Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

Show me where I said anything should be banned. Quote me. What do you even know of my opinions on gun control?

Well then what is your opinion? cause 9 out 10 times when someone uses the word "assault weapon" and "gun control" in the same reply its usually in support of banning said assault weapons

"Oh no, I fucked up...uuhh....YOU DON'T KNOW ME, YOU DON'T KNOW MY STORY"

I don't really think it's semantic word games. Assault weapons and assault rifles describe two entirely different classes of firearm, and things get even more confusing when you realize that "assault weapon" is a purely bureaucratic term used to describe a semi-automatic firearm with a certain appearance or accessories that have little to no influence on it's effectiveness. I think it was adequately illustrated earlier in this thread that communicating as precisely as possible is key not only to convince others of your position but more importantly because we are dealing with the possibility of regulations that could have sweeping and drastic consequences for thousands or millions of Americans. Not to say that you (elix) support any or all of these regulations, I just think that when you get into the nitty gritty of policy discussions like this, semantics becomes more important.

Wow, what a mature response. Gun advocates are great. Don't bother responding to me if that's the shit you're going to bring to the debate table. How embarrassing. I think there needs to be a five-year moratorium on changing any gun laws, loosening or tightening, and there needs to be a national conversation on how to fix the diseased society America's allowed itself to become. A diseased society where mental health is at best neglected, where health care funding is a thing only one political party believes in, where the middle class increasingly doesn't exist and the wealth disparity gap is at preposterously unprecedented levels and the up-and-coming generation by and large has no hope for future economic mobility. When people are desperate, they do desperate things. When people are sick, they do sick things. Taking guns away from people who are sick is an okay idea, helping them get better and stemming the factors in society making them sick is a far greater idea. But that's too hard so nobody will do anything and instead we have thoughts and prayers and hey kids shut up and let the adults deal with gun control.

Or you could respond properly?

To what? He came in, made a common error that really wasn't a big deal, and then capped it off with a children are dying comment in relation to the terminology being used.

I mean, it just takes a google search to realize that Assault Rifles have a specific definiton, assault weapons do not and often overlap with non 'assault weapons' in both function and leathality. Often times it comes down to, "That's hanging up on my grandpappy's wall" and "Thats what a soldier holds" which is hilarious all things considered.

Just over 30 years ago you could buy real assault rifles, pay $200 to the federal government, register it with the federal government, get a background check, but before even any of that hope you have a police chief or sheriff that would let you. What you showed are assault rifles, something that we could at one time buy without spending $25,000+ on, but most of us cant even hope to afford to get one today. If you're going to go for a "gotcha" post you should probably know some history behind what you're talking about.

But do I actually want to demonize firearms? Because on the topic of the specific detailed differences between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", sure, okay, I've been educated, thanks for the info. I could've done entirely without the strawmanning and wild assumptions that I'm here to grab yer guns like a Republican pet stereotype. And then when I call out these bullshit assumptions I get "HURR I WAS JUST PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED GUYS" as a response, and what kind of shitty debate response is that? And then I posted my actual feelings regarding guns when someone else asked instead of just making wild assumptions, where I explained how the problem should be solved by attacking the underlying causes instead of bandaging the symptom with ineffective short-term solutions, but nobody wants to talk about that. So, great job?

what a arrogant post. “Yeah sure it might not do a lot but you gun owners just care about your toys!!” how dare people not agree with an awb and propose other solutions. How dare they not want their rights to start being stripped.

We've seen evidence on both a federal and local level that banning assault clipazines and the like doesn't have any real impact on crime. You're asking for something that has been proven to be an abject failure multiple times over, that would, demonstrable by very recent history, do nothing besides limit 300+ million Americans. All for the reason of saying it'll open up the door to other legislation, like handgun bans, which, again, haven't had any evidence of working in the US. Generally for any right, if you're trying to restrict it in ways that have already been proven ineffective, people are going to resist it vehemently, especially when the only stated reason for demonstrably bad legislation os to open up a path for MORE bad legislation. I'd go as far as to say the exact thought process in this post is more or less the exact reason every gun owner has decided to dig their heels in on any new laws, honestly.

Symbolic measures are complete bullshit. Absolutely nobody accepts TSA's security theater on the grounds that 'maybe making you take off your shoes is useless, but it's a step towards something better!'. Do it right when you have the opportunity or don't do it at all. Especially when you are proposing a repeat of the 1994 assault weapon ban which even at the time was recognized as wholly symbolic. How'd that go? Let's tally up exactly what the 1994 assault weapon ban did: Absolutely nothing regarding gun crime. Democrats expended all their political clout and accomplished nothing further in their efforts on gun control. Republicans were motivated in the next Congressional elections, and Democrats lost control of Congress. Gun owners were so furious they expelled the NRA's leadership and installed the hardlinders we have today. Good symbolic effort! Great job! Gold star! Let's do it again! Why shouldn't we be talking about restricting handguns? They're overwhelmingly more likely to be used in crime. They're overwhelmingly inferior for home defense. They don't have nearly the same diversity in roles and applications. Why shouldn't we be talking about ways we can right now do something meaningful and substantial to address gun violence? You're saying we don't want anything that won't immediately address the problem but there are several things we could be doing right now to immediately address the problem, so why the hell are you reaching for the long-term symbolic measure? I would sooner entertain a total ban on handguns than further restriction on assault weapons. I'm not putting my hobby above the collective interest, I'm just sick and tired of these utterly spurious arguments for totally symbolic measures when there are actual, effective things we could be doing right now to address the problem. Kindly fuck off with the amateur hour psychoanalysis.

Do you really think pro-gun people would be supportive of banning an entire class of weapons, when merely banning very specific setups referred to as "assault weapons" that can easily be circumvented gets them up in arms about people wanting to take their guns? That seems like wishful thinking to me. Sure, it would make more sense to do, but it's definitely not more achievable politically.

Apparently one of the kids at the school admitted to bullying the Kid and tried to use the shooting as a justification for her bullying. Ignore the Twitter user, it's just the only place where I have the video. https://twitter.com/Millenniel_Matt/status/978087331818242048

I didn't say a ban, I said restriction- and I absolitely think making handguns Title II firearms would be easier politically than banning assault wrapons as a whole, while having considerably more effect. More than that, I gave it as an example of something I'm willing to give up. The post I responded to is basically calling me dishonest, saying my opposition to assault weapons is actually because I'm not willing to give anything up in the name of safety. I am, if it will actually help. But handgun bans are completely beside the point: there are measures more likely to address the problem and less likely to cause completely avoidable backlash than feel-good assault weapon bans. If the goal is to pass symbolic gun control and lead to further efforts, why not start with a measure that isn't wholly symbolic and isn't likely to result in nothing further being accomplished?

What are you referring to by "restriction" then?

Can we at least agree that the US has a disproportionately large amount of shootings and firearm deaths and that something actually needs to be done because we seem to be the only first world country with this problem

good on these kids, BLM take note this is how you do it!

not to sidetrack but plenty of BLM protests have gone exactly like this they just don't catch the media unless one of their protests gets out of hand.

Absolutely yes, because it seems gun owners care more about their convenience of being able to own a weapon made for the express purpose of flinging chunks of metal at high enough velocities to rip an object apart, sometimes those objects being human, than they do about saving a human life. It seems like sometimes they care more about being able to have fun on the range, then they do about kids in school and police officers on the streets and the poor souls stuck in a gang infested neighborhood and John "Put a gun up to my head because I'm filled with so much dread" Smith. And this isn't even to mention the gun owners that go to sleep at night dreaming that someone will break into their house just so they have the chance to legally shoot someone. This fervent zero-tolerance defense of firearms is just absolutely absurd and seriously makes me wonder if humanity is worth it. Like Cigarettes said, let's clear the air here and stop getting bogged down in specifics and semantics. Gun control is not the end all be all solution to gun violence and gun-related deaths. There are many faces to the problem that all need to be dealt with than just weapons. There needs to be proper mental health care reform. The economy must be revitalized and restored, especially in low income areas so that crime is no longer a factor. The general state of the country must be improved so people don't want to put a gun up to their head. But most of all, until people can prove that they are upstanding and responsible citizens, controls on guns must be put in place. This does not mean that people are completely restricted from having access to firearms however. I don't want that, I would never want that. Hell someday I'd like to own a Mosin-Nagant or some other military surplus rifle because guns are fun and it would be nice to own a bit of history. This does not mean however, that I would never support any kind restriction on guns. Truthfully sensible gun legislation, laws like an age restriction, a waiting period, expanded background checks, reinstating of the ban on owning a gun if you're on the no-fly list, and most of all a tiered license system with a national gun registry will ensure that people who are responsible with their firearms are allowed to own them. As I said before, these are not end all be all solutions, gun violence will not disappear overnight if you implement these, but the point is that any little bit helps, any small amount has the chance to save a life, and that is so much more worth it than being minorly inconvenienced in being able to own a firearm. If gun-rights advocates put the same amount of time and energy they've spent over the last 22 years fighting gun control into the ideas and issues above, sensibly defending their gun rights, then I guarantee you the world would be a much, much, much better place.