Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife
Ah, I see - there are zero differences between the United States and the Aussieland beyond the set of legislative differences regarding firearms and the prevalence of ownership of those firearms.
It's weird that you double-down on only caring these things happen by firearms, apparently encouraging such by knife.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
And yet, one you hold as without education or background experience appears to be more qualified to discuss this subject - let alone engage in constructive discourse - than you. That's got to chap.
It's ironic you say these things, unable to actually make any pointed criticisms of points raised and unable to defend your own bland, unsupported assertions. It's delicious you seek to deflect and commit the fallacy of attacking a presumed lack of education.
But hey - at least you've got that hypothetical appeal to authority to fall back on. Cling tightly to that as you continue to shitpost from an imagined ivory tower.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Speaking of red flags, have you gone through your own comment history and tallied up the number of times you've talked about sexually abusing children?
I always love when people highlight an outlier as some sort of justification for sweeping change while also refusing to consider any sweeping change that isn't the one they want.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings.
Ah, I see - you don't care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That's really fucked up.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
I'm not sure if you're aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
I'd be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
It once more seems you only care that suffering involved a firearm rather than actually caring about people and their suffering.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms? I have serious concerns regarding the state of your mental health if you actually entertain the notion that people should be able to sexually abuse minors.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds.
Asserting a negative - bold strategy. I'd be interested in seeing your support for such a position.
I frequently legally use standard capacity magazines at the shooting range, though, so you may have a hard time here.
More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies.
Is this one of those Works Cited: Crack Pipe moments?
What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.
Ah - so you only care about mass shootings, the vast minority of firearm violence let alone homicide.
These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.
Have you considered it may be you with the obsession, given your fixation on firearms to the complete neglect of the underlying issues of violence?
No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot
Not to interrupt what's clearly a rational take in rant form, but logically, one should address the killing rather than quibbling about the implement used.
Only because you're so unbelievably entrenched in your opinion about the validity of a thing you seek to support it using whatever you can muster and, when that fails, you fall back on hyperbole, emotional appeal, defeatism, and insult rather than consider that you may be putting your conclusion before any support.
I’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely)
I seem to have missed those - were they in the form of hyperbolic bullshit? You have provided quite a bit of that.
so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away.
I see you're working on your projection.
You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.
I'd argue I care about the issues at hand far more given my arguments for actually addressing those issues rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your narrative. You seem to be concocting quite the substitute for reality.
Nope not ERPO, opposite of that. The person that is in fear of their life with proof showing merit, can bypass the waiting period. Using proof of restraining order submission (using copies and receipt) and police report all attainable same day.
So a continuation of the pattern of when minutes count, help is only hours away commonly highlighted of law enforcement and related bureaucracy?
Brainstorming is better and trying to implement an action is better than being “all in or nothing” and nothing being done. Some ideas could be good with others being not so great.
I disagree. Implementing actions by hope alone is not likely to be ineffective and, even considering the possibility of the incredibly rare sunset provision, would unavoidably be infringements without sufficient justification.
We've already done much to understand these problems outside the scope of partisan posturing. The current issue is neither party is willing to change their position even the slightest.
Consider, for example, the items highlighted by the previous article. Blue team has addressed zero of the items aside from the last-ditch firearm measures. There's so much potential for improvement here it's hard to fathom. Some of these measures are unavoidably infringements; they're at least supported by data and analysis.
Blue team has the unique opportunity to completely turn firearms messaging against Red team, should they actually care about these issues. They can come to the table asking for these measures which actually address underlying issues and, rather than quibbling about pushback and giving up, offer compromise - that they're so absolutely confident in these measures, they're willing to admit there's no point to the NFA provisions restricting suppressors/SBRs/SBSs and no data justifying it; these measures are so effective in actually solving root issues they're willing to allow more firearms - deregulating select fire, with some sort of equitable shall-issue process. But, the restrictions come with sunset provisions - if the comprehensive solution doesn't meaningfully impact things, the restrictions, the added safety nets, etc. all go away.
Blue team suddenly becomes the only party in a decade actually promoting firearm enthusiast interests, turning that voting bloc neutral/blue. They absolutely will want these and will pressure and select representatives accordingly. Blue team also manages to pass the first significant gun control reform, social safety net expansion, community resource expansion, etc. in decades in a massive win with their supporters. Red team has nothing to lose as the sunset provision provides ample safety net for rolling things back. Everyone gets most of what they actually want and we manage to actually improve lives.
Naturally, this also entirely defangs a potent inflammatory wedge issue both parties depend on while reducing the desperation they depend on, so it'll never happen.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
Are you pretending the supreme court is not federal? Is, perhaps, devoid of authority?
You seem to be burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid that the supreme court which vacated it did so in light of a ruling which rendered the 9th circuit's ruling invalid, specifically due to Benitez' ruling.
California has appealed, as they always do. The 9th circuit may or may not accept it; it may or may not continue up to the Supreme Court.
Are you under the impression settled law is somehow sacred and fixed? That, say, there has never been any occurrence of settled law being revisited in light of better or changed understanding of an issue? Interesting.
Are you pretending the supreme court's continued establishment of precedent on an issue is meaningless?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Oh, interesting - you cannot manage to address let alone refute an argument, so you... appeal to the authority of education as proving that your unsupported position is somehow unassailable? If your law degree was somehow issued by an entity other than Bullshit University, I have serious concerns about its worth given your apparent lack of familiarity with things covered by even high school debate.
Interestingly enough, only one of us has referenced relevant materials on the matter - you wouldn't be projecting regarding your bullshit, would you?
Certainly not.
You may have had some ground to stand on there if you'd actually meaningfully engaged in the discussion and made an argument, perhaps provided actual criticism of addressed that made, but all you've managed to do is provide childish no, u!, insult, and deflection.
Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.
Fortunately, my hobby involves no harm to others and involves no items with agency or agenda of their own; it's quite impossible for my hobbies to be the cause of anyone's suffering.
I would say the county suffers from quite the violence epidemic, though, and unlike you, I actually argue for addressing it rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Are mass shootings the only form of homicide?
It's as if you keep reinforcing that you only care that violence is committed with firearms.