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

Honestly, I don't think the majority of people would be opposed to sensible reform, it's more that this particular shooting has caused an explosion of (justified) frustration. For 2 full decades we've been doing this dance of "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!" And getting "This is a complex issue, we can't just act irrationally" in return...and of course it's a continuing cycle where nothing has been accomplished. Can you really blame people for being sick and tired of being told that something will be done, which never happens, and then having this cycle of anger and grief start all over again with the next mass shooting? Reading through the thread, I can see why an AWB may not have any real impact and as such, is meaningless legislation. On the other side of it, continuing the cycle of inaction really isn't getting us anywhere either. Really, what do we do here?

Who's an arbiter of what's neccessary? Why would you be okay with people surrendering their guns to an administration like the US government? Regardless of who's headed it over the last few decades it's goals have often strayed pretty far from the best interests of the common folk. What is an "Assault weapon"? Do you recognize the nature of the term?

How do you suggest we regulate animal pests that decimate agriculture in the south, or keep predator populations such as wolves and foxes leveled so not to attack livestock? The same way any civilized country does it where firearms are not permitted? There are more ways to kill pests than to launch bullets at them, you know.. Clearly they aren't extensive enough. The access to them kind of does add to the whole "school shooter" thing though so, I dunno, I'd say less dead kids would be a good thing, even if it's just a small decrease. But, then again, I'm not an NRA gun-nut.

I would like to welcome you to New Jersey, my home state that has one of, if not the most, restrictive gun laws in the nation. We have everything from "may issue" laws that are de facto ban on any firearm and name-listed bans of specific firearms. And yet gun crime continues. Just recently in the news they announced a statistic that about a third of gun crime in New Jersey are committed with guns from out of state. If you ban them nation wide, you will have the same issue. Criminals will get their guns from out of the country. All the while you will be preventing law-abiding citizens the same ability to defend themselves as criminals have the ability to attack.

So... why have laws at all? People will always find a way to murder eachother. Thieves are going to steal anyway. Fuck it, let's go back to the honor-system! Bring back the witch-hunt while we're at it. Laws never helped anyone anyway.

Plenty of action has been taken. It's just when that action is taken, it's over-zealous and ineffective ending up in a blowback effect that created an opening for the NRA and the like to capitalize on an issue, and condense their entire side into one point, again, in response to ineffective and poorly thought out legislation, "No.". There has to be an acknowledgement of the actual history here. I know this issue is a emotional and contentious topic, but I see it a different way right now. The right and left need to mend, and come to some common ground as the divide is too great. There is many reasons for this, and charictures that the right can point at like Dianne Fientsein types who created legislation that did nothing except harm gun owners. There's so many ideas injected into this conversation that should be though out more by the people who want to actually make a difference and make a real change. That won't come if your honest goal is to just take guns away from that group entirely. They're never, ever, ever, ever going to agree to that as it's in stark opposition to their values. Condemning them or dismissing them is not doing what many want it to do. Why the left and the right as a whole don't take different approaches is pretty clear in the end, it's a manufactured divide by media outlets, politicians, and people emotional enough to fall for it on both sides of the aisle. Honesty in discussions needs to occur just as much as compromise and for some reason everyones forgotten that compromise doesn't mean just getting your way.

If it were more effective than firearms, do you think farmers would settle for a less effective method? Car accidents happen with people who get licenses that you say are so much more extensive. Explain how an annual "gun inspection" would prevent mass shootings, or any shooting for that matter?

Are you really going to lower yourself to this kind of argument?

https://www.mirabeauwine.com/wild-boars-taking-over-france/ Farmers in France have serious issues with wild boars, and hunters kill them with guns. Pew. Pew. Damn, it's almost like there isn't a better way without using poison that also has serious collateral damage. Yes. Guns are dangerous and you think they're just plain outright bad. Step past that, don't be ignorant. Guns are used to hunt and kill animals.

No, but do I think your country has fetishized guns to the point where you can't see a world outside your borders that clearly functions perfectly fine without them? Yes! Yeah, but surely you understand the basic concept that if these licenses didn't exist there'd be a fuckload more dead people on the road? Depends on what you'd be checking for. For instance, let's make sure weapons are stored safely and out of grasp from people under 18 in, say, a gun cabinet. Someone could inspect and make sure that cabinet is actually in order. Oh wait, you're all about that whole "shit I need to get my AR-15 out so I can shoot the home invader right this instant"-thing so weapon cabinets wouldn't work out. Shoot...

This is the kind of desperation you use when you don't really have a salient argument as to why you feel what you feel. Theivery, murder, they're illegal because they're objective detractors from society. Guns are objects that are used as tools to make murder, thievery, self protection from man, or animals possible. Yes, guns prevalence IS a problem that needs to be addressed. What you are not doing by calling for the kind of action you seek is "addressing it".

I dunno, I feel like the logic of "less guns = less death" is pretty sound, because that's just kind of my experience of how the world works.

What makes an AR-15 subsantially more dangerous than a standard modern hunting rifle? I don't really care about the AR-15 as a whole, but it's another buzzword as I doubt you can qualitively define why it's special and needs special regulation(because evidence suggests handguns are the really dangerous weapons in american society) which, yes is important.

It seems to me like there are 2 main (not counting extremist) stances on this issue: "Guns are bad, we shouldn't have them, and we need to work towards reducing them and getting them out of our society" "Guns are okay and it's fine to have them, but we need to limit the ways in which they can be misused" And the argument always seems like it devolves into "I feel this way about guns and everyone should feel the same! Anyone who doesn't is wrong!" When it should be "How do we find a middle-ground compromise that is acceptable to both sides, while also having a quantifiable effect on the problem?" I'm not saying I have that compromise, but I do feel that there are far too many anti-gun advocates who completely disregard the feelings and opinions of pro-gun people and think that laws should just ignore what they want, which is why there is always such strong push back whenever this gets brought up.

If you boil down what you're talking about to the simplest points then yes, of course what you want is simple, easy, and great. But you're not being realistic. You're not actually addressing the issue. You're not getting to how that'll happen in the world we currently live in. You're just stating an ideological premise which is great, but not valuable when we have a situation where your ideological premise is going to be flatly rejected by those who do not agree. You can call them crazy, you can call them nuts, but you're not actually going to make real change possible with view points that are ineffective when enacted.

oh gee I dunno, could it be the fact you can fire a series of bullets really goddamn fast with it? https://youtu.be/O8UaDWdebMg https://youtu.be/A6h_tz7Xxrc

That's dependent on firing modes and the type of the gun. Personally, I'd say anything whatsoever that is capable of burst-fire or full-auto (even if that's due to a modifier such as a bump stock), as well any larger weapon (shotgun, rifle, carbine) that is capable of semi-auto fire or higher. In this case, a semi-auto shotgun would be assault, but a break- or pump-action shotgun or a semi-auto pistol wouldn't be. Again, I admit I'm no expert on firearms and I'm aware that the distinction can be rather complex, but there are things that I think most people would consider definitely are or definitely aren't assault weapons. For me, "assault weapon" denotes a certain number of potential life-threatening or lethal casualties within a certain period of time. What exactly that number is, I'll concede I don't have a precise answer for you.

Attacking people and telling them that they are not mentally sound does not lead people to agree with your position, it makes them want to fight you.

Well we have one side that openly wants a ban and is constantly trying to enact useless "assault weapons bans" as breadcrumbs to hold them over until they can get the real ban they've been going for, and another side that mostly fights against all that because they're paid to by the NRA.

Good, you've learned nothing and just sat there doing what you've literally always done in these threads. Don't be thoughtful, don't engage. Get mad, be indignant. I know how you react to people doing that to you, but you can utterly fail to see how what you're doing is deserving of the same behaviour. Yes, the AR-15 can fire a lot of bullets. So can a handgun. I'm not arguing for the existence of the AR-15, so you should read what i'm saying, and actually argue with what I'm saying(unlike the previous post where you snipped out the part about hunters using guns despite your previous claims they don't use guns). You are focused on something that is statistically not as big an issue as it looks to be. So your outrage over it, it just doesn't make sense when put up to the numbers. So how can I empathize with you feeling so righteous in your desire to call people crazy and nuts because you don't want to engage any further?

Yeah, no, that sounds exactly like what a mentally sound person would do. 🙄

Okay, then look we agree on something. Guns are good for eradicating animal pests that are a threat to crops and livestock, and thus the livelihoods of farmers. The rest of what you typed is irrelevant to factual evidence. Without a doubt, because cars are faaar more complicated to operate, making them more dangerous in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to drive. It does not take much effort at all to learn how a firearm works and its safety measures. It takes merely a few hours to teach, while learning to drive safely can take months. That is the purpose of a drivers license, to show you know how to operate it, not regulate who can drive it. There have been plenty of stories of people retrieving their firearms from safe places in order to thwart an intruder, though? And besides, making it law to go into someone's house to inspect something goes against the 4th amendment. By the way, kudos for putting words in my mouth that I never said with that last line. A+ debating method right there! Your point is....?

Okay then, the guns that people have now aren't assault weapons in YOUR own definition. Bump stocks are something I don't think should exist and I know there a hot button topic.

Frankly people don't need handguns either, but that's a different story. Oh, I'm sorry not enough kids have died yet for this to be considered a big issue. My bad.

You wanna stop with the fucking shitposting already?

How many times in your life have you been called crazy, and just said "You're right. I'm fucking crazy, I'm going to just side with you now". Do you even want to attempt to understand the reality that the people you're talking to honestly are people, have their own feelings and empathize with the concept of being called crazy? Why would you even get snarky, or defensive when confronted with what you're doing? Why do you refuse to be self aware of your own behaviour?

So laying down factual evidence, with cited sources and statistics, firstly constitutes "an implication", and secondly warrants acting like a child as a response?

Way to miss the point. If were to say to you "You're insane and stupid and everything you say is wrong", would you A) Decide to agree with me and change your mind B) Disregard everything I've said and become more convinced in your own beliefs This is what's being done by saying that people who don't believe in what you do are "crazy" and "nuts"

Tons and tons of kids have died. But you'd rather be snarky and say "this many died to this gun, therefore it's the evil one". When what I'm saying is handguns are used in the majority of violence across the united states and are responsible for the deaths of more kids than the gun you have selected as your flag standard in this issue, but you'd rather play snarky games than actually talk about the issue because this is just a place where you can feel like you're better than anyone who argues against you.