this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
85 points (85.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5938 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
85
Terror on repeat: A rare look at the devastation caused by AR-15 shootings (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 11 months ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would be really great if the gun nuts who are going to post in this thread actually read the entire article. I couldn't make it through the descriptions of death and destruction, often from children. Pictures of body bags in elementary schools, bullet holes in church pews, and video of people running for their lives: This is what "gun rights" looks like to most people today.

I would hope you could have some empathy, but based on the last 24 years of flame wars I highly doubt it.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

On the contrary... I've seen the New Zealand mosque shooting in full.

So no one gets to say "you don't get it" to me.

I came here to simply point out that focusing on a single gun is a bad idea.

This seems to be a common trait in the anti gun community.

Pretty much anything semi automatic would fill the vacuum the AR would leave immediately.

I like guns. But I'm wise enough to know they're a problem. A massive problem.

I'm also lucky enough to live in Australia, where guns have always been hard to get and the ownership of them tracked.

This tracking made getting all the semi automatics out of hands relatively easy here.

I now live in a society where an AR-15 is a 1 in a million firearm only allowed for those that can demonstrate a need for it.

What you guys gotta do is stop focusing on 1 firearm by name and focus on the actual issue.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I've also seen the mosque shooting in full.

In an ideal world, yes. All guns should be taken away. Things that can cause mass harm in the blink of an eye should absolutely not be in the hands of someone that isn't highly educated, not only about guns but educated period.

We do not live in an ideal world. For me, in the United States, we live in a world where people think that minorities are ruining their lives and everything would be better if they were killed. These people, these genuinely deplorable individuals, already have a shitload of guns. Far more than any state that restricts gun rights.

Thinking that these people will simply give up their guns without a fight would be like thinking that the Confederacy would simply sit back and let their slaves be taken away. The only difference is that the average person in Texas can have a fully automatic, 100 round mag bearing, fully kitted machine gun.

Simply saying "take away their guns" would absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, trigger the next Civil War here and it would be exponentially more bloody.

We need gun rights. Not for the sake of guns themselves, but because of the people who worship them.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Honestly can't disagree with any of that. America is too far gone and your take on education and responsibility is spot on.

Switzerland is an odd example. Literally assualt rifles in nearly every home. But a completely different civil mindset.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Demonizing a particular gun is dumb and completely misses the issue.

If it wasn't the AR-15 it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of firearm.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are right, we should just ban all guns... but let's start with the AR-15

[–] v81@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's clear you've still misunderstood me.

Let's not start with the AR-15... But yes, let's back all guns. I totally agree.

Banning 1 gun will do nothing because the next best option will take it's place immediately.

That's my point.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I understood you perfectly the first time. No one would villify an inanimate object, however of all guns legally sold in the us market, the AR-15 is by far the most efficient in killing and maiming groups of people, so yes it needs to be the first. No one said it needs to be the only one or the last one, and those who might not really want any ban on guns.

Hell, if we can use the destruction this rifle causes to ban ALL guns at once, then that would be a real miracle.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

No you don't get it. Banning 1 single type of weapon would be ineffective for a bunch of reasons that you're not ready to understand.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is just an example what firearms are made for: Killing. The AR15 is a special example, because there is no excuse "but I need this for my deer hunting!".

This thing is built and sold for one purpose: Killing people.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's particularly good at that, I won't deny, but so many other factors exist too. It's affordability, it's availability are also issues.

There are better choices for killing... They just cost more and or have limited availability.

The Kriss Vector or MP5 would be a great tool at short to intermediate range. A lot less cumbersome than an AR.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Regardless that there are "better" choices for killing - This item was designed, produced, sold, and bought to kill people. Therefor, it should not exist in the first place. That there are "better" choices is all the worse.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm with you on all but the "bought" part. Some people simply buy guns simply because shooting them can be fun and they like to shoot targets and keep them locked in a safe. Many people buy them to kill animals. They are especially well suited for dealing with the hog problems in rural areas.

Many people do buy them for self defense reasons, and a few buy them for murderous reasons, so in those cases the "bought to kill people" part stands. Im not saying people should have unfettered access to them at all, I just think it's important to be honest about their usage, and recognize the nuance to the topic.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If it wasn’t the AR-15 it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of firearm.

And if we banned guns, it would be the next most affordable, versatile, durable and reliable model of knife

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The problem with "if they don't have guns, they'll just use knives" is that knives aren't as effective at mass killing from a distance.

Suppose you have two similar mass killing attempts. In one, the person has an AR-15. In the other, they have a knife.

The AR-15 killer can kill many people from across rooms. Depending on how much ammunition they have, they can reload quickly and kill many more. People trying to run away from the killer would be quickly killed.

Meanwhile, the knife killer would need to physically stab each victim. This means that they would need to be within arm's length of their victims. If the person kept away from the killer, they would be safe (relatively speaking). People running away from the killer wouldn't be killed.

Perhaps the knife wielder could throw the knife at the fleeing victim, but this would need good aim (vs spraying an area with bullets using the AR-15) and would require the knife to end up pointy side in. If it hit them on the handle side, it would hurt, but wouldn't be fatal. Where they get stabbed would also matter. Then, there is the problem (for the killer) of having tossed away their only weapon. (Though they could have multiple knives.)

Could a knife wielding killer kill a lot of people? Yes, but it would be far less than an AR-15! wielding person.

Of course, the one thing this comparison does show is that more needs to be done besides gun control. We need to be better at identifying people likely to commit acts of violence and get them help before they snap. Any solution needs to address the gun problem AND the mental health problems that this country faces.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That, and every other time guns were removed from the equation, people didn't pick up knives instead -- they just didn't kill.

[–] thenightisdark@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I know right fun fact no genocides ever happen before the invention of gunpowder

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

Frankly mass knifings do exist, canada recently had that one where like 13 people got stabbed, then there was another one in a private school in like korea iirc, and the infamous 30+ stabbed in the chinese subway station, but yeah typically to stab more people they spread it out over a number of days/weeks/months/years instead of doing it in one event, you're correct. Not sure how much better that is when you're the one being stabbed, and being stabbed fucking sucks if you haven't had the chance to try it, but true, at least you can give your friends/peers a chance to leave you for dead instead of them also being in danger. I'd rather someone be able to shoot the would-be murderer before I'm dead though regardless of if he has a gun, a knife, or a candlestick in the kitchen.

[–] harmsy@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

And if a guy runs through a school hallway waving a knife around, he'll get a concussion from a random student's backpack bonking him in the head.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly, you can mow down a bunch of pedestrians with a truck... Europe knows this all too well.

But people here just want to demonize I specific myself of firearm.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A particular gun, yes, but there are features of the AR-15 that make it more effective. High muzzle velocity means more energy, so you tear apart organs instead of just punching a hole. Magazine-fed means you can shoot more of those high velocity rounds, and semi-automatic means your rate of fire is much higher.

Banning a specific model of firearm is stupid, but there are attributes that we can regulate to prevent the most deadly weapons from being so readily available.

Then again, if you're making this argument you probably think that living in fear of being shot in the grocery store and turning schools into supermax prisons is a perfectly acceptable compromise and this discussion will go nowhere like the last hundred times it's happened.

[–] thenightisdark@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"there are attributes that we can regulate to prevent the most deadly weapons"

Can we agree that the silencer is not one of these. All it does is protect my hearing.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-silencer

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Yes, I agree that silencers shouldn't be on the list. Even with a silencer guns are fucking loud, especially large-caliber high-velocity rounds.

[–] v81@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Your just proving your stupidity in this post.

There are other guns the have attributes similar to the AR-15, and if you that the AR away the next most popular gun will be the next issue.

I'm not defending the AR, I'm saying all guns are a problem and focusing on one is not a smart move.