this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
660 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3868 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] npz@lemm.ee 50 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It seems like such a lazy non-solution. Essentially telling shooters "Hey, from now on, you can only use ALL THE OTHER GUNS" as if that solves something.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This is the problem. All banning the AR will do is drive the popularity of another platform up. There's a crapload of powerful semi-auto customizable platforms out there, it's just that the AR variant is the most popular. It's a stupid solution because it's no solution at all - and I don't mean that as a "not good enough so we should do nothing at all" thing, it's just a completely pointless solution.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Noooo you don't understand, banning pistol grips and front sight posts is totally effective! It totally didn't spawn an entire new segment of "compliant guns" that had the same level of lethality the last time we did it...

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not even sure the AR is the most popular. It may be the best seller in the US, but I'm pretty sure that the AK-47 is more popular globally, and there's absolutely no way that they will outlaw the AK-47 in the US since we manufacture them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The AK is a global weapon for sure. My commentary deals with the popularity of US gun platforms because that's the country whose laws we're talking about. So the global popularity of the AK isn't really directly relevant.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well sure, but the reason I brought it up is that I'm not entirely certain that the AK or M-16 aren't more owned in the US than the AR. AR has only been standard issue for the military since after I got out in 2004. I would wager there are far more AKs and M-16s in private hands than ARs

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The M-16 and AR-15 are the same gun barring the full auto mechanism. Armalite originally made the AR-15, sold it to Colt, who pitched it to the military, and when it was adopted, was designated the M-16. (Simplified history) So while it may not have been standard issue as the AR, it’s been around for a very long time. Obviously it’s changed up a little over time as manufacturing has changed hands, but I’m not sure if it’s worth debating what’s in private hands other than how they’re designated when they’re essentially variants of the same gun.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Gotcha, they didn't exactly go into the manufacturing history in boot when they trained us on how to use the thing, and I have had exactly 0 reasons to touch a firearm since boot.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You'd be wrong. The AR platform is the civilian version of the M-16/M-4. And the flat-top carbine length version of the M16A4, called the M4, was standard issue for infantry units being deployed since at least 1999. They were increasingly being sold to civilians in semi-auto only configurations right up to the 1994 Assault weapons ban that named them specifically. That just resulted in a bunch of AR platforms with different names that narrowly skirted the rules of the ban, called "Compliant ARs". After 2004, when the ban expired, sales of AR's seem to take off because now they can sell freely under the AR name that got a ton of publicity. And now in 2024 they're going to start selling the AR platform in Sig's new 6.8mm flavor. To be fair the Spear itself is different enough it some people may not considerate it an Armalite platform. Other would argue it's an AR-16 platform.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Technically, the AR was around before the M-16.

The M-16 is the military version of the rifle, not the other way around.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I would assume that banning them would include banning all semiautomatic long guns

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

It never has in the past. It's always come down to cosmetics and new sales of 30 round magazines. So you're left with the actual rifle and a magazine well that you're just not supposed to put certain magazines in, on the honor system...

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I clicked down through the article to see what they meant by “assault rifles like” the AR-15, but they didn’t link to any actual source describing what they meant. So I couldn’t tell you what guns are on the list.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Typically 2 or more of: pistol grip, collapsible/folding stock, barrel over x length, semiautomatic firing mechanics, magazines located outside the grip.

See the former Federal Assault Weapons Ban in place from 1994-2004. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is funny because pistols exist

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah, and the cursed AR-15 pistol. Which really hangs a light on the ridiculousness of legislating form factor instead of measurable stuff like rate of fire, or internal function. Like if we had put into law that any weapon capable of firing X number of bullets per second is a fully automatic firearm and thus banned then bump stocks wouldn't be an issue. But repeatedly we see the most asinine stuff, like banning thumbhole stocks.

[–] commandar@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is an issue that Biden has consistently refused to understand to be a political loser well before any suggestion of a decline. He's consistently vocal on it in a way that would suggest he genuinely believes it to be a winning position.

In reality, it's practically impossible to do and mostly serves to energize the right and alienate voters in states he actually needs to win. It'd literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic, but he insists on pouring fuel on the "they want to ban our guns" fire.

I have been, on the whole, positive about Biden, but this is a massive blindspot he's held for a long time.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 3 months ago

It'd literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic

Biden need only say three words to clinch the election right now: "He missed. Damnit."