• Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Handguns used in ~2/3 of all gun murders in the U.S.: I sleep

    AR-15 used in one assassination attempt of geriatric running for president in 2024: REAL SHIT

  • MiDaBa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    What an idiot. Does he not realize talking about banning guns is the number one way to motivate right wingers? The US is NOT going to ban guns especially with the current Supreme Court. This is an example of his old team running old plays that haven’t been successful since the 90s. He needs to go before he causes any more damage to his party.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I want you to imagine the following scenario:

    The RIAA: “Internet file sharing of mp3s is eating into our profits. Government, we want you to ban the Rio Volt SP250 mp3 player.”

    The Government: “Yes, banning only that specific make and model of mp3 player and none of the rest of Rio’s product catalog, or any mp3 players manufactured by any other brand, will completely and permanently address this scourge of copyright infringement. Consider it done.”

    That’s you! That’s how DUMB you sound!

    –GLaDOS.

    Here’s what happens when you ban a firearm by name: manufacturers change some extremely minor detail, change the model number, and keep selling it. The Tec-9 open bolt machine pistol was used in a few school shootings in the 90’s, most prominently the Columbine massacre. California banned the gun by name in state law. The manufacturer responded by moving the sling ring from one side of the gun to the other and calling it the Tec-DC9, with “DC” standing for “Designed for California.”

    It’s not an engineering problem. Banning individual makes and models is how you solve (or at least end) an engineering problem. This is a culture problem.

  • InAbsentia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bro why? I’d vote for a fucking shoe over him at this point, unfortunately it’s between sundowners and down syndrome. These guys want to destroy everything this country was founded on and developed over the years and banning a gun is where you go?!

    At this point it’s intentional sabotage. No one fucking wants this. It won’t change anything. Just leave it the fuck alone and start doing something for the lower and middle classes to secure your goddamn votes. Or just let the conservatives use your stupidity as a stepping stone to steal your voters by fulfilling their fear mongering.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Biden speed-running losing the election.

    At this point all Trump has to do is pretend this didn’t phase him, then not say anything too stupid and I’m sure Biden will do his best to just hand it over.

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do I like, or the general public? I hate Trump more than Biden if that’s essentially what you’re trying to question. And yes we do need supreme court.

        But will the general public give a shit or even know about this plans? Doubt it. Trump getting shot at is much more attention grabbing.

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Banning guns is a losing policy for democrats. It only ever hurts them. I really wish they’d stop lighting political capital on fire with statements like this

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I said this decades ago… if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Rich people would lose a lot of money should that ever happen, so whenever things start to look even a little good, you bet your ass some idiot in the Dems is going to scream “hell yes we’ll take your guns”.

      • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Gun rights are a MAJOR factor in why many people I personally know refuse to consider voting Democrat.

        They will wax poetic all day about how much they detest Trump… but then end with, “At least he won’t take away our guns.”

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I actually know a guy who plans on voting for Trump simply because “They can’t drag me to the concentration camps if I have guns”

          He doesn’t think Biden wants to drag him off btw, he thinks Trump will… but it won’t matter because he had guns…

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The number of people I know who won’t vote for them because of gun shit is too damn high. There are cheaper ways to solve gun violence anyway. Single issue voters are dumb, but democrats need to accept that they exist and this is the biggest single issue

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    …Does Pres. Biden really think that the assassination attempt would have gone less well if Crooks had been using a Ruger American bolt action rifle chambered in 6.5CM? Does he really think that?

    Let’s be super-clear here, and AR-15 uses an intermediate cartridge. Most bolt action hunting rifles are going to use full-power cartridges, cartridges that have a longer range, may have a flatter trajectory, have less wind drift, and have a helluva lot more power when they hit their target. A center mass hit with an AR-15 at 150y is going to be bad; a center mass hit with a .308 or 6.5CM at 150y is going to be the end of someone’s world. Bear in mind that many hunters do not consider a .225/5.56x45mm bullet to be ethical for deer hunting because it’s lower power, while there’s very broad agreement that 6.5CM and .308 are just dandy.

    Also, calling for banning guns in an election year where you’re already behind? When gun bans tend to galvanize Republicans and get them out to the polls? Incredibly dumb. Unbelievably dumb.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Time to force registration of guns. Time to force psych evals for gun owners. I own two guns. One is a SKS I bought in 1990. Although considered a assault rifle it is nothing more than a semi automatic hunting rifle. I would gladly submit to what I propose in order to ensure that some broken soul doesn’t have access to a weapon. Anyone who is against accountability in this matter is probably a danger.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I live in Canada. We had mandatory gun registration passed in 2001. From that point on, the Conservatives used every opportunity they could to scrap the registry and finally succeeded in 2012. Since then, the reintroduction of a gun registry has been off the table.

      Canada has nowhere even close to a gun culture the way the US does. The main opponents of gun registration here were hunters and farmers, a much smaller portion of the population than in the US (which also includes substantial gun enthusiast, militia, and survivalist cultures).

      So what does all this mean? Gun registration laws are laughably unrealistic in the US. There is absolutely no way you will ever get a gun registry to stick as long as the Republicans have any chance whatsoever of winning an election.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don’t get guns. They’ll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being “disobedient”? I bet it’d basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.

      I’m all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts). But in the regressive parts like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas… no thanks

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        To me it sounds like a good way for malfunctioning republicans to get identified. Its what they fear most. The idea that everyone will know they are sociopaths, psychopaths or have plain old NPD. When you hear someone say they don’t believe in therapy you know they are afraid of being exposed.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Are you suggesting that we do it to expose peoples’ medical information to the public…? Or am I misinterpreting this

          I think them being openly Republican lets everyone know well enough that they lack empathy/humanity. It’s on people (well, more like our education system to teach people) to recognize that, WITHOUT violating basic privacy rights. Plus, knowing the publics’ ableism and perception of mental disorders, people will probably start suggesting that ASD, ADHD, etc. should disqualify you from having a gun if the laws aren’t just listing out arbitrary diagnoses.

          Personally, I currently live in a very red part of Georgia (not for much longer though) and I’m pretty queer and have ADHD and stuff, so I’d rather not let the government even know what guns I own. When the state or federal government becomes social democratic, I’ll be completely fine with it

          • MehBlah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            No I’m not suggesting that. Way to reason in advance of your data. I’m suggesting though experience that people who are against mental health are usually against it to hide their problems. I worked in mental health for a decade. Most cluster B’s, people with APD, NPD or BPD can’t stand the thought of getting help. All of them feel that its never their fault. They play the victim but are always the victimizer. None of them need a gun.
            Why would I think people with ASD or ADHD would be a threat? I have ADHD and I also get treatment.
            Seems like you are picking a outrageous example in an attempt to fluff up your position. but some types are dangerous and those are the ones who avoid therapy. Who fear it.

            • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              No they’re saying nobody gets exposed because health info is held to high privacy standards and your comment didn’t make sense unless those mental health evals were public info, so they assumed that’s what you were arguing for.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree with all of these things, except affordability shouldn’t be the issue. It should be subsidized for poorer people. I don’t want only the wealthy to be well armed.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’ve heard the “wealthy people” argument many times. Like I said, if you can afford the guns you can afford the ability to secure them. Failure to secure guns is what gets people killed, either because of accidental shootings, theft, or the guns being taken without permission. I’m not interested in debating poverty and gun ownership if the lack of ability to pay for insurance or a safe means someone else has to pay with their life. We’re already there and it’s already a massive problem. It’s why this discussion is even happening.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Like I said, subsidize it for poorer people (including the gun). We subsidize all kinds of things to ensure poorer people can still do things they should be allowed to do but can’t afford at the same level. If we managed to get as far as what you want, it’d be fairly trivial to add a gun/ammo tax or something that is used to offset the costs for poorer people. I’m agreeing with your concept, but ensuring only the wealthy can be armed is a horrible idea.

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s trivially easy to put a gun behind a lock. Licensing, registration, and insurance is a cost that can become arbitrarily large.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I used to have insurance for my firearms.

        Then a bunch liberal activists hadn’t hounded all the credit card payment processors to refuse to work with insurance companies who offered it, calling it “murder insurance.”

        Now I can’t buy it because people on both sides of the debate refuse to act in good faith.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The SKS has the same size standard mags as an AR-15 and can do everything else the AR-15 can, but with a more powerful round.

      How is it “just a semi automatic hunting rifle” if the AR-15 isn’t?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Sks is a 7.62/30-06 round, which is a good round for medium to large game. The ar15 is 5.56/.223 which is much smaller and not suitable for more than varmint or coyote.

        • Fades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          not suitable for more than varmint or coyote.

          Holy shit you have no idea what you’re talking about LMAO

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            There’s a really wide range of opinions on what animals 5.56 is ethical for. I’m not gonna say they’re all valid, but this opinion this person shared is an opinion people have.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s incrediblly not a 30.06. SKS fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge with about 1400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

          A 30.06 is 7.62x63mm cartridge with around 3000ft/lbs or muzzle energy.

          A .223 from an AR has about 1300 ft/lbs, making it MUCH closer to the SKS than the BAR.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        So can a browning 306. My SKS doesn’t use mags you can get stripper clips but it doesn’t hold that many shots. Its nice you googled something and got it wrong.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Dude, I was in gun sales for years. I’ve had my hands on a thousand SKS rifles.

          Just because you don’t have detachable mags doesn’t mean it can’t use them on the rifle. Like an AR it’s a very adaptable platform.

        • JuanPeece@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          My SKS uses 30 round detachable magazines, so OP is not incorrect. it’s a rifle that’s been around forever with tons of different configurations

          • MehBlah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            You can modify them to use a mag. I did for a short time years ago but restored it to its original configuration. Using a magazine kinda sucks with that gun.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      Cymraeg
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      (Boost for Lemmy went fucky wucky so I reposted this comment)

      Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don’t get guns. They’ll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being “disobedient”? I bet it’d basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.

      I’m all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn’t be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas… no thanks, I don’t want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don’t deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)

      I think it just boils down to “gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith” which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can’t get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I’m a filthy socialist

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      What guarantees you won’t become a broken soul now that you have the weapons ?

      What would make you comfortable giving them up ?

      Do you train in a militia ? Would you be willing to submit to a state or county base militia every month for the rest of your active life to keep your guns ?

      Do you feel any responsibility when your fellow gun owners act not just irresponsibly but act out of malice towards the public with their firearms ?

      Those are “your people”. Make a better case to keep your military weapons other than “i’m not crazy”.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I think leaning into the well regulated militia part of 2A is where I would focus. In my thinking every town or district or whatever would have a local militia. Anyone could be involved whether they want to be armed or not. Basically the militia would train for all sorts of emergency situations in a very local way. It would have to be independent from the government though. Like, only in your town. Where do we meet? What resources will we have? Are there good choke points we should defend? Under what circumstances? And then of course actually training as a defensive militia. Each militia should have an armory/barracks. While the individual person would still technically own the weapon, anything other than hunting weapons would need to be kept in the armory unless the militia declared an emergency and everyone got their guns and manned their posts. Maybe even hunting weapons. Just have a system for checking your weapons out for hunting or practice. I’d be willing to make this sacrifice. And I’d feel much more secure knowing I lived somewhere with a well organized militia and not reliant on some far off government or a bunch of yahoo vigilantes.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I like it. I meant it is kinda the point of the natty guard, but that got too big and too military. An active community support group would be neat to see more of.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The SKS is the first gun I ever bought. The other gun was one of few things my dad ever gave me that wasn’t broken. Of course he thought it was broken when he gave it to me but it was simple fix. Simple enough for a twelve year old to fix. Why would I give up what is essentially a two hunting rifles. Sure one has a place for a bayonet but I don’t own one. All of you defeatist always naively think outlawing them will get rid of them.

    • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      No, time, actually long past time, to redefine hate groups and fascists as domestic terrorists and send in the FBI.

  • minibyte@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Why? If I were in the politician killing business I’d be using an AXSR, not an AR. It’s just the wrong tool for the job.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Fucking typical.

    Something comes close to removing a problem created by the conservatives and the Democrats want to take it away!

  • squid_slime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Marx warned against this. without armed workers the dismantling of the state machine will be much harder.