660
Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
660 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2333 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.
What does that mean?
Presumably, “good” in most situations, with extensibility for specialized configurations that are both common and accessible.
The AR platform is highly customizable for different chamberings, sizes, attachments etc.
People who are "into guns" usually have at least one pistol or rifle that is built on the AR platform. ARs are great for everything from target shooting as well as hunting. Very practical.
Narrator: its a made up phrase
Aren’t all phrases made up?
Made up words? Who ulis up to these shenanigans ?
No, it's like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don't need 5 guns.
Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as "why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don't get me started on seatbelts!" It isn't even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with "tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr". I could make a case for it in home protection ...but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine....like driving a car.
/WastingBreath
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn't the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I'm sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
I'm willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I'll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
I'm very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
Yup, we both agree on requiring training and other checks to be allowed to carry a gun.
Never said it was a slam dunk, I said it has merit. It is something that happened and as someone that has a lot training and been in confrontations, tazers are not reliable (most are pain compliance tools and that is NOT viable) and good ones are bulkier than a small pistol, pepper spray is tricky and conditional (I carry it so I have an option outside my pistol or to handle aggressive animals without having to kill someone's pet), and small physical weapons (especially knives) are truly absurd to even suggest outside VERY well trained and practiced hands. She has a knife...we went to my buddy's gym and grabbed a training knife, painted the edge with pink paint, and squared off. In a well-lit room, with a count down, from the front, and alone, I took the knife and pinned her 5 out of 5 times in a row with her getting a mark on my elbow in one and the back of my arm in another (before she was so gassed out she called it). This was against me, a person whose top priority was her safety during the demonstration. I didn't throw rocks or sand at her face using the approach, I didn't punch her in the mouth shattering her teeth, I didn't stomp her kneecap, I didn't grab her knife hand and break her wrist. I suppose she could hope an attacker is slower, weaker, and never fought before so she has a chance to get some stabs in before getting killed...
Again, we agree
I don't think there is any call for "exceptionally dangerous guns". I am very pro-pistol as a self-defense tool (with training and licensing). Shotguns and M4 style weapons even have an arguable use case in home defense(open carry of any weapon, especially shotguns and "ar"s is just dumb no matter the situation)...but insane"Imma gonna fight the gubment!" weapons are a bit absurd.
ANYWAY, I think we have said our peace and we all know this topic goes nowhere every time. Hopefully the ones calling the shots can actually find a happy middle ground that we can all look at together, sigh, and say "ok, I think that should work well enough".
Can I ask as an aside, why there is this intense fear that well trained people are going to physically attack you. Mentioning throwing sand and rocks, breaking knee caps, breaking wrists.
I can understand the vague risk of a random person near you being in some state that causes violence, but what situations are so likely that you need to prepare and train like this?
I can think of some relatively outlandish scenarios where someone might be surrounded by physically superior people who occasionally not only want to hurt you but want to kill you, but in all of those I'd have to argue the best thing would be not to be around such people in the first place.
Second best would likely be that noone in that situation has a gun. Did you run drills with your friend on trying to draw the gun while within reach of the attacker? How did those turn out compared to your knife test? What happens when the attackers kill you and take your guns. Or just steal them when you are sleeping or on vacation.
We can argue the merits of guns all day, they are ultimately tools that have the potential to be used safely, but I just haven't heard any solid arguments behind the "gun ownership increases safety" group, especially when its applied to society rather than an individual.
None of that violent stuff takes training. It represents that someone looking to, in the case stated, kidnap/assault/whatever my friend would not have held back as I did. In controlled conditions where her safety was paramount to the attacker (me) AND she knew I was coming in a planned confrontation, AND she had the knife in hand...she could not use the knife to defend herself. The single most dangerous non-gun defensive option. As for the thing you mischaracterize as "intense fear", it isn't. You get in physical conflict as a spur of the moment event (drunks, arguments, etc) or as an ambush(mugging, kidnapping, murder for murder sake). In both cases, especially the second one, the one attacking you has taken your measure and chooses to agress. One can safely assume that someone ambushing you will have determined they will be in the advantage (stronger, armed, surprise). You don't live in fear of everyone being trained combatants out to get you. You prepare as best you can for the ONE time you may well lose your life because you were taken at a disadvantage. Preparing for an unarmed 8yo kid to attack you would be silly, not only because they are not a threat, but they also just wouldn't attack you.
She thought like that too. Had she clung to that, I would likely be missing her very much right now. As for me training like this...The Army had some bug up its ass about soldiers being able to defend themselves in combat. Bureaucracy... More seriously though, I prepare because it doesn't take much effort to just have to the tools on hand. Why do you buckle a seatbelt, ever crashed your car (is it out of that "intense fear" you asked about?)? I train with what tools I carry because they are exceedingly dangerous and it would be irresponsible not to (an added side note would be that if you are ever forced to rely on them, you will NOT be in a good stable mindset. You absolutely will fall back on your training. Non-practiced people have pepper sprayed themselves in panic moments...)
You sounds like you live a very safe life, I am happy to hear it. Those people can come to you. This isn't about hanging around gangs. There is not flaw in your logic of avoiding bad situations, but the argument comes back to paralleling the seatbelt comment I made earlier. "Just drive safe so you don't crash" doesn't solve the need for a seatbelt, there are other people acting in ways you can't predict.
I disagree. Her not having a gun means the person she had to shoot had his way with her. I, and I assume she, can't speak to the conditions around the shooting (ie. Was the wind low enough and going in the right direction to use pepper spray). She is trained in using a handgun. She understands retention draws. Kill me and take the gun? Then they have my gun, but I am dead. What if me having a gun stops my death and they can't steal it, or ever commit a crime again? What happens if they kill me take my ar keys and drive down a crowded sidewalk at 60mph? I get your question, but it is not as relevant as you think(it also sounds like a "why don't you just die so the off chance they grab your gun doesn't happen"... I'd rather stop the gun theft AND not die). As for the last bit, you dismiss potential aggressors, but break-ins are a concern? As you may correctly assume, I don't leave guns laying around in an insecure house. What if someone breaks in, takes my keys, and drives my car down a sidewalk at 60mph?
This gets into a pro-2a debate that I actually don't like. I hear the "an armed society is a polite society" thing all the time...but I have seen the numbers and while the logic works from one angle, it doesn't from another, and the numbers bear that out. The logic is that if anyone could be carrying a gun, people would be less likely to commit crimes. That is logically sound. However, what seems to happen is more like what I mentioned earlier...the plan changes. "Hey we are going to rob a gas station...but people might be armed...so instead of scaring people with a pistol and getting the money and running, let's drive through the front door with AR15s, spray everyone, grab what we can and run!" This is why I am very much in favor of regulated gun ownership for trained individuals. I am in favor of more regulation for more ridiculous guns too (licence to drive vs Hazmat CDL to drive a tanker truck full of hydrochloric acid). I don't think I could ever get to the point of "ban all guns" though. That truly does cause more problems (prohibition era nonsense, black markets, ratio of good/bad actors that have guns shifting dramatically towards bad).
I hope we can get to a point where there is balance between "YEEHAW ROCKETLAUNCHERS FOR ALL" and "only criminals have guns". I hate seeing every reasonable attempt at gun regulation get shot down by "it's a slippery slope", and the whole time people are losing their lives to 'badguys with guns'.
Anyway, I hope that helped clarify stuff a bit. I'm not expecting you to change sides at all, and honestly we need even more push from your side to get ANYTHING done with gun regulation.
Take care.
I dont necessarily disagree with any specific point, although I want to point out a key difference in perspective.
The seat belt analogy works for you but doesn't for me, I think.
We can both agree driving is inherently dangerous, precautions need to be taken to increase safety for all even remotely likely scenarios.
Where we differ here is that, I believe you are saying that life, or at least being part of society, is inherently dangerous so we should make precautions to increase our own safety, which leads to self protection.
I dont have the same experience or perspective, to me life and society is inherently safe. Most of the crime and violence, in my opinion, is because unfortunately crime and violence actually work well when you have no other options. I'd rather focus on the reasons people have no other options.
When you said that I must live such a safe life to feel that way, I have to say that I do agreetpo an extent but most of the reason I feel this way is essentially faith based, that other people are generally good people across the board.
I haven't had an easy life myself, but instead of it leading to what I call fear (you might call practical preparation) it led me to feel safer around people.
All of that said, I'm willing to throw out all 9f this calculus when it comes to women. I have no idea what thats like, and I imagine I would have a lot more fear and would likely be arguing much like yourself. I really dont know the answer for a woman who can't feel safe no matter where she goes.
It isn't perfect but it has its parallels to present the ideas in a relatable way. We never get into car accidents, but being buckled up the many thousands of times you drive can save you the one time you DO, and it is likely not even your fault if you are a safe driver. It even parallels the other side. A coworker said he doesn't wear a seatbelt because he got into an accident and had to watch the guy he hit scream and burn to death because he couldn't get near the car to save the guy, who's seatbelt had jammed. Instead of having a ResqMe ziptied to his headrest post, or carrying a knife (gun control, psych eval, training) to solve the burning to death (gun being more harm than good to a safe, trained user) he doesn't wear one at all (ban all guns) and is now more vulnerable to vehicular death....
I think this is a huge difference! You live very safe, and let me be honest so do I now, but others don't have that luxury. Guns in society are likely ONLY a source of potential danger for you. It makes your position reasonable. I look like I hurt people for a hobby and am as charismatic as a badger, outside of two+ guys with guns, I don't think I am high on the "in danger" scale either...but I know so many that are... Your last point there should be a huge part of the conversation. I despise seeing my side (pro-gun) say the BS line of "guns don't kill people, people do", then absolutely refusing to fund healthcare and mental health initiatives. Crime is most often a symptom and we seem to refuse to treat the disease. He needs more hospitals and safe care options, not more prisons. This line of argument is one that fuled my long journey away from conservativisim.
I have seen that they aren't. I am not one to "believe", but I know it takes just one accident without that seatbelt to ruin a lot of lives. I am jaded for sure, and I know it sounds like fear mongering, but for the time being, there ARE monsters under the bed. The girl from before (21/22 at the time) had plenty of years left to be passed around as a sex slave overseas. Obtuse but not unheard of. However, from the investigation into her attack, the police are almost certain it was either the guy killing someone for a gang initiation (usually it is a group and against a rival gang, but I guess he was a new face they were watching in one of the locals), or it was just a spur of the moment murder or rape.
I know some folks like that. I don't understand it, but you are definately not alone.
Yeah. This one really sucks, and a gun with some training really is a solution. As someone that has trained with self-defense stuff, I won't say to discard non-lethal, but if you put your life in the hands of them you must understand how very limited they are and how much they depend on your practice with them AND your ability to fight. I can't even describe how much combat-stress messes with you motor skills and ability to think, it is ABSURD. Just got pepper spray and tossed it on your keychain? Is it a mist? a jet? gel? What range? How does wind affect it, is there wind, what way is it blowing? What orientation indicators are on the container...does it have any? Are your keys in the bottom of your zipped up purse when someone jumps out from between cars while you were staring at your phone?
Ultimately, no guns with no crimes would be ideal. With crimes of passion in a world that needs a lot of fixing, regulated concealed carry handguns for people willing to train is a good seatbelt. I am against open carry of any kind, even tactically it is just stupid. I could justify carbines and shotguns for home defense and anti-wildlife use, but that isn't a hill I would die on, if they get outlawed....whatever. I don't think they should, but I won't really defend them.
Both sides are so justifiable that there really has to be a happy medium that serves both causes even if neither side it super happy bout the outcome. I just wish we could focus our energies on other things at this point.
Yeah while I might say that your friend would be better of if the gang members had no access to guns, its not the reality: they do have guns right now.
I had not really considered concealed carry as more of a temporary solution to deal with how dangerous things currently can be, either situationally or if you become a target for whatever reason.
What would you think of some sort of requirement that someone prove they have exceptional risk to be able to have one for personal defense?
I'm not against the tool outright, power imbalances exist for sure and can be absurdly weighted.
We could probably go on and on with this, I think we both agree we want responsible well-trained use, and there has to be some way to either prove it or qualify for it.
Considering even police officers mess up gun safety from time to time, we should not just assume every average person is going to be able to figure it all out on their own.
That's just dumb, bud.
Is it now? What else is it good for?
It's good for shooting small, very fast bullets. May that be hunting, target shooting or self-defense.
If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous. The would-be assassin could have done the same thing with a whole assortment of mostly equivalently performing rifles. Some just as "scary looking" black rifles, some with wooden parts.
And if they ban all those guns they should finish the job while they're at it and just ban guns, glad we agree.
Indeed, they would have to go down the route Australia went. But I don't see this happening in America any time soon.
If piles of murdered kids didn't do much to move the needle, shooting an inflammatory politician isn't going to do it. We'll see how the MAGA respond to this event or hopefully when they lose the elections. Maybe (but hopefully not) they'll act violently enough to force facing America's relationship with guns.