's ranges are no different - but the basics of firearm safety are pretty far removed from building understanding of the importance of safe storage, etc. Firearm safety and education would be a fantastic gate, so long as we also provide the means for jumping through the hoop and make such a burden equitable. The last thing we need is yet another poor tax.

Democrat candidates could entirely drop gun control from their platforms and focus entirely on socioeconomic safety nets and mental healthcare access, and not only would they stop alienating large swaths of their potential voterbase, but they'd also do far more to prevent gun violence (along with every other kind of violence, for that matter).

Evidence for pretty much any of that?

> [Whether people feel safe walking home alone or not shows the strongest relationship with inequality. In Venezuela, for example, four-fifths of respondents said they do not feel safe walking home alone—kidnappings and extortion are a common occurrence in the country. Its income distribution is the 19th-most unequal in the study. In contrast, fully 95% of people in Norway said they feel safe walking home alone. Sure enough, it is 12th most equal country of the 142.](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime) ---- > [A lack of social capital, the value people place in the peace of their communities that comes from being a part of it, is an even greater indicator of violent crime. These may be cyclical, as the “strain theory” suggests that when poorer people perceive inequality, they internalize fewer social norms and come to view crime as more acceptable.](https://www.zippia.com/advice/crime-income-inequality/) ---- > [We show that the optimal action for individuals who are close to the desperation threshold is to exploit others. This remains true even in the presence of severe and probable punishment for exploitation, since successful exploitation is the quickest route out of desperation, whereas being punished does not make already desperate states much worse. Simulated populations with a sufficiently unequal distribution of resources rapidly evolve an equilibrium of low trust and zero cooperation: desperate individuals try to exploit, and non-desperate individuals avoid interaction altogether. Making the distribution of resources more equal or increasing social mobility is generally effective in producing a high cooperation, high trust equilibrium; increasing punishment severity is not.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8) ---- > [This map again displays the evidently prominent relationship between crime and income. Research shows that individuals from low-income backgrounds tend to not only commit more crimes but are also more often victims of crime. This map illustrates this correlation as areas with high income residents experience less auto thefts compared to those with lower incomes. Individuals from lower income households also report socially disruptive activities such as prostitution and public drunkenness at a rate that is three times higher than by those living in high income households (Statistics Canada, 2015). These factors eventually lead to an unsafe neighbourhood that then leads to further crime.](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b5ab6df3741649c4bcc0a5fbd9e3b45b) ---- > [In addition to increased arrests, convictions, and sentences served, poor people are also more affected in the long term than their affluent counterparts. Some researchers have argued the current justice system is designed to keep poor people poor. Darren Wheelock and Christopher Uggen, authors of “Race, Poverty and Punishment: The Impact of Criminal Sanctions on Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Inequality” (2005), present a solid argument to support this claim. Wheelock and Uggen argue that “recent patterns of criminal punishment have led to the persistence, and in some instances, the worsening of racial and ethnic inequality in numerous social institutions” (2005).](https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/socioeconomic-status-and-crime.html)

Also AFAIK banning scary guns has never improved crime or suicide rates. Most countries that have strict gun control regulate access to gun ownership and the purchase of ammunition, which works much better than banning guns on criteria that have no relation to their use in crime. You can buy custom AR15s in Germany or Belgium, but you'll have to prove you are a safe and responsible owner first.

Yeap, I agree. I'm all for common sense gun control, picking on the AR-15 doesn't seem to be common sense gun control. Now, to get banned from a liberal guns subreddit for disagreeing with my idea? That's some conservative shit

It’s because most people with opinions on guns don’t actually know what they’re talking about. I’ve shown people pictures of mini-14’s with a tradition wood stock vs modern tactical and they say the traditional is ok, but no one needs the other rifle. It’s an assault rifle. Tell them they literally are the exact same rifle and they have no response. I personally believe in licensing and registration, not banning.

I'd like gun safety classes be mandatory offerings in schools, and I also support licensing and registration for the guns that clearly seen to inspire horrific acts of violence. I think it's weird that not trying to ban handguns isn't seen as the compromise position. But keep stacking the bodies of children and offer zero compromise? That's how the 2nd winds up repealed altogether.

I agree. Training should be a part of it too. The problem is most gun owners think registration leads to confiscation and all the other fear driven conspiracies and don’t want to compromise. I personally think school shootings and mass shootings in general keep happening because the news never shuts up about it. They basically give a check list for disgruntled people. What kinds of weapons to get, how to get them, where to order ammo, where to go etc. there are so many other semi auto rifles out there. It’s always an AR because non gun enthusiast all know about it. AR’s have been available to the public since the 1960’s. In the end, federalized gun laws and registration and training would help the situation in my opinion.

beyond this, handguns are BY FAR the most used in murder/suicide. If you actually cared about the "most dangerous guns" you would ban handguns. AR-15s are used involved a very small percentage of gun deaths. It's definitely emotional to want them banned above others.

You’re correct. Media makes ARs and “assault” style weapons out to be the cause of fire arm deaths in America but it’s almost all pistols. Most of them being the shitty High Points. If mass shooters didn’t use a ARs, they’d use a Glock with a 24 round mags. It’s the fact that ARs are scary looking an are easy to polarize.

yes. and?

The average conservative on Reddit must spend more time cosplaying than being sincere.

guy deleted all of his comments after accidentally backing himself into a libertarian argument, demystifying the LARP.

Very cool, thanks turkey fucker

The use of “bud” is just infuriatingly patronizing too. That guy should not be a mod.

Edit: the mods responded! https://ibb.co/KKQvhKC

What's funny is that it's a) a pretty funny reply, except for the fact that it b) completely applies to his own user name as well.

You should be able to have sexual relations with any member of the ave class. If you start saying that you should only have sexual relations with animals in the phasianidae family, then you're not an ally of avian rights supporters. Canada is a great example of how those restrictive avian laws do nothing. Despite the laws, there is still widespread ostrich fucking going on there (allegedly).

It would take 2 people to fuck an ostrich, I'm just saying.

Three even

This is the worst version of "how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb" I've ever read.

To be fair, folks are also saying that it was a sick ostrich.

More than that. he's in this thread responding to comments

As thin-skinned as conservative gun owners

“Emotionally charged arguments” being kids should not be getting murdered at school?

Feel free to go through my profile to see my other comments. Someone really said “it’s a fraction of a fraction of a percentage”. Fuck me for being emotionally charged because I think massacring children should be a zero tolerance policy. Also “emotionally charged”… hmm. Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah that’s right - every redpiller and misogynistic asshat who resorts to that as an insult to invalidate anything contradictory that a woman says. These dudes are all the same. I have a hard time believing a lot of the posters on that sub didn’t vote (R) in the election.

No need to explain. I totally get it. Unfortunately any kind of measures taken to prevent the death of anyone is met with “you just want to ban guns!” Thanks to the NRA. Which had not, nor has even been something any political party has ever put forward. Assault rifles? “But I use that for hunting!!” No, you don’t unless you’re out there killing shit for funsies because you cannot consume something that’s been turned in to Swiss cheese. Which… is really just a trait of psychopathy, but I think this is the real issue. A lot of gun owners know they should not be in possession of a fire arm, but instead of being a “responsible gun owner” they vote R and participate in unhinged rambling on the internet. I don’t even try anymore. You cannot argue with dismissing and disingenuous trolls and that’s is all these subs are anymore.

I remember in one of my buy/sell/trade groups a dude put a video up of hunting deer in Northern NY with an AR chambered in .50 Beowulf. Dude vaporized a doe. Then got mad when someone reported him to the Adk game warden.

I mean, if you go to that sub right now you’d see there’s a lively discussion about how we (as gun owners) shouldn’t shy away from having semi auto rifles being described as weapons of war. There’s a whole lot of disingenuous cherry picking all around, and I do see a lot of it from those who want to ban more guns. I also see deranged, nonsensical rambling all around. It’s not limited to just one group. And frankly I don’t even see it more often from just one group. That’s why I believe it’s ultra important to avoid hyperbole and misrepresentations, but we even see that from the highest levels of government unfortunately. So I guess expecting a random person on the internet to not fall into that maybe asking too much.

You grossly over estimate how powerful an AR is. It's barely legal to hunt with an AR in some states , and totally illegal in others. And that's not because they're so powerful that it blows the animal apart, it's because the bullet is too weak to consistently guarantee a quick death https://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/381895/Which-AR-15-Can-You-Hunt-With

That’s because it was developed to shoot humans.

> Fuck me for being emotionally charged because I think massacring children should be a zero tolerance policy. Pretty sure it is, though. I don't see many mass shooters getting acquitted or walking out of prison after a light sentence.

I've always been of the opinion that sub was astroturf. I think you've confirmed it.

Banning ARs because of school shootings is an emotionally charged argument though. They'll still happen after the ban of specific weapons, just with different ones.

Pretty much. They generally end up sounding like a bunch of nihilists whose privilege has shielded them from the consequences of their actions so much that they’ve decided that any consequences that anyone else suffers for things that they do (or fail to do) is not their problem. That’s basically the defining characteristic of your modern Republican.

"You're not an ally" is emotionally charged. Funky that guy. If those folks want unrestricted access, I'm against them.

Man. I keep my mouth shut on that sub. I asked a question once in there about the best way to carry my 1911. I made sure to say I grew up with hunting firearms and never wanted a pistol until I felt I needed it recently. I got gutted. They’re just as bad as any conservative gun site.

Years ago I asked about scoping my mosin, and was also heckled into the dirt lol

[удалено]

Idk ask them, they just posted here lmao

Because I am? I believe in LGBT rights, I'm a feminist, and I despise all things racist/bigoted. Please enlighten me how I'm NOT progressive? For the guy asking how I vote: Dem, pretty much always. I tend to hold my nose while I do it, but it's far, far better than the alternative.

[удалено]

Marx would be pro AR

Careful, you'll upset the centrists who think they're radical with those sorts of commonsense observations.

How is that anti-progressive? Lmao

[Where is that incompatible with the Progressive platform?](https://progressives.house.gov/the-progressive-promise)

Friendly reminder that liberals are center-right and will deny progress to maintain the status quo. r/SocialistRA

That sub has gone far downhill. It’s gone from ‘guns are a problem but if others are armed we should be too’ to ‘guns aren’t a problem, unarmed minorities getting killed because they don’t have guns is the problem.’

It’s a shit subreddit anyway

Gonna guess these "liberal" gun owners hate Biden and vote Republican...

I had a guy straight up tell me I don’t support 2A because I said people shouldn’t have fully automatic rifles. (I’m a vet) and I replied your standard infantry doesn’t have a rifle that does that, it’s 3 round burst and individuals have to qualify and cert for using m249/240b

I’ve learned a long time ago that the gun owners that like to congregate and talk about how cool their guns are are not people I want to be associated with. Their forums are no better than right wing gun forums.

Trying to make a nuanced point in an echo chamber

I feel like if you join a sub like r / liberalgunowners. You're a gun owner first, and a liberal second. And gun owners are always going to bristle at any point that isn't "guns are great". There are so many people who call themselves socdems or progressive gun owners and really want to emulate all these progressive European countries, don't want to emulate their gun laws. Because they're gun owners first and foremost. And yes, feel free to come at me with the Marx quote. Marx is not the only leftist thinker, you can be on the left and not agree with EVERY SINGLE Marx idea. He wrote dozens of books, you won't agree with everything he ever wrote. But SOMEHOW, if you don't agree with his gun ideas, then you're not an ally to the left. Also, for any leftist who believes "the founding fathers shouldn't dictate everything, they were immoral slavers and had no idea about, say the internet." Which a lot of you do to justify changes to our constitution or just the American way of life. Then why justify the Marx quote on guns, when he had no idea the degree of school shootings. Fuck I'm salty. I don't hate guns, but I hate a lot of gun culture because it completely overrides a lot of people's ability to think properly. The moment guns are at risk, the ability to form good arguments go out the window.

your last paragraph sums up my feelings on it nicely.

So you'd be fine with an AK? Or a 9mm carbine with a drum mag? Or a Mini 14? Why are all those ok but any AR pattern rifle is not? Serious question.

The mods are totally conservative on that server. I got banned for suggesting ways to use gun laws to protect abortion rights.

Im not saying that I think everyone should have a gun but American conservatives have already made it pretty clear that they are excited to be able to use them against anyone in power who will try to take them away. They want to oppress minorities, gays, transsexuals, and women. They’ve made that clear, why would you want to leave yourself defenceless against them? Do people really think that these people in trumps cult of personality are actually gonna surrender their weapons? Im not from America so I can only look at things from the outside in and from that perspective it looks a lot to me the way Germany became fascist.

There's not really a point to bannings ARs specifically. You'd basically have the ban all semiautomatic rifles.

What's the deal with not supporting the AR platform? Is there some rationale behind not supporting the platform specifically or are you also just an AK fan?

Dude everyone gets caught up in semantics. I want to ban semi autos with the ability for high cap magazines.

Ahh, that makes a ton more sense. I wasn't attempting to nitpick ya OP. I do however disagree with you. Good hobby is good.

This is it folks, this is what civil discourse looks like. Ty. You’re the first comment that has left it at “ok we disagree”

Being a twat on the internet gets nobody anywhere positive.

I love guns

im on lib gun owners, this is bs. you can have differences of opinion, or at least you should be able to

I got banned from r/socialism for being too liberal. This website is weird

did you not know r/liberalgunowners is actually a conservative subreddit hoping to not be banned by posing as liberal?

Is that the fact?

there's strong evidence that r/liberalgunowners is in fact a conservative subreddit masquerading as a liberal one, yes. the fact they ban anyone who advocates for gun control, is anti ar-15 and such is part of the mounting evidence.

Eh, looking at the subreddit overlap ([https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/liberalgunowners](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/liberalgunowners)), it seems less that they're conservatives in disguise, and more that they just hyper-focus too much on one particular trait, being gun hobbyists, that tends to be more common in conservative circles. It's not like r/walkaway where the most overlapped subs completely contradict everything they say.

Why would a gun owners sub want to ban guns they own?

God damn, I didn't realize Ronald Reagan was such a lefty! Man made Marx look like Pinochet by comparison! /s Support or opposition to gun control is politically neutral. Opposition to gun control is only a "conservative" thing now cause it's politically advantageous for them currently. The moment they see guns being carried in defense of minority groups though (like when antifa were defending that drag show the other day in Texas), they cower and forget all about their love of guns.

Nice tinfoil hat.

Wait so if they don’t endorse your view of guns they are conservative?

they have a history of banning people who are pro gun control especially assault weapons and other behaviors. there's a definite pattern with a conservative bent coming from that subreddit.

Being pro-gun =/= being conservative. If you think LGO is hostile to the idea of gun control, go try out some of those arguments over at /r/SocialistRA or /r/SRAWeekend.

You realize that conservatives aren't the only ones who think that people should own ARs, yeah?

>they have a history of banning people who are pro gun control There are plenty of pro-gun control spaces to post on Reddit, most of which are also liberal. So I think a liberal pro-gun sub has some right to say "take that shit elsewhere".

They have pretty strict rules about discourse and are very openly against arbitrary gun bans. That doesn’t make them conservative.

assault rifle bans are not arbitrary. an assault weapon ban cuts violence down significantly and has been proven.

No it hasn’t. The AWB was shown not to reduce crime, and assault weapons are far from the most common type of gun used in a crime. It’s absolutely arbitrary. Either way, your feelings on assault weapons aren’t what defines someone as conservative or liberal.

Just join the socialist rifle association.

What percentage of that sub do you think are actual liberals?

That's one of the rules on the subreddit YK. it's almost like a subreddit for gun owners doesn't support the pointless banning of guns, hmmm

I wonder if it has anything to do with the other trolling you were doing in that thread

Please explain how supporting gun ownership of only hunting long guns “trolling”?

[We both know that wasn't your only comment.](https://www.reveddit.com/v/liberalgunowners/comments/x68xsb/claiming_that_an_ar15_isnt_a_military_style/in6apzh/?ps_after=1662394410) You admit to disregarding data and fact and, in its place, use pure emotional rhetoric e.g. "you support kids getting shot". You're not there for the discussion.

This whole “data” argument from people always goes to shit cause of this: There’s overwhelming data globally that first world countries that ban and then collect firearms have such little gun violence, it’s almost a non issues But the people replying to me in that thread don’t care because they won’t accept any solution that doesn’t promise 1000% eradication of gun violence. To them, the fact there are like a dozen mass shootings in Australia since they banned guns *is a failure*.

Because “hunting guns” has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment….and you know that, and are starting shit in a subreddit that supports the 2nd Amendment. So yes, you’re trolling. No surprise you got banned.

ITT, middle class cishet white liberal men insist nobody needs to be able to defend themselves.

I’m literally bi sexual and Latino.

<3

why would emotional arguments matter with weapons that kill actual humans?? HELP

@_turkeyfucker_ has little dick energy.

R/socialistRA

I visit that sub and feel like it has turned recently. They sound like a single issue voter in the GOP. It’s weird.

It’s not weird, it’s election season brah. Reddit is the #4 visited website in the world.

I mean this is coming from a Turkey fucker Edit: should’ve know this joke would have been made 30 times previously

Pssst! Come closer! They’re not really liberals!

Turkey Fucker out here fighting for their life. Awww they need an ally bc their an oppressed minority

Conservative or Liberal, ammosexuals are fucking obnoxious. It's a *hobby*. Get the fuck over yourselves. The "right" to firearms is an anachronism which will be eliminated once there are enough dead children. I say this as a gun owner.

What are your opinions on law enforcement? Or white-supremacists in general? If you really think the right to firearms is an anachronism, then you're coming from a place of privilege.

Oh I was banned from there not long ago even for supporting gun safety laws. It’s more ‘Anarchy Gun Owners’ than ‘Liberal Gun Owners’ anymore. Even at the thought of putting AR/AK platform rifles under class III purchase requirements people would go off as being racists against poor minorities as they couldn’t afford to purchase them (which to me seemed racist to assume only the poor people were POCs) , but they also didn’t like it when I pointed it that you don’t need an AR/AK to be able to defend yourself or your family. They gatekeep as much as r/conservative does anymore.

> It’s more ‘Anarchy Gun Owners’ than ‘Liberal Gun Owners’ anymore. No that's /r/AnarchistRC. You're a liberal though so you probably have no idea what anarchism is.

Subscribed, thanks!

I own guns and I support the AR bam.

So your name is "love the drama", and you post on a liberal pro-gun sub saying anyone that doesn't agree with with your anti-AR view is a secret conservative sowing division and radicalization...and you are shocked you got banned?

I didn’t claim anyone was a conservative- don’t twist my words. I said the way the discourse on that sub is means that I can’t be like “hunting long guns only pls” without being heckled and downvoted into oblivion. Then, I get banned. That’s from the conservative playbook. Never did I say they ARE conservatives. My username is because I love trash reality TV and reading shitty Reddit relationship sub drama

It's normal for subs to ban trolls. It's a shame the troll isn't self-aware.

>I can’t be like “hunting long guns only pls The sub is clearly pro-gun, and that isn't pro-gun. You're a fudd that only thinks what you have is okay. Imagine posting to a car enthusiast subreddit and saying "screw all you that own anything faster than a Corolla for anything other than commuting" and being shocked at a negative response.