• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Angry Joe defends AR-15s against those who want to "take guns from everyone"

Huell Babineaux

Banned
Aug 5, 2019
21
kurahador said:
Why is it people always use this kind reasoning to defend someone. "Yeah he's being an ass, but other asshole hates him too!!".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because who's the asshole is always relative. And I didn't want to defend him, but just to point out that he has his opinion and he's not aligned with one side (if you already knew this then I'm sorry, it means I just wasted some electrons of my screen).
 
Kyuuji

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
32,195
Huell Babineaux said:
Because who's the asshole is always relative. And I didn't want to defend him, but just to point out that he has his opinion and he's not aligned with one side (if you already knew this then I'm sorry, it means I just wasted some electrons of my screen).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty sure people that laugh at the concerns of the trans community while whining about virtue signalling and outrage culture are just assholes.
 
Foot

Foot

Member
Mar 10, 2019
10,885
L Thammy said:
Regarding the "Angry Joe's from Texas!" argument.


Wyoming - 195.7 guns per 1000 residents
District of Columbia - 66.4 guns per 1000 residents
Arkansas - 41.6 guns per 1000 residents
New Mexico - 40.5 guns per 1000 residents
Virginia - 30.1 guns per 1000 residents
Idaho - 24.2 guns per 1000 residents
Alabama - 20 guns per 1000 residents
Nevada - 19.5 guns per 1000 residents
Alaska - 15.2 guns per 1000 residents
Louisiana - 15.1 guns per 1000 residents
Pennsylvania / Maryland - 15 guns per 1000 residents
New Hampshire / Georgia - 14.6 guns per 1000 residents
Indiana - 14.1 guns per 1000 residents
Kentucky - 13.5 guns per 1000 residents
Utah - 12.9 guns per 1000 residents
Texas - 12.8 guns per 1000 residents
Oklahoma - 12.3 guns per 1000 residents
Colorado - 12 guns per 1000 residents
South Carolina - 11.6 guns per 1000 residents
South Dakota - 11.5 guns per 1000 residents
Oregon / Ohio - 11.4 guns per 1000 residents
Tennessee / Montana / Connecticut - 11.3 guns per 1000 residents
North Carolina - 11.1 guns per 1000 residents
Kansas - 11 guns per 1000 residents
Florida - 10.2 guns per 1000 residents
North Dakota / Minnesota - 9.5 guns per 1000 residents
West Virginia / Arizona - 9.4 guns per 1000 residents
Illinois - 9.2 guns per 1000 residents
Maine - 8.7 guns per 1000 residents
Washington - 8.6 guns per 1000 residents
Missouri - 8.5 guns per 1000 residents
Wisconsin - 7.8 guns per 1000 residents
California - 7.6 guns per 1000 residents
Nebraska - 7.4 guns per 1000 residents
Mississippi - 6.8 guns per 1000 residents
Vermont - 6.4 guns per 1000 residents
Iowa - 6.1 guns per 1000 residents
New Jersey - 5.8 guns per 1000 residents
Hawaii - 5.1 guns per 1000 residents
Massachusetts - 4.9 guns per 1000 residents
Michigan - 4.3 guns per 1000 residents
Delaware - 4.2 guns per 1000 residents
Rhode Island - 3.8 guns per 1000 residents
New York - 3.3 guns per 1000 residents


Alaska - 61.7% of population are gun owners
Arkansas - 57.9% of population are gun owners
Idaho - 56.9% of population are gun owners
West Virginia - 54.2% of population are gun owners
Wyoming - 53.8% of population are gun owners
Montana - 52.3% of population are gun owners
New Mexico - 49.9% of population are gun owners
Alabama - 48.9% of population are gun owners
North Dakota - 47.9% of population are gun owners
Hawaii - 45.1% of population are gun owners
Louisiana - 44.5% of population are gun owners
South Carolina - 44.4% of population are gun owners
Mississippi - 42.8% of population are gun owners
Kentucky - 42.4% of population are gun owners
Tennessee - 39.4% of population are gun owners
Nevada - 37.5% of population are gun owners
Minnesota - 36.7% of population are gun owners
Texas - 35.7% of population are gun owners
South Dakota - 35% of population are gun owners
Wisconsin - 34.7% of population are gun owners
Colorado - 34.3% of population are gun owners
Indiana / Iowa - 33.8% of population are gun owners
Florida - 32.5% of population are gun owners
Arizona - 32.3% of population are gun owners
Kansas - 32.2% of population are gun owners
Utah - 31.9% of population are gun owners
Georgia - 31.6% of population are gun owners
Oklahoma - 31.2% of population are gun owners
Virginia - 29.3% of population are gun owners
Vermont / Michigan - 28.8% of population are gun owners
North Carolina - 28.7% of population are gun owners
Washington - 27.7% of population are gun owners
Pennsylvania / Missouri - 27.1% of population are gun owners
Oregon - 26.6% of population are gun owners
Illinois - 26.2% of population are gun owners
Washington, D.C. - 25.9% of population are gun owners
Massachusetts / Maine - 22.6% of population are gun owners
Maryland - 20.7% of population are gun owners
Nebraska / California - 19.8% of population are gun owners
Ohio - 19.6% of population are gun owners
Connecticut - 16.6% of population are gun owners
New Hampshire - 14.4% of population are gun owners
New Jersey - 11.3% of population are gun owners
New York - 10.3% of population are gun owners
Rhode Island - 5.8% of population are gun owners
Delaware - 5.2% of population are gun owners
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yikes, chill out Wyoming.
 

Huell Babineaux

Banned
Aug 5, 2019
21
User Banned (Permanent): Dismissing Concerns of Bigotry and Trolling Over Multiple Posts in this Thread; Account in Junior Phase
Kyuuji said:
Pretty sure people that laugh at the concerns of the trans community while whining about virtue signalling and outrage culture are just assholes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...to you

And I say this because it's you that interpreted his laugh in a malicious way, you're not in his head.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
There are STILL people defending AR-15 ownership in September 2019 on a left-leaning forum


Shit is wild
 
Freedom = $1.05

Freedom = $1.05

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,713
Man must have some serious feral pig problems or feels his penis isn't of sufficient size.

Hopefully this means someone takes an ar15 to his having a thread for every fart he blows on youtube. It's bad enough that he defended shitlord boogie but now he's really showing his ass.
 
Jebusman

Jebusman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,086
Halifax, NS
Psychoward said:
There are STILL people defending AR-15 ownership in September 2019 on a left-leaning forum


Shit is wild
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gaming side is not nor has ever been left leaning. It's the problem with making a hobby the primary point of discussion. All manners of people can enjoy video games, you're going to get some people with some real shitty positions because those aren't going to come up in a typical discussion of a video game.
 
YMB

YMB

Member
Nov 6, 2017
595
Psychoward said:
There are STILL people defending AR-15 ownership in September 2019 on a left-leaning forum


Shit is wild
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At the end of the day rifles like the AR are still THE most popular single type of firearm in the country (thanks to perceptions, movies and expecially video games) and the platform is probably the best in the world for a large host of reasons. Emotional aspects of "every life matters" aside the conversation also gets muddled by statistics. The AR specifically, while showing up in some of the worst ones and being in the most amount of peoples hands than any other firearm, is still responsible for the LEAST amount of gun deaths of any type of firearm per year. Going after it specifically is going to be a hard sell.
 
Cheesy

Cheesy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,271
Mikey Jr. said:
Not familiar about guns, but are they the same?

Isn't the second one for hunting?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They are functionally, both guns have different designs, but the main thing is they're both semi automatic. This is a very common misconception, and frankly frustrating thing among the pro gun control crowd, an outright lack of understanding of the very things they wish to enforce stricter laws on, while I don't necessarily agree with Joe, I get the point he's making.
Lots of pro gun control people basically treat the AR-15 (and all other guns for that matter) like a gamer treats weapons or armor in like an RPG or something, every gun has different stats, this one does more damage than others, etc etc. It's not the gun that's deadly, it's the projectile coming out of it. A .223/5.56 round is going to do the same regardless of whether it comes out of grandpas bolt action hunting rifle or a semi auto rifle, the main difference is one can fire at a higher rate than the other.
Pro gun control people only look at appearances, many people see a traditionally shaped wood stock and think "Oh that's just a harmless hunting rifle", but a vertical grip and black color and it's suddenly the deadliest gun in existence (the AR-15 is a common hunting rifle in the US for things like Coyote and feral hogs), the reality is both are capable of doing the same amount of damage, the reason the AR-15 is so prevalent isn't because it's "more powerful" than the other, it's the same reason why the militaries of many nations have trusted AR-15 style rifles to their militaries, or the AK for other countries, because it's a design that's been around for decades and has been proven to be very reliable, there's lots of other, newer semi automatic designs out there, but people keep going back to the AR because it's one of the most proven ones.
People talk like banning the AR-15 would solve all of America's problems, but there's tons of other alternatives that would do the same amount of damage. The real answer is banning semi automatic rifles, not just the AR-15. You ban the AR-15, people will move on to the next best thing.

This is the same gun as what's pictured below the AR-15 in OP's post, just slapped into a more "tactical" stock, but to a lot of people, the one in the tactical stock is deadlier than the one in the wood stock, due to a lack of understanding.
5846.jpg


Ahsoka said:
The clip is sticking out sideways, towards the camera. The angle obscures it, probably intentionally, knowing these types.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, the magazine is inserted in the bottom just like the AR15, the rifle on the bottom, a Ruger Mini 14, is pictured without its magazine, but it is capable of accepting 30 round magazines.
Ruger-Mini-14.jpg


Tobor said:
The gun at the bottom is a variant of an M-14, an older military rifle that was replaced by the M-16, which is of course the military version of the AR-15.

Both guns are chambered in .223/5.56 and can use high capacity magazines and neither should be sold to civilians.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The bottom gun isn't an M14, but a Mini 14, the M14 used by the US Military prior to the M16 fired 7.61x51/.308 rounds, which were much larger rounds. The Mini 14 was designed by Ruger, and as the name implies, is a scaled down version of the M14, which fires 5.56.
 
Tobor

Tobor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,491
Richmond, VA
Cheesy said:
They are, this is a very common misconception, and frankly frustrating thing among the pro gun control crowd, an outright lack of understanding of the very things they wish to enforce stricter laws on, while I don't necessarily agree with Joe, I get the point he's making.
Lots of pro gun control people basically treat the AR-15 (and all other guns for that matter) like a gamer treats weapons or armor in like an RPG or something, every gun has different stats, this one does more damage than others, etc etc. It's not the gun that's deadly, it's the projectile coming out of it. A .223/5.56 round is going to do the same regardless of whether it comes out of grandpas bolt action hunting rifle or a semi auto rifle, the main difference is one can fire at a higher rate than the other.
Pro gun control people only look at appearances, many people see a traditionally shaped wood stock and think "Oh that's just a harmless hunting rifle", but a vertical grip and black color and it's suddenly the deadliest gun in existence (the AR-15 is a common hunting rifle in the US for things like Coyote and feral hogs), the reality is both are capable of doing the same amount of damage, the reason the AR-15 is so prevalent isn't because it's "more powerful" than the other, it's the same reason why the militaries of many nations have trusted AR-15 style rifles to their militaries, or the AK for other countries, because it's a design that's been around for decades and has been proven to be very reliable, there's lots of other, newer semi automatic designs out there, but people keep going back to the AR because it's one of the most proven ones.
People talk like banning the AR-15 would solve all of America's problems, but there's tons of other alternatives that would do the same amount of damage.


No, the magazine is inserted in the bottom just like the AR15, the rifle on the bottom, a Ruger Mini 14, is pictured without its magazine, but it is capable of accepting 30 round magazines.
Ruger-Mini-14.jpg



The bottom gun isn't an M14, but a Mini 14, the M14 used by the US Military prior to the M16 fired 7.61x51/.308 rounds, which were much larger. The Mini 14 was designed by Ruger, and as the name implies, is a scaled down version of the M14, which fires 5.56.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's what I meant by variant. I know exactly what the mini 14 is, but this illustrates why it's so difficult to talk about this stuff without getting into specifics.

Regardless, I am all for banning the .223/5.56 rounds altogether.
 
Cheesy

Cheesy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,271
Tobor said:
That's what I meant by variant. I know exactly what the mini 14 is, but this illustrates why it's so difficult to talk about this stuff without getting into specifics.

Regardless, I am all for banning the .223/5.56 rounds altogether.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh sorry, didn't see the "Variant" bit. The way you had it worded made it sound like you thought they were the same rifle.

As for banning the rounds, that wouldn't be a good idea. Italy does this, banning of "Military" rounds, such as 9mm pistol rounds, and I believe 5.56mm. So what do people do instead? Design a new round that's sorta like but not really 9mm and 5.56 (with the 9mm alternative being a bit more powerful than regular 9mm). There's tons and tons and tons of different rifle round designs out there that are capable of doing the same or more damage, and the modular design of the AR-15/AR-10 pattern of rifles allows it to be capable of using many of these different rounds, so you ban the round, people just invent a new one to replace it, or move on to one of the many other equally deadly rounds.
 
Baji Boxer

Baji Boxer

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,380
Ban and regulate certain features that make the AR-15 an extremely effecient killing machine. Similiar guns get regulated by default that way. Use that regulatory power the Constitution gives out government.
 

Eugene's Axe

Member
Jan 17, 2019
3,611
Oh this guy. I watched some of his videos because they appeared among my recommendations until I saw one of him in a firing range. Intant delete from my recommendations.
 
Tobor

Tobor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,491
Richmond, VA
Cheesy said:
Oh sorry, didn't see the "Variant" bit. The way you had it worded made it sound like you thought they were the same rifle.

As for banning the rounds, that wouldn't be a good idea. Italy does this, banning of "Military" rounds, such as 9mm pistol rounds, and I believe 5.56mm. So what do people do instead? Design a new round that's sorta like but not really 9mm and 5.56 (with the 9mm alternative being a bit more powerful than regular 9mm). There's tons and tons and tons of different rifle round designs out there that are capable of doing the same or more damage, and the modular design of the AR-15/AR-10 pattern of rifles allows it to be capable of using many of these different rounds, so you ban the round, people just invent a new one to replace it, or move on to one of the many other equally deadly rounds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would prefer a ban on high capacity magazines of all calibers and, frankly, anything semi-automatic, but I think banning the rounds is a good idea. They make a new round to replace it?, ban that too. We have to start somewhere.

The combo of the caliber, the semi auto actions and the high capacity mags is the problem here. A bolt action .223(which I know exists but is super niche, Ruger sells one) isn't causing a mass shooting like an AR-15 with a 30 round mag.
 

Huell Babineaux

Banned
Aug 5, 2019
21
Kyuuji said:
...
"Vapid morons who fucking complain about every god damn little letter in every word"

Yeh, nah. Think I have it down pretty good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah, I think you're being pretty disingenuous, not only you are cherrypicking a certain sentence, but you also cut the first half of it! If this is not misinformation and manipulation I don't know what is.

This is the actual quote: "from my perspective social justice is not a negative thing, it wasn't a negative thing until it's been co opted by vapid morons who fucking complain about every god damn little letter in every word"

Now, why you got offended by this? He's talking about the morons that complain about everything (and, believe me, they exist in every single part of the political spectrum) not you, or trans.

I'm against all kinds of moralists, especially the gay/trans-hating religious ones, but the ideological ones need to chill out too.


Now, about the "transphobic" part:

"there is lot of complaints about exploiting the sexuality of certain people, and the artist is like: -that's exactly what the point is. This [inaudible] is to show that the corporations are exploiting the person, the sexuality and all these other things"

So, this is somehow a bad thing?


 
Thorrgal

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,327
Rukumouru said:
Why not start with sensible gun control policies, like requiring a license which requires physical and mental health and aptitude tests, legal tests and both theoretical and practical gun tests, as well as requiring proof of sport activity and regular revisions for said license?

You may very well find it unnecessary to ban certain types of weapons if you only put weapons in general in the hands of those who are at least reasonably likely to not be homicidal maniacs. Spain has a system like this and gun violence is pretty rare.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have a gun permit in Spain, to be able to keep 2 shotguns my grandfather pass to me, and the physical and psicological test you have to pass is laughable and I only had to donit once, like 20 years ago. The after 5 years I have to renew a hunting license from whatever state I want, which is just a click on the internet, and that's it.

I think it would be more effective a ban of some.kind.

Also gun shows are a big problem, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how feasible would be a ban of those, or if it's something the states would be willing to accept
 
Musubi

Musubi

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
23,611
Except as far as I know bump-stocks are still legal and allow you to convert an AR-15 into essentially a fully automatic weapon.
 
Cheesy

Cheesy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,271
Tobor said:
I would prefer a ban on high capacity magazines of all calibers and, frankly, anything semi-automatic, but I think banning the rounds is a good idea. They make a new round to replace it?, ban that too. We have to start somewhere.

The combo of the caliber, the semi auto actions and the high capacity mags is the problem here. A bolt action .223(which I know exists but is super niche, Ruger sells one) isn't causing a mass shooting like an AR-15 with a 30 round mag.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is why I think the banning of semi automatic firearms is the way to go. Most of the guns that accept high capacity magazines aren't manual action hunting rifles. There are a handful of examples of bolt action rifles that take AR magazines, Ruger makes a couple, and Mossberg, but they're very niche. You ban semi auto rifles, you ban just about all guns capable of accepting high capacity magazines, and most people don't really want a long unwieldy magazine protruding from what's supposed to be a light and handy bolt action hunting rifle, and like you said, hunting rifles aren't what people use for mass shootings.

I still don't think banning the round is the way to go though, it has its applications in hunting smaller/medium game animals, even if an alternative round isn't designed there's already many other rounds that have been designed for hunting applications that provide similar or better performance to the .223, there's lots of options for people to choose from, it would just be a constant uphill battle, and that variety of rounds is important for hunters who are going after game of different shapes and sizes, you might say "Ban all rounds like the 556", and then hunters are now forced to use more powerful rounds that will be overkill on some animals. There's nothing about the 5.56/223 round that's special, it's just another of many different designs, the two military rounds that preceded the 5.56, the 7.62x51 and .30-06 are significantly more powerful rounds, and both still see widespread use for hunting. My grandpa still hunts with a .30-06. Any round used in a semi automatic rifle, whether it be a military designed round, or one designed for taking deer, is going to do lots of damage just by nature of being able to shoot a whole lot faster. Banning them, it won't matter what round you use in your hunting rifle, as you won't be able to shoot nearly as much before reloading, or nearly as fast.

Musubi said:
Except as far as I know bump-stocks are still legal and allow you to convert an AR-15 into essentially a fully automatic weapon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope, they were banned. It went into effect earlier this year, if not turned in you face either 10 years in prison or a $250k fine.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22750

Oct 28, 2017
13,267
holy disingenuous batman!

Never ever watching a vid he makes. Not that I did anyway.
 
Cheesy

Cheesy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,271
Dreams-Visions said:
It is the way to go and should be the end-game of any serious gun control policy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The hardest part is actually enforcing it. It goes without saying, but there's LOTS of guns in the US. People always say "It worked for Australia", but forget that despite people having to turn in their guns, there was still a large chunk of the population that just didn't turn them in, and there's lots of people in the US who would be willing to start another civil war just to keep their guns.
 
Kyle Cross

Kyle Cross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,431
I stopped watching Joe because I found him annoyingly entitled. Then found out he was a JonTron fan and celebrated his post-racism return, just like a month ago did a video with Boogie, and now this. Sure is a long list of reasons to ensure I never watch a video of his again.
 
Tobor

Tobor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,491
Richmond, VA
Cheesy said:
This is why I think the banning of semi automatic firearms is the way to go. Most of the guns that accept high capacity magazines aren't manual action hunting rifles. There are a handful of examples of bolt action rifles that take AR magazines, Ruger makes a couple, and Mossberg, but they're very niche. You ban semi auto rifles, you ban just about all guns capable of accepting high capacity magazines, and most people don't really want a long unwieldy magazine protruding from what's supposed to be a light and handy bolt action hunting rifle, and like you said, hunting rifles aren't what people use for mass shootings.

I still don't think banning the round is the way to go though, it has its applications in hunting smaller/medium game animals, even if an alternative round isn't designed there's already many other rounds that have been designed for hunting applications that provide similar or better performance to the .223, there's lots of options for people to choose from, it would just be a constant uphill battle, and that variety of rounds is important for hunters who are going after game of different shapes and sizes, you might say "Ban all rounds like the 556", and then hunters are now forced to use more powerful rounds that will be overkill on some animals. There's nothing about the 5.56/223 round that's special, it's just another of many different designs, the two military rounds that preceded the 5.56, the 7.62x51 and .30-06 are significantly more powerful rounds, and both still see widespread use for hunting. My grandpa still hunts with a .30-06. Any round used in a semi automatic rifle, whether it be a military designed round, or one designed for taking deer, is going to do lots of damage just by nature of being able to shoot a whole lot faster. Banning them, it won't matter what round you use in your hunting rifle, as you won't be able to shoot nearly as much before reloading, or nearly as fast.


Nope, they were banned. It went into effect earlier this year, if not turned in you face either 10 years in prison or a $250k fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I agree. Semi-auto action is the whole ball game. If that could be banned, the rest would theoretically fall into place. It is also clear and easy to explain and avoids idiotic whataboutism's like the argument made by dipshit Joe here.
 
Hailinel

Hailinel

Shamed a mod for a tag
Member
Oct 27, 2017
35,527
Huell Babineaux said:
What they have in Texas is "gun culture", while in Wyoming maybe they need guns to defend themselves from bears and to hunt (by the way, there's not much to hunt in Texas).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As a former Wyomingite, while there are many hunters in Wyoming, the ratio is skewed at least somewhat by the fact that Wyoming has the lowest population of any state in the country. Even Alaska has more people.
 
Dreams-Visions

Dreams-Visions

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
41,368
Miami, FL
Cheesy said:
The hardest part is actually enforcing it. It goes without saying, but there's LOTS of guns in the US. People always say "It worked for Australia", but forget that despite people having to turn in their guns, there was still a large chunk of the population that just didn't turn them in, and there's lots of people in the US who would be willing to start another civil war just to keep their guns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree. That's why I say, "end game" should be that. As in, many years down the road, with short-range and long-range plans in motion.
 
TheMadTitan

TheMadTitan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
27,235
Tobor said:
You think the guys who commit these atrocities wont get the proper licensing, whatever that is? Come on.

Semi-Auto weapons with high capacity mags and high velocity rounds exist and can be purchased by civilians. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you get good laws in place,. no, they wouldn't.

Make the qualifications extensive and the wait time significant, most people would bail out in the beginning. Those that don't will be subject to everything, giving more time to background checks, and some people will be ruled out that way.

And then allow any domestic violence issues flag people for gun removal, as well as any health flags, and so on. Most of these crimes have been committed by people the police or FBI have known about, either because they said some shit that was suspect or got arrested for domestic violence or whatnot; all things that should've had their weapons stripped from them in general.

Yeah, the end goal should be to minimize or remove guns in general, but you start by making it harder so most people don't bother going through the effort in the first place. That'd reduce the social culture around guns as less people own them so less people would be championing them, and then you can go from there.

I mean, shit, we had an elementary school shot up and it did absolutely nothing. Regardless of where you stand, we're not getting anything banned anytime soon. Work on making background checks stricter, remove stupid shit like private sales requiring no checks, remove the loopholes around gun conventions, make it damn near impossible for someone to to multiple states in a 2-4 month period, racking up gun purchases without the FBI showing up to your door wondering wtf you're doing; hell, make parents fill out that they have a firearm in their home after giving birth if you need to. That's 70% of the work right there in reducing gun ownership. The change societal norms will take care of the rest, and then you go for the bans for the final nail in the coffin if you must.

But by that point, manufacturers would've probably moved on from mass producing the things with the hardest of checks and restrictions.
 
Cheesy

Cheesy

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,271
Tobor said:
Yeah, I agree. Semi-auto action is the whole ball game. If that could be banned, the rest would theoretically fall into place. It is also clear and easy to explain and avoids idiotic whataboutism's like the argument made by dipshit Joe here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. In Canada I anticipate at some we'll have something similar to New Zealand, though as it is I think our gun laws are doing a pretty decent job. But something we have is restricted capacity for magazines. Semi auto center fire rifles are only allowed 5 rounds (though there's a couple loopholes that allow you to have 10 rounds), but when you buy a 5 round AR 15 magazine, you're really just buying a 30 round magazine that has a rivet in it to prevent it from holding more than 5, but there's really nothing stopping somebody from removing that rivet, a guy who wants to commit a mass shooting isn't gonna be like "Oh gee I better leave the rivet in, don't wanna get myself in more trouble than I'm already going to". Banning the guns that use them would solve a lot of problems.

Dreams-Visions said:
Agree. That's why I say, "end game" should be that. As in, many years down the road, with short-range and long-range plans in motion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm just glad I don't live down there, it'll be really scary if it ever happens.

Parapraxis said:
The end-game must be proper licencing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's what we have in Canada. I have my Restricted firearm license. We have two licenses here, non restricted and restricted, to get your license you have to take a safety course, pass a written and practical test, and then they do a background check when you apply, once you're a license holder a system automatically performs daily background checks on you, they look into your mental health background as well, a coworker and I got our licenses at the same time, but she took a lot longer to receive hers because of a history of PTSD.

Tobor said:
You think the guys who commit these atrocities wont get the proper licensing, whatever that is? Come on.

Semi-Auto weapons with high capacity mags and high velocity rounds exist and can be purchased by civilians. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think licensing would help some as long as there were proper systems in place to make sure not just ANYBODY could get a license, it certainly seems to be working well so far in Canada, but we also have a lot less issues up here than down there. As has been established though, a ban of semi auto rifles would be the better long term solution, maybe that on top of a licensing system?

High velocity rounds aren't really the problem. It's all basic physics, different rounds have different velocity requirements to be effective based on different bullet sizes and weights, smaller bullet sizes tend to require higher velocities, the .243 winchester is a good example of this, it's a round designed for varmint hunting that achieves very high velocity, while still having a bullet size that's not totally overkill to the kind of animals it's intended to be hunted with. The 223/556 round is actually quite small, and because of this needs to be high velocity to help stabilize it during flight, otherwise it won't perform as well. Similarly, larger rounds like .30-06 and 7.62x51 due to using larger/heavier bullets don't need as much velocity because the bullets weight assists in stabilizing it, but despite less velocity they still hit very hard, and are effective against larger game like deer and moose and the like. Why I'm against banning smaller, high velocity rounds is because of their applications in hunting, limiting options for hunting could be detrimental to the people trying to feed themselves, or the people trying to protect their farm animals from predators or what have you.

rob305 said:
What mainly makes them so deadly are the large capacity magazines. The issue is if you ban mags holding lets say more than 10 rounds people are just going to 3D print bigger ones
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The other issue too is there's already tons and tons of high capacity magazines in circulation.
 
OuterLimits

OuterLimits

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
987
Gravy Boat said:
Other than the fact that people don't want to, why would abolishing the second amendment be so difficult? Genuine question as a non American. If everyone hypothetically wanted to abolish the second amendment, what would the road blocks be?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If "everyone" wanted guns banned, it would be quite easy.

The reality is though that almost all Republican voters and even some Democrat voters would be against a complete ban.

In order for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to be changed, 3/4 of the 50 States would need to agree to it even if the Federal Government voted 2/3rds in both House/Senate to overturn.

A huge number of the 50 are Red states and would never agree to this. It would face difficulties in some Blue States as well.
 

Cokie Bear

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,944
OuterLimits said:
If "everyone" wanted guns banned, it would be quite easy.

The reality is though that almost all Republican voters and even some Democrat voters would be against a complete ban.

In order for the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution to be changed, 3/4 of the 50 States would need to agree to it even if the Federal Government voted 2/3rds in both
House/Senate to overturn.

A huge number of the 50 are Red states and would never agree to this. It would face difficulties in some Blue States as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That was sort of my point. The argument of "you can't just ban guns, because of the second amendment" are a bit pointless because the second amendment could be overturned if enough people wanted to. At least based on my understanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.