Demonizing a particular gun is dumb and completely misses the issue.
If it wasn’t the AR-15 it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of firearm.
They also make up almost no part of gun deaths overall. Handguns are the killers by the numbers.
This is true, but these people are too stupid to accept facts and feel better picking on the dangerous black rifle.
The fully semi automatic clip fed AR-15 that fires 9mm bullets that will blow a lung out is the real problem.
No… Just no.
Guns ARE a problem, as is mental health and the mindset of people.
But per capita Sweden has more houses with assault rifles (literally military provided rifles to national service citizens) but no mass shootings there?
I’m actually in favour of better gun control, but I can’t think of a truly practical way to achieve it.
The US pro gun people are in denial about the issue, and the US anti gun people are equally in denial about the true issues and facts, so much so that their cause is suffering for it.
I’m concerned about guns… But I’m not stupid.
But per capita Sweden has more houses with assault rifles (literally military provided rifles to national service citizens) but no mass shootings there?
What does a person in Sweden have to do to possess a gun? Additionally, what is their policy on ammunition?
Sweden had mandatory conscription from 1901 through to the cold war. About 85% of men were conscripted.
The situation had changed more recently to a national service system.
All those who do combat or combat related service are issued an AK 4 (Swedish production of the H&K G3) rifle, or the more modern AK 5 based on the Belgian FN FNC.
Both of these are far superior ‘killing machines’ than a semi auto AR-15. The newer AR5 will even run the same magazines as the AR15,
On completion of service the option is given to keep the rifle.
The government provides ammunition and access to training facilities so as people can remain proficient with their rifle.
More recently the keeping of ammunition at home has been banned but there is no doubt already millions of rounds in the wild. This law has preparations to be lifted rapidly if required for an emerging security crisis.
Their new national service system now provides options for logistics and medical for those that don’t want to pickup a firearm. Pretty good idea I think.
Clearly a different mentality and different state of national mental health in Sweden.
It’s almost as if they simply want to disarm you so they can do whatever they want with jack-booted armed cops as their muscle.
I’m not understanding- by banning the AR-15 only, they will be doing nothing effective but also they’re going to disarm everyone? I’m not sure why the first one is necessary if they’re going to do the second.
That said, I’m 46 and I’ve heard “they’re coming for your guns” my whole life. I’m wondering when they’re going to do it because they’re sure taking their time.
I said when your age you haven’t tried to buy a gun or ammo recently have you? I hadn’t in a while back when I was in my twenties.
I mean my personal anecdote is : I bought a gun and ammunition back in the early 2000s. As I’m no gun nut I hadn’t messed with it much until somewhat recently.
I called up my police department and my police department said that there’s three conflicting laws and how to transport my gun to the shooting range. I think you just haven’t kept up at the times. I mean no insult saying that since I’m your age. 😁
deleted by creator
Or is it because it’s unrealistic?
deleted by creator
Absolutely no one with any power is crafting gun confiscation policy. That’s nonsense.
Disarm the cops first
If it wasn’t the AR-15 it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of firearm.
And if we banned guns, it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of knife
The problem with “if they don’t have guns, they’ll just use knives” is that knives aren’t as effective at mass killing from a distance.
Suppose you have two similar mass killing attempts. In one, the person has an AR-15. In the other, they have a knife.
The AR-15 killer can kill many people from across rooms. Depending on how much ammunition they have, they can reload quickly and kill many more. People trying to run away from the killer would be quickly killed.
Meanwhile, the knife killer would need to physically stab each victim. This means that they would need to be within arm’s length of their victims. If the person kept away from the killer, they would be safe (relatively speaking). People running away from the killer wouldn’t be killed.
Perhaps the knife wielder could throw the knife at the fleeing victim, but this would need good aim (vs spraying an area with bullets using the AR-15) and would require the knife to end up pointy side in. If it hit them on the handle side, it would hurt, but wouldn’t be fatal. Where they get stabbed would also matter. Then, there is the problem (for the killer) of having tossed away their only weapon. (Though they could have multiple knives.)
Could a knife wielding killer kill a lot of people? Yes, but it would be far less than an AR-15! wielding person.
Of course, the one thing this comparison does show is that more needs to be done besides gun control. We need to be better at identifying people likely to commit acts of violence and get them help before they snap. Any solution needs to address the gun problem AND the mental health problems that this country faces.
That, and every other time guns were removed from the equation, people didn’t pick up knives instead – they just didn’t kill.
I know right fun fact no genocides ever happen before the invention of gunpowder
Correct, before the invention of gunpowder it was impossible for one person to commit genocide all on their own.
You left off the /s sarcasm tag. Cuz off the top of my head Genghis Khan didn’t have access to gunpowder.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/genghis-khan-environment-26052014/
Killed so many people it was good for the environment. Guns wish they killed as many people.
I love this retort. I had to say that
Frankly mass knifings do exist, canada recently had that one where like 13 people got stabbed, then there was another one in a private school in like korea iirc, and the infamous 30+ stabbed in the chinese subway station, but yeah typically to stab more people they spread it out over a number of days/weeks/months/years instead of doing it in one event, you’re correct. Not sure how much better that is when you’re the one being stabbed, and being stabbed fucking sucks if you haven’t had the chance to try it, but true, at least you can give your friends/peers a chance to leave you for dead instead of them also being in danger. I’d rather someone be able to shoot the would-be murderer before I’m dead though regardless of if he has a gun, a knife, or a candlestick in the kitchen.
And if a guy runs through a school hallway waving a knife around, he’ll get a concussion from a random student’s backpack bonking him in the head.
Exactly, you can mow down a bunch of pedestrians with a truck… Europe knows this all too well.
But people here just want to demonize I specific myself of firearm.
This is just an example what firearms are made for: Killing. The AR15 is a special example, because there is no excuse “but I need this for my deer hunting!”.
This thing is built and sold for one purpose: Killing people.
It’s particularly good at that, I won’t deny, but so many other factors exist too. It’s affordability, it’s availability are also issues.
There are better choices for killing… They just cost more and or have limited availability.
The Kriss Vector or MP5 would be a great tool at short to intermediate range. A lot less cumbersome than an AR.
Regardless that there are “better” choices for killing - This item was designed, produced, sold, and bought to kill people. Therefor, it should not exist in the first place. That there are “better” choices is all the worse.
It literally is not designed for that purpose.
Sure it can do that, and I’ll agree it is quite an efficient tool for killing… But saying it was designed for that is plain hyperbole.
The rifle in question in this thread is a civilian sporting rifle and lacks the the more rapid firing modes.
You be like one of those people “Look, is in the name, ‘Assault Rifle model 15’”.
I’m with you on all but the “bought” part. Some people simply buy guns simply because shooting them can be fun and they like to shoot targets and keep them locked in a safe. Many people buy them to kill animals. They are especially well suited for dealing with the hog problems in rural areas.
Many people do buy them for self defense reasons, and a few buy them for murderous reasons, so in those cases the “bought to kill people” part stands. Im not saying people should have unfettered access to them at all, I just think it’s important to be honest about their usage, and recognize the nuance to the topic.
You are right, we should just ban all guns… but let’s start with the AR-15
It’s clear you’ve still misunderstood me.
Let’s not start with the AR-15… But yes, let’s back all guns. I totally agree.
Banning 1 gun will do nothing because the next best option will take it’s place immediately.
That’s my point.
I understood you perfectly the first time. No one would villify an inanimate object, however of all guns legally sold in the us market, the AR-15 is by far the most efficient in killing and maiming groups of people, so yes it needs to be the first. No one said it needs to be the only one or the last one, and those who might not really want any ban on guns.
Hell, if we can use the destruction this rifle causes to ban ALL guns at once, then that would be a real miracle.
No you don’t get it. Banning 1 single type of weapon would be ineffective for a bunch of reasons that you’re not ready to understand.
A particular gun, yes, but there are features of the AR-15 that make it more effective. High muzzle velocity means more energy, so you tear apart organs instead of just punching a hole. Magazine-fed means you can shoot more of those high velocity rounds, and semi-automatic means your rate of fire is much higher.
Banning a specific model of firearm is stupid, but there are attributes that we can regulate to prevent the most deadly weapons from being so readily available.
Then again, if you’re making this argument you probably think that living in fear of being shot in the grocery store and turning schools into supermax prisons is a perfectly acceptable compromise and this discussion will go nowhere like the last hundred times it’s happened.
“there are attributes that we can regulate to prevent the most deadly weapons”
Can we agree that the silencer is not one of these. All it does is protect my hearing.
Yes, I agree that silencers shouldn’t be on the list. Even with a silencer guns are fucking loud, especially large-caliber high-velocity rounds.
Your just proving your stupidity in this post.
There are other guns the have attributes similar to the AR-15, and if you that the AR away the next most popular gun will be the next issue.
I’m not defending the AR, I’m saying all guns are a problem and focusing on one is not a smart move.
I love how people are arguing about banning guns in the comments, while completely ignoring the question about what drives people to be so murderous.
I’m not against stricter regulations, but the US really needs to stop treating just the symptoms of underlying problems.
It would be really great if the gun nuts who are going to post in this thread actually read the entire article. I couldn’t make it through the descriptions of death and destruction, often from children. Pictures of body bags in elementary schools, bullet holes in church pews, and video of people running for their lives: This is what “gun rights” looks like to most people today.
I would hope you could have some empathy, but based on the last 24 years of flame wars I highly doubt it.
On the contrary… I’ve seen the New Zealand mosque shooting in full.
So no one gets to say “you don’t get it” to me.
I came here to simply point out that focusing on a single gun is a bad idea.
This seems to be a common trait in the anti gun community.
Pretty much anything semi automatic would fill the vacuum the AR would leave immediately.
I like guns. But I’m wise enough to know they’re a problem. A massive problem.
I’m also lucky enough to live in Australia, where guns have always been hard to get and the ownership of them tracked.
This tracking made getting all the semi automatics out of hands relatively easy here.
I now live in a society where an AR-15 is a 1 in a million firearm only allowed for those that can demonstrate a need for it.
What you guys gotta do is stop focusing on 1 firearm by name and focus on the actual issue.
I’ve also seen the mosque shooting in full.
In an ideal world, yes. All guns should be taken away. Things that can cause mass harm in the blink of an eye should absolutely not be in the hands of someone that isn’t highly educated, not only about guns but educated period.
We do not live in an ideal world. For me, in the United States, we live in a world where people think that minorities are ruining their lives and everything would be better if they were killed. These people, these genuinely deplorable individuals, already have a shitload of guns. Far more than any state that restricts gun rights.
Thinking that these people will simply give up their guns without a fight would be like thinking that the Confederacy would simply sit back and let their slaves be taken away. The only difference is that the average person in Texas can have a fully automatic, 100 round mag bearing, fully kitted machine gun.
Simply saying “take away their guns” would absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, trigger the next Civil War here and it would be exponentially more bloody.
We need gun rights. Not for the sake of guns themselves, but because of the people who worship them.
Honestly can’t disagree with any of that. America is too far gone and your take on education and responsibility is spot on.
Switzerland is an odd example. Literally assualt rifles in nearly every home. But a completely different civil mindset.
