Caller CONFRONTS ME about guns

[@CF0RD]

This is a well-spoken caller. Perfect phone call.

[@kirkv40]

I would also say that is David wasn't really "CONFRONT"ed, more like had a DISCUSSION.

[@ItsBrandonVEVO]

@@aMAGAca is a mental illness? I agree

[@Dodgerzden]

It would be even more perfect if the caller was from Ukraine.

[@nc7537]

@@aMAGAca Trump for prison 2024 :)

[@reuben.x.herrera1930]

​@@aMAGAcaExactly! MAKE ATTORNEYS GET ATTORNEYS!

[@JonLoeffler62]

Wonderful conversation. Glad to see an actual discussion on the topic

[@philosothink]

we need more cross party rational debate. I was blessed with a Nixonian father with a Carterian fishing buddy. They believed in rational debate, and could drop a hot topic instantly to grab a net for the other. There was never a single instance of "well, let's agree to disagree" instead, they'd bow out with "I've got to weigh this all out and come back to it." or "I need to think about it more, you might be right." In my 7-9yr old view, the Carterian views were more logical. But they were never impolite and death ended the friendship, not some orange politician.

[@spencer_jackson542]

I don’t think he “confronted you”

[@Blackjack_MD]

Not really a confrontation, was it? Just a civil and well-articulated discussion.

[@tedsteiner]

He's just clickbaiting. It's hard not being a slave to the algorithm.

[@Blackjack_MD]

@@tedsteiner I know, but I wish he wouldn't.

[@philosothink]

it's a growing trend I think. I'm calling it the Trump Rebound

[@abbyb6103]

I actually find his captions hilarious. 😅

[@tjm9737]

If that was confrontational, pakman is more than fragile.

[@israelbenitez6346]

I've never seen the "2nd Amendment issue" addressed more articulately or objectively...bravo David, I would assume a VAST majority of both Democrats and Republicans would agree with the sentiment you expressed...run for office

[@biglongcadillac]

Pakman 2032

[@SupremeJarJar]

Unfortunately he can't be president. But could be a gov senator etc

[@LoveOldMusic808]

The 2nd Amendment (2A) was made to arm the members of the states’ militias (States’ National Guard) so they could stop civil uprisings (Shays’ Rebellion 1786). For over 200 years this is how the 2A was interpreted. In the late 1970's the NRA started pushing the false idea that the 2A was a right for everyone to own firearms to increase gun sales. The Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008) included private citizens with the right to bear arms as a constitutional right. After that some Courts gave private citizens the right to open-carry firearms and recently the right to conceal-carry firearms. Now gun deaths in the U.S. have skyrocketed, we need to bring the 2A back to its original purpose.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Objectively? Someone from the middle would at least be informed on what they are trying to lecture against other people about. Pakman doesn't even know what he is talking about. His premise doesn't match the statistics. He even admits it when he says to the effect that we should do something even if said firearms are not typically used in crime. That is ridiculous and that is why people don't listen to turds that blatlantly make up stuff about guns. If you want to convince others then you better know your stuff. Pakman doesn't know his stuff.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

He's a window licker

[@steveknott4255]

I live in the U.K.and I have to tell you it's nice not having to worry about being shot .I can argue with strangers go to the shops go to school and work without being terrified that some random is going to go on the rampage with an arsenal of legally bought weapons of war .

[@freevent28]

Yes, also mass shooting about 1 every 2 decades not every week.

[@samizdat113]

Don't care

[@Boredasfuck29]

All firearms are weapons of war. That's literally why they were created in the first place. This also applies to many other types of weapons. If I buy a katana from the town fair, does that not make me an owner of a "weapon of war?"

[@stevelaw3886]

​@@samizdat113thanks for highlighting one reason Americans are renowned for their ignorance.

[@stevelaw3886]

It's amazing our police can function without access to weapons. US cops apparently have to execute more one US citizen every 6 hours to maintain law & order

[@teresatano193]

CONFRONTS YOU? No he didn't..with all due respect.

[@donaldjones8920]

Enjoyed the exchange, and I don't see why David needed to put "CONTFRONTS ME about guns" in the video title. To get more people to watch? I don't know, but from my viewpoint, there was NO CONFRONTATION whatsoever. This was one of the most respectful discussions I have heard.

[@marvinmartin4692]

I served our nation, I got rid of all my guns. Only reason being I don’t want to be a prisoner of fear. When you cut thru all the justification’s, it always boils down to fear! And only fear! And they are living in a prison of there own making!

[@yoyo6314]

I applaud you for serving but it's really less about fear and more about common sense, you'd know better than most people that there are those who'd wanna hurt others by any means necessary.

[@marvinmartin4692]

Just another justification. It’s still comes back to fear. Fear of the bad guy, robber, you name it! Still about fear.

[@demetricorcovelos1114]

The guns I have are mostly to get out & use for target practice & keep my eye but eventually I'll either inherit or buy for deer & elk & most likely before that for quail duck & rabbit (but I can still get rabbit with a .22 just not as fast anymore) & I'm sure there are others like myself unfortunately the idiots that are vocal about their guns are who constantly talk about protecting themselves & yes they are being controlled by fear & I find it sad they can't seem to think for themselves & get away from that fear

[@biglongcadillac]

Thank you for your service

[@JoeyBFromScranton]

The only fear I have is leaving my house without my gun.

[@Muggashyte]

Just ban the ammunition. The 2A says nothing about a right to bear ammo.

[@teresatano193]

Exactly.

[@WeAreInfinite8]

The answer may actually be Black Powder/Gun Powder control. Because people can, if they're determined, 3D print functional guns. People can also manufacture bullets if they have access to Gun Powder. Take away the gun powder, then you have somewhat effective gun control. I say somewhat, because this doesn't mean gunpowder can't be found through shady sources (or bullets for that matter). Nor would it stop a more creative individual from building other types of guns that don't need Black Powder. But, it might make a noticeable dent in gun related crimes after a few decades.

[@trollpolice]

Nice try commie, according to bruen you need to show historical evidence for banning ammo

[@josuebarboza9809]

The freedom of speech says nothing of comment on KZbin. Let's ban you.

[@philosothink]

Because when you do, no one can ever make some from scratch, make a pipe pistol and walk into some public place and wrongfully shoot 1 person with it. RE: Shenzo Abe I know y'all want the guns to be some demon you can sprinkle holy water on, vanish it, and make crime go away, but that's a magical hope. They're just a tool, which can be improvised. Can we take a break from trying to figure out what to ban, and just agree that killing people is crazy, and there's way too much crazy in America. We need national healthcare, far more than we need a ban on bullets. When I was young, i walked past pickup trucks that had shotguns and rifles hanging up, unlocked, in gun racks in the rear window of the cab, every day I drove to highschool, as I parked out past the rednecks. There was never a school shooting. But this was early 80s. Reagan hadn't gutshot our nations mental healthcare system, shambles that it was. I mean, I"m pretty sure that suicides will dramatically drop, with a national mental healthcare program. I think a lot of school shootings will be avoided, with a full counseling staff complete with a school child psychologist, far more effectively than banning assault weapons alone or even in conjunction with the 21+ laws. I believe many employee shootings will be avoided with a real mental healthcare system that doesn't hand people a bottle of pills and a pistol, as their go-to recipe for solving depression. Of course I'm crazy, I think it's very likely that everyone in America needs therapy. I think we're all tramuatized by Capitalism, of all things. For example, a Gun industry hopped up on Capitalism, does everything and anything it can to do maximize volume and margins. A mental healthcare system hopped up on capitalism, seeks a business model were the maximum price is charged for the least services. This turns out to be, selling a fraction of a cent's worth of active ingredients, in pills that "cost" 5-5,000 each, and almost entirely lacks in-person time with a mental health professional. These two things together, are a recipe for what we're debating under this video and what's happening around the nation. We all need mental healthcare, especially those crazy mf's that keep shooting people. Most of them needed therapy long before they ever got damaged enough to kill.

[@WaitingtoHit]

Woah, the confrontation of the century!!!

[@Very_negative]

I’m a lefty! I agree with all of the reform but… Most guns are semi-automatic. So getting rid of a gun based on its model, won’t do much. I feel like we should drop that talking point and work on reforming gun laws with age, background, and waiting. Banning a specific model won’t do much. IMO

[@philosothink]

you're absolutely correct. The last "Assault Weapon Ban" was a faux ban because they did it this way. They banned AR-15 models with flash suppressors, folding stocks, bayonette lugs, etc. Gunmakers just stopped making the combat versions with all the accessories, and only made "sporter" versions. Stripped down would be a better description. The AR-15 was for sale throughout the period of the ban, they just lacked flash suppressors, shipped with 10 round magazines and standard stocks. The law should have been labeled, "The American Firearms Manufacturers Protection Act". It banned all imports, by nation or origin on the grounds that there were to many AK variants to list... Uzi's and Mac 10's were still legal throughout, as were high capacity magazines. They just had to be manufactured before the ban went into effect. So they all got busy, fired up 3 shifts, and made a 10yr supply of them. At no time during the ban on firearm magazines over 10 rounds, could you not purchase 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, 100 and even higher capacity magazines for not only the AR-15, but also AK-47's, Mini-14's and several other firearm models. Only one thing changed, well two. The cost to manufacture the base model AR-15 decreased significantly, but more importantly to the gun companies, the prices and the demand, went up, and up, and up, and up. Every time the "Democrats" came after their guns, they sold more. Back when I was a gun nut, most of us didn't want an AR-15, and we kinda felt like the guys who had one and wanted a dozen were probably a bit off. The banning culture of the left, popularized a fringe firearm into the mainstream. Most people do not know this, and many get angry with you when you tell them, so, wield this knowledge carefully my friend. Just watch what happens if you don't believe me. I'm not going to bother to respond to them, any more than they're going to go google something as simple as "annual sales figures for AR-15" to find out that indeed, sales did spike because of the ban. Instead, they'll show up armed with feelings and things they've heard their favorite host say. But the truth is, Democrats are lying when they claim to have ever banned assault weapons in America. They were always on the shelves. My best guess is that they worked in conjunction with Republicans with some you scratch my back, I'll pretend to ban guns with you deal. You can say you did, and my people, when they go to the gun store, will think I was a genius, for making this loophole for them, because the guns will still be there on the shelves, they just have to pay more. Win, Win, Win. Right?

[@HalfCrazy520]

@@philosothink Agree... and I'm a "gun guy". Magazine capacity limits are stupid too, and the wrong hill for sensible gun control to die on. It doesn't matter if I have a 30-round magazine or three-10-round magazines... and here's why... 4 shots, 3 reloads, 3.02 seconds: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHvLiaOroLqJlbs It's not as if when you run out, refilling the magazine with loose rounds is required. The one thing I am in favor of, as an avid shooter and carry permit holder, is some sort of permitting and training requirements to carry a handgun. I feel that a person needs to understand the laws concerning use of force, the responsibility that comes with being armed, and be able to demonstrate safe and proficient use of a handgun before they can walk around with a loaded pistol. I had to qualify for my permit by shooting what is basically the FBI Agent qualification course... but in some states people are free to carry a pistol at will who have never fired even a full box of 50 rounds thru that pistol... When I see someone with a gun on them, I feel better knowing they had 16 hours of classroom training and had to pass a shooting qualification.

[@HalfCrazy520]

Technically, a revolver is semi-automatic.... fires once each time the trigger is pulled, right?

[@rickybobby5153]

@@HalfCrazy520volvers are not considered semi automatic. The cylinder is turned by the user pulling the trigger. There’s nothing automatic or semi automatic about it. For it to be classed as semi automatic the gun needs to chamber another round automatically under its own energy. The classification of semi automatic is that it only performs this automatic rechamber once per trigger pull.

[@HalfCrazy520]

@@rickybobby5153 I know... All I was saying is that the argument could be made.

[@G274Me]

It it a valid argument though; define assault weapon.

[@kevinsmarts9953]

The government did this previously and it was a bit odd iirc. Something about semi-auto fire and length of gun plus ammo capacity, but effectively it was semi-auto rifles.

[@johnherring4394]

There is no reason for a civilian to need a high capacity weapon. If you can't defend your home with a shotgun, there's something wrong with you.

[@johnherring4394]

@@sergeant_salty That's why you have a military and a national guard

[@ghostdogsmith4447]

​@@aMAGAca2 week old account sweetheart? Looks like KZbin used Thor's hammer on your old account 😂

[@yoyo6314]

@@johnherring4394 Also the police but you lefties defunded em.

[@johnherring4394]

@@aMAGAca Yes you would be proud of that

[@johnherring4394]

@@yoyo6314 That is literally not a thing

[@efficiencygaming3494]

One thing that needs to be discussed more is probably the main motivation behind gun violence - fear. Fear is the engine that drives gun sales and mass shootings, whether it be fear of a "tyrannical government", anti-gun legislation, criminals, liberals, immigrants, people of color, or anything else. The constant fearmongering by politicians does nothing to solve the gun problem in America.

[@Boredasfuck29]

Fear is also the engine that drives calls for gun restrictions and bans. Are those not driven by the fear of mass shootings? Is fear always irrational in your opinion?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

And here I thought the majority of violent crimes were committed by those with gang/drug affiliations. What does fear mongering have to do with gangs or drugs? What mass shootings have been committed under the claim of a tyrannical government? Majority of mass shooting depending on how you define it overwhelmingly have to do with gang/drug affiliated persons as well. They overwhelmingly occur with handguns. Doesn't seem to be too effective to address a tyrannical government if you target a whole bunch of innocent people rather the people that have powder to levy against you. Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[@efficiencygaming3494]

@@1911GreaterThanALL To answer your first question, look to some of the rhetoric used by Trump in his early campaign speeches. His infamous announcement speech ("They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime...") sought to instill xenophobia in his voter base by tying Mexican immigrants to criminal activity. A very similar type of anti-immigrant sentiment was what motivated the perpetrator of the 2019 El Paso mass shooting. As for the "tyrannical government", I've seen it used as a common trope among gun enthusiasts, Second Amendment fanatics, and other gun culture figures. The idea of the US government coming to take away people's guns continues to be a bugbear among certain gun owners despite the fact that the right has been repeating it over and over for quite a few decades now. I will admit that I have not seen a mass shooting explicitly motivated by fear of an overreaching government, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Finally, I wanted to point out that the purpose of my original comment was only to state that fear of threats (real or imaginary) should be a factor to consider when fighting gun violence. In order to do that, I think Americans need to be told the truth regarding the amount of violence that goes on in this country, ambiguous language like "assault weapon" needs to be phased out of official use, and politicians need to kept honest and held responsible for any inflammatory language that may excite those who are eager to use their guns.

[@aabidamn]

"The 2nd Amendment as the last resort to fight against a tyrannical government," is the go to talking point for GOP gun nuts whenever stricter gun laws are brought into discussion. The irony is that when the time actually came to practice that talking point/philosophy on January 6th, 2021, they sided with the tyrant.

[@LoveOldMusic808]

The 2A was made to arm the states' militias (National Guard) to stop civil uprisings. The Idea that the government would put something in its constitution let people forcibly overthrow the government is insane. There are mentions of what will happen to people who commit treason in the constitution.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

What part of Jan 6th was "last ditch"? Also if you think a few people arrested with firearms means gun nuts of the GOP then you have no idea about the number of people that subscribe to the philosophy and purpose of the second amendment. You just look like a fool attempting to make random stupid people the same as typical GOP members. It isn't true. Also it isn't a talking point. It is the literal purpose of the second amendment. The amendment was NOT created for the protection of firearms for the purpose of SPORTING USE.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

Lmao!!!!!! That was a mostly peaceful protest. Way more peaceful than any leftwing protest.

[@qb6412]

I'm a straight male but gosh darnit David sure looks good in that button down.

[@tedsteiner]

I'm secure enough in my masculinity to say David's just a handsome dude lol

[@JoeyBFromScranton]

Must be the water you're drinking thats making turning you gay 😂😂😂

[@biglongcadillac]

But where's that famous 'Political Cowlick '???

[@kallen868]

​@@biglongcadillacVery cute!😍

[@sociologynut8033]

He's a Porteño. They are famous for smooth operator personas with handsome looks.

[@Betleyman7853]

I live in the UK, we have very strict gun control. I have never in my 70 years felt afraid of being shot or even thought about the possibility of someone threatening me with a gun. That is freedom to me

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

I have been threatened more with edged weapons or blunt instruments more than firearms. I have lived in the U.S. for a long time and have already used firearms in my own defense. Without said firearms I would be going up against multiple attackers in one example or a singular attacker that was significantly bigger than me. In both cases I won and prevail against the tyrannical element - in this case small time criminals. I would much prefer that rather than being at the mercy of my attackers. Attempting to implement U.K. gun controls would be literally impossible for a variety of reasons. It simply isn't an option. If people want U.K. gun controls or something similar then pick and move. It shows people really aren't serious. Seems like if you were legitimately in fear of your life you would simply move.

[@buzza2077]

I have lived in my state for 45 years and never once dealt threatened or scared of a gun. So what's your point?

[@Betleyman7853]

@@buzza2077 no point to make, just a comment.

[@sethmann6397]

Not sure this guy "confronted" David, since they mostly agreed.

[@FtanmoOfEtheirys]

Gun owner here with a CCL: I have no issue with banning assault weapons. I would be totally fine with a country where we are limited to 10 rounds in a semi-auto pistol, and a complete ban (no grandfathering) of semi auto rifles except those with built in magazines of 6 rounds or less capacity.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

That's nice. Move to Cuba

[@FtanmoOfEtheirys]

@@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT How very "American" of you to say that.

[@FtanmoOfEtheirys]

@@whyamimrpink78 Well if you had asked me 20 years ago during the AWB I would have said it was fine as it was then. Then it sunsets and now we see mass killings using AR-15s and pistols with larger capacity magazines way too often.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

@@FtanmoOfEtheirys You do realize that the "AWB" of 94 really did nothing, right? You could still buy an AR-15 during the ban, it just lacked certain unnecessary characteristics like a pistol grip. 🤷‍♂️ That ban did nothing, and it was unconstitutional to boot. The Federal government doesn't have that authority.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

@@FtanmoOfEtheirys I'm sorry, but the left wants to take us down the road of Cuba, Venezuela, etc. Instead of ruining this country, why don't they just leave?

[@thomastoolcompanyllc.7349]

Why restrict law abiding people who will never hurt anyone?? I don't understand this? And if you look at other places that have done this criminals will only turn to other ways to kill. Knives, cars, vans and so on..

[@BobPagani]

Since knives are incredibly easy to get, why do we see so many gun deaths? There's no restriction on any size of knife, no waiting time, etc.

[@NoLoveLostNJ]

This! It amazes how they think more gun control will stop criminals from getting guns.

[@NoLoveLostNJ]

@@BobPagani There are several restrictions on knives depending on the state you are in. In NJ several knives are banned, please do research before making an uneducated comment. I think you can figure out why criminals prefer guns....

[@kevinsmarts9953]

I've never crashed my car but I still wear a seat belt. I've never abducted children but I still don't park my panel van with "Free puppies" written down the side outside of schools. Its about respecting others in your society, something people once did out of the goodness of their heart.

[@jamesbianco7805]

​@kevinsmarts9953 correct. There were more firearm owners 70 years ago but no where near the amount of shootings. I blame it on the decay of western society.

[@bicofire7390]

you would ban an AR15 because you think they are more deadly or scary you clearly dont understand firearms smh

[@toronto_peter]

Completely misleading headline. This wasn’t a “confrontation” at all.

[@joeschmoe5107]

I have owned guns and been a hunter for 45 years and I know what an assault rifle is.

[@MarkGibbens-uj5jt]

What is it?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

What is it?

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

All I have are defense and hunting rifles.

[@malcolmjelani3588]

My uncle was a vietnam vet and he didn't allow guns in his house , he didn't worship guns as a false idol, he also told me he would never hold a gun again for the rest of his life.

[@philosothink]

can you see that, even though this is a touching, personal story, that the particular individual perhaps isn't the best person to be making decisions about gun ownership of other people, any more than say, someone who is deathly afraid of dogs, because they once had a very, very bad experience with dogs, in charge of deciding who gets to have dogs? The mere sight of a gun probably set him off in ways we can never understand. He may have been struggling with a strong desire to fire just one more bullet, a problem many vets struggle with. I bet if he'd instead been, a Japanese person, and been interred in a camp by his government, he'd have a far different viewpoint. Every Asian man I've ever known who naturalized as an American citizen, immediately purchased a gun after getting their citizenship... granted it is a small sample, but I did live in California at the time, so it is in a liberal state. Do you equate gun ownership with holding guns as a false idol? Is a cell phone a false idol? What about the previously sexually abused woman, who's taken courses on personal defense, and is both skilled and capable with her firearm, does she see it as a false idol, or is it a defense tool? Most gun owners seldom think about their guns, which is a huge part of the problem, it's how kids wind up with them most of the time, they do not idolize them. Surely not as much as most of us do money.

[@malcolmjelani3588]

@@philosothink can you shorten this up a bit?

[@jamesarnold7253]

​@@philosothink the simple argument is that Japanese people and sexually abused people exist in other countries and don't want/need guns. You really don't seem to understand how specific to the USA this issue is as far as developed countries are concerned

[@philosothink]

This is a strong counterpoint. But, if you could speak to the individuals, and if you could present them with the imaginary scenario where they lived in America, they wish they could have one. I'm pretty sure most everyone would rather murder their attacker, than be sexually assaulted and allow the perpetrator to continue his trade on other victims. Few people are so morally opposed to murder, as to ascribe to an "accept assault" mindset to cope with it. I think most everyone else in society, would rather the perpetrators were eliminated from the gene pool. I was into shooting in the early 80's and i'm rather talkative by nature. If I feel like you have an interesting story, I'm liable to try to get you to tell it. Through work and play I became acquainted with, and target shot with 4 separate Asian gentlemen who were not yet citizens. They would rent guns at the range to shoot, or shoot other people's guns there. As soon as they got citizenship, they bought everything they could afford. One South Vietnamese, one from Taiwan and his wife, both were owners and shooters but I never shot with or became acquainted with the wife. Two men from the Philippines that were cousins found out my anecdotal sample. I'm aware my sample is biased because it's "Of asians who shoot at gun clubs" and does not represent the typical asian person. The three men from Inda that I was friends with, did NOT get guns, and were against them publicly. I believe they were Sikh? They owned a convenience store, and never once spoke of getting or bringing or even wishing they had a gun in the store. Not even after I was robbed at gunpoint, well attempted robbery. I refused to do anything for him and told him he'd better not miss. Never seen a .25ACP shake so much. I cannot imagine NOT eating cows walking around eating the neighborhood while I started to death, so It's understandable to me, why I cannot understand their dedication to nonviolence. I fully comprehend that America isn't like everywhere else. In my experience the 1st generation Americans had better gun ethic than a lot of Americans. Gun safes, trigger locks, etc. They took the legislation around them, more seriously. The reason other people do not think first that they should have had a gun, or should get one, after physical abuse, is because there is no tradition of personal weapon ownership in those cultures. The Japanese culture was disarmed for easy oppression hundreds of years ago, and they've been that way since. Japan is a fine example of how Gun Control cannot prevent maniacs with a murderous desire, it can merely hinder them. Shinzo Abe is my point of reference here. I've not been out of the USA, so of course I cannot speak with any authority on the matter, I must use my logic to come to a conclusion, and external points of data. From this starting point, I would presume that the only countries in which you'll find people who think a pistol is the answer to protecting themselves from physical violence, will be nations with long histories of personal gun ownership and a public firearm sales network AND some kind of RIGHT to self defense codified in their law. Finland would be a good example maybe. Somalia maybe on the opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine that the other key player is the per capita incidence of sexual assault in that country/culture, and are women counted into the gun owning community or have the same rights as men. I fully agree with you that America among nations, has a unique situation with firearms. It's so unique, that it's difficult to make a meaningful comparison to other nations. What I'm waiting for is all of our Militia members to get down to the business of regulating their membership! A well regulated militia does not contain school shooters. The only way to stop a mass shooter in America is to get that person into counseling and "fix" them before they shoot. Depriving them of a 30 round magazine just changes the body count, RIP Shinzo Abe. He was laid low double barreled pipe pistol if I'm not mistaken. Something you can build from dumpster diving.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Could you actually get to the point and stop waffling pointlessly on? Just because 1 person didn't like guns doesn't equate to said disliked item to be universally prohibited by default. That implication is stupid and if applied to other things it makes that argument even more stupid.

[@ChitChat]

I may disagree with many of these points, but this is the most civil and rational discussion I've ever seen on the subject and wish there was more of this.

[@chadfriesen1858]

Lol for anyone that says just ban ammo. Ammo and body armor are included in arms. Magazines , knives. You might be able to ban tanks and planes but the load out of the average us soldier is basically allowed under the second amendment. And the load out is an ar rifle with 7 30 round magazines for 210 rounds on them. In 1776 any citizen was allowed to be in a militia and it was their choice the government couldn’t say they couldn’t belong to one.

[@kevinpeterson3830]

There are restrictions on high capacity magazines in certain parts of the US or local jurisdictions

[@MisterTwister88]

Pointless

[@blackmage471]

Whenever a politician proposes "weapon assault ban," or "ban the AR-15," take their word with a grain of salt. Their heart might be in the right place, but they may not know enough to get by the republican and NRA lawyers who will use semantics to their advantage. And if the AR15 did get banned, then shooters will simply use a different firearm, possibly one that uses 7.62mm rounds, which are far more deadly. An AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle." AR stands for ArmaLite, and it is a light, semi-automatic modern sporting rifle. It does not possess full automatic or burst fire capabilities. People like the AR15 because it's easily customizable, and it looks like an M16. The latter reason is very telling about nationalism and gun culture in the US. "Assault weapon" is a technicality-ignorant term people use to describe any gun that looks like it would be used by the military. *But what firearm couldn't be used by the military?* If it's pink, it shouldn't be that color to begin with, because it can easily be mistaken for a toy. The military absolutely could use AR15s, and virtually any firearm in existence. It's what guns were invented for. There are "assault rifles," such as the AK47 and M16, and those weapons are not readily available for sale to civilians due to the high price and certain state laws. Which points to the simple fact that gun control works. If it works on assault rifles, it would work for any kind of firearm, if done correctly.

[@buckyc.9069]

One of the few things Rush Limbaugh ever said that I agree with, is that the military has two main functions." To kill people and break things". So why does the Civil population need military grade weapons in the first place? Call me ignorant.( You will anyway), but I just don't get it.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

You missed a few things. Research NFA of 1934.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@buckyc.9069 "why does the Civil population need military grade weapons in the first place?" Why do police need military grade weapons?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@buckyc.9069 Also define military grade.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@buckyc.9069because it's "necessary to the security of a FREE state."

[@battlestarnomore]

Bullets should cost $10,000 dollars each.

[@someoneelse7724]

They already do

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Thank you for making me a billionaire.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

The bad thing about attempting to do firearms bans is that you would have to quantify that under the context of text, history, tradition according to the SCOTUS ruling under Bruen. Point to a firearms ban during the times of 1776 - 1868. Keep in mind that literal naval cannons were confirmed as being proper for regular people to have according to letters written asking for clarification between a privateer and one of the founders. I don't think a firearms ban is going to fly under the Bruen standard.

[@Nonquack]

Are you seriously making the case that the fear of something is reason to pass laws addressing that?

[@Kelly--]

one thing i think that shows these efficient guns are a big culprit, is to just pick out a handful of stories and notice what they prefer. and notice the outcomes. it seems they like some kind of rifle that can shoot off a lot of rounds. if these kind of guns were not any worse or faster than others, why do the killers usually prefer assault guns. it's easy to see why then tend to make shootings worse, and why they are often chosen for a shooting

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Except mass shooters statistically prefer handguns.....

[@philosothink]

when performing a job you want the most efficient tool for the job. Unfortunately a high capacity light carbine/rifle is the best option for this. If you were in a squirt gun fight, would you get the supersoaker or the little pistol? Sorry for the trivial comparison, but it's a good parallel analogy. Believe it or not, in the gun owning community, before the Left went hard after assault weapons, they were a fringe element, in the gun culture. We viewed the assault weapons guys, as the gun nuts, and we were just aficionados. At gun shows, only a few booths featured AR-15's and AK-47s. Google sales figures for the AR-15 and you'll find, Democrats popularized the weapon with their rhetoric around it. It used to be viewed as too much gun, for anything other than wasting ammo and spending all your beer money on lead. That all changed with the Faux Assault Weapon Ban. They banned things by model number and accessories, so the gun makers modified the production to fit within the guidelines, and the AR-15 was on store shelves for the duration of the ban. They were cheaper to make, and cost more. No one wants to acknowledge the correlation in the decline of the middle and lower classes financial situation, and the mass shooting curve. Our nation is descending into oligarchy and The People are going mad.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@philosothink "when performing a job you want the most efficient tool for the job. Unfortunately a high capacity light carbine/rifle is the best option for this. " If it is the best option why do mass shooters prefer to use handguns then? "Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories A troubled past and leaked plans are common to those who take part in mass shootings. Most use handguns, NIJ-supported research shows."

[@danihesslinger7968]

From Europe/Germany: I think the US is in a vicious circle of fear/paranoia, which increases the sale of firearms. And yet, if you look at it, your neighbor or an innocent teen approaching the wrong car (and let's not forget the mass shootings) or a black kid ringing your door bell are the common victim. Hardly heard of a true burglar or robber being shot by a civilian. (and as to burglars, most of them are not so stupid as to aggravate their case by being armed - lock your bedroom and claim insurance😃 Here, if you shot a burglar, you would end up in a criminal court of law). Do not get me wrong: as a young girl I enjoyed shooting for the hand-eye coordination and resulting pride, but guns could be lent out at the firing range. And hunters over here have to go through a minimum 3-week intensive training course, which includes not only firearms, but knowledge of wildlife, laws and ecosystems, before they can even apply for a rifle. And then we have the so-called "Schützenvereine", local, traditional shooting clubs (about 200 years old) that hold parades and shooting competitions in costumes once a year for public fun. BUT THAT IS IT. The average citizen does not get a gun, and s/he does not need one. And we feel quite relaxed with that.

[@user-sb8rv4ke6w]

Please stop misrepresenting Germany as this gun control utopia. IPSC and dynamic shooting are alive and well. We have nothing to do with the uniformed traditionalists holding parades - and neither do we want to. I own multiple assault rifles. As can anyone, because gun control doesn't work. It has never worked and will never work. There are 20 million black market firearms in circulation, more than twice the amount of legally owned guns. That's the result of the gun control measures you are praising here. The entire system is a complete and utter failure and in desperate need of reform.

[@Fuego-s8i]

The thing about it is is you only hear what the American media wants you to hear. American media has a lot of propaganda behind it. Whether your on one side or the other most of what your being told is targeted to fit the narrative they want to push.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Superb! Have people that want all of that stuff move to your country. If they think it is superior then have them move there and experience how superior that system is. This is the last place on the planet with the level of freedom experienced by typical individuals. We keep our lifestyle and they can experienced they wanted ideal lifestyle. I say leave us the hell alone with the gun control nonsense. I have been debating this topic for two decades and it is the same tired arguments without consideration of logistics. How would this actually work in America? How would it legally get done? How would it work in terms of enforcement? How would it work considering the scale and complexity depending on tradition. Its easy to levy simple claims without actually knowing anything about the culture or history or likely reaction of people that live here supposing other gun controls are attempted to to be implemented here.

[@danihesslinger7968]

@@1911GreaterThanALL O.k., O.k. calm down. I agree about the difficulty of the logistics in implementing our system in the USA in retrospect. But you still will have to explain to me, what gun ownership has to do with individuality. Let's then have a look at Switzerland, which per capita has almost as many guns as the US in private possession. Why don't they have any mass shootings? I was mainly talking about the difference of fear/paranoia versus having fun with a gun They have no mass shootings, be it school or otherwise.. BTW: you just had another mass shooting after Baltimore (in Philadelphia, I believe). So, happy fourth of July.

[@werealldoomed7643]

No the government does not have the power to regulate arms. During the founding of the country and writing of the constitution, civilians owned private warships, cannon etc. Back then there was already gatling gun variants. For example the Puckle gun was before America declared independence being invented in 1718, so the argument of the founding fathers would've never imagined weapons like we have today isn't entirely true. In terms of small arms they had ideas of which way firearm technology was going. They had repeating flintlocks as well. There was no such thing as alphabet agencies enforcing federal gun laws back then. Matter of fact there WERE NO GUN LAWS at the time of founding. Seriously, the gun control act wasn't passed until 1968. The founders never intended for the government to have better weapons than the people. If they did there should've been someone likely a lawyer pointing that out to counter the bruen decision. Edit: Yes including nuclear weapons, however that isn't feasible for the vast majority of people anyway.

[@lokinakor1]

The amendment says well-regulated. We all agree that drivers' licenses ARE well-regulated, including mandatory insurance. We will copy and paste the same procedure. Taking a class will get you cheaper insurance, as well as having the proper safety protocols. Licenses will be needed to qualify for any carrying outside your property. Licenses will be as easy to get as fishing and hunting licenses and can be condensed into one ID card to save money.

[@Brozius2512]

@@whyamimrpink78 So then why can't you well regulate firearms?

[@TRD-667]

What matters is not so much the words, but how they are interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of gun-nuttery back in 2008.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@TRD-667The Supreme Court has never been on your side of this in the 232 years of our history. You're told to attack the SC of 2008, but you don't even know why.. It's such a shame what the left did to people in this country. They're illiterate AF.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@Brozius2512Have you ever read....a book?

[@Brozius2512]

@@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT Is that the thing with all the paper, words and sentences in it?

[@tjm9737]

The nerve of this caller!!!

[@kylebookout1789]

I knew when the caller said ontology and obfuscate this was gonna be a good one. Great caller and discussion. I understand the title being so loaded for clicks and the algorithm I hope it works.

[@TheAverageGuy12]

Bad news for all Americans...any restrictions will immediately be referred to the Supreme Court and overturned. Your screwed😥

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Yea which is why people should move to countries they agree with. I moved from Commiefornia. They can do they same.

[@buzza2077]

That's good news. Our supreme court is doing its job and upholding our constitution.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL Do you even know what a communist is?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@Brozius2512 Yes a communist is a gullible person.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL Define the word communist. You really don't have a clue, don't you? You people use words that you don't even know the meaning of. Typical low republican education.

[@shan931]

David, I think it should be pointed out that the assault weapon round/bullet is designed to be devastating to the body. Take the 9mm which weighs about 115 grains and a muzzle velocity of 1,000 ft/s whereas the 5.56 NATO round is 60 grains but has a velocity of about 3,000 ft/s. That means the assault rifle hits a body with substantially more force and creates more damage due to the tumbling of the bullet upon entering the body, thus by extension more deaths. It is this effect on the body that this sort of bullet isn't used in hunting, it would destroy any deer you shot at.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

You do realize that ANY rifle round hits harder than ANY handgun caliber yes? ANY rifle round hits with substantially more force than any handgun. To get an ethical kill on a deer people typically recommend .308winchester. Typical 5.56mm = 3,260 ft/s / 1,294 ft⋅lbf. Typical .308 = 3,100 ft/s / 2,668 ft⋅lbf. Typical 9mm = 1,180 ft/s / 355 ft⋅lbf. ANY RIFLE CALIBER IS MORE LETHAL COMPARED TO ANY HANDGUN CALIBER. Your argument is farce and it shows pure ignorance on subject matter. It is why the right completely discounts the left and their worthless ignorant opinion on the subject. More energy is delivered by the 308 compared to the 556 which means the 308 is a more effective caliber to kill with. Simply because the bullet lands sideways doesn't mean you impact with more force compared to a larger caliber. If one wanted to dumb more energy into a target they would simply use hollow points. Most hunting calibers are more powerful than INTERMEDIATE RIFLE CALIBER that AR-15s typically use. Intermediate Rifle calibers are roughly half the power of that of full rifle calibers. This is ridiculous.

[@philosothink]

the tumbling is a minimal part of the damage in the .223/5.56mm ammo. It causes atypical entry and exit points for the projectile, and nothing more. When it comes down to actually killing power, it does little to enhance the damage at all. That part is determined by a statistic called "foot pounds of energy". For example, a .25ACP pistol generates roughly 60 Ft. Lbs. of energy on impact, roughly equivalent to Mike Tyson's right cross, focused down into a point the size of a pencil eraser. Few pistols can touch the 1200+ foot/pounds of energy delivered by an AR-15. Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum for example, at one time the most powerful handgun in the world, only delivers 750 ft/lbs. The rifle will deliver this to a farther range as well due to bullet dimensions and pressures behind the lead, because of barrel length. There's nothing magic about an AR-15. It's not any more destructive than any other firearm, except in ammo capacity. That's what makes it so deadly. You've got 1200 ft/lbs x20+. Or enough energy to lift 1200 lbs, 20 feet off the ground, applied to people, focused into eraser sized chunks of lead to dispense accurately. Now, if you showed up with an "assault rifle" that shot 7.62 ammo, rather than 5.56 ammo, an AK-47, you're toting 1,500 foot pounds per bullet, what 20% more? But the ammo is bulkier. Beyond that the ammo gets so heavy, it's hard for a regular person to lug around more than 50 rounds, and the weapon. These are no longer assault weapons, and are considered squad support weapons. I once converted all known firearms into a damage table for a dice and paper cyberpunk game, and it really put this point home to me. Nothing magical about AR ammo.

[@JChang0114]

Okay... someone will just use hollow point ammo.

[@greginthesouth2621]

I have a big problem with law enforcement having access to AR15s, and civilians being banned from them. The only way I'd agree to a ban is if LE got rid of theirs too, which let's be real, will never happen. To me, this is wear "the rubber meets the road" as far as tyranny is concerned. Otherwise, as a gun owner, I'd be happy to support an age limit, and a waiting period, and, to a lesser degree of popularity, a national training standard for concealed carry, etc.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Pointless.

[@je8784]

The killing of beer cans makes me laugh!

[@jandrews6254]

The “scariest” gun is the one pointed at you. I can’t explain the minutiae of how an airplane works but that doesn’t mean I can’t fly in one. I have to trust the various authorities who oversee safety and maintenance, and the knowledge and capability of the air crew.

[@yusufjohnson9357]

The problem with the gun debate is that on one side tends to be folks who want to fix the gun problem, but don't have a clue about guns (never shot one) and on the other side are gun purists who feel that any gun law is wrong. I am both a gun enthusiast who feels that the issue with guns can be fixed with some common sense changes and here is my proposal. 1. Reduce the capacity of rifle magazines to 5 rounds and handgun magazines to six. If you need more that 5 rounds to kill a deer, then that is a radioactive deer and you probably do not want to eat it anyway. The only reason you can buy 100 round drums is to kill people. Give a 1 year time frame for all current high capacity magazine owners to replace their magazines and offer government stipends to gun owners to help pay for and replace their magazines. After a year, if you have a weapon that is discovered with a high capacity magazine, you will be ticketed and fined and the gun will be confiscated. 2. Create a gun licensing program. If you would like to purchase a gun, you have to get a gun license, just like you have to get a car license. Included in getting this license, you have to take gun training and get a full background check. Your gun license will have a license number that will act as a tracking for gun purchases and trades (see #3). You would have to renew your gun license every 4 years, which would prompt another background check. 3. Create a national gun database and registry. This will be the most complex solution, so pay attention. Many of the guns that get into America's black market make it into the pipeline because manufacturers have no incentive to keep track of their weapons. For every manufacturer of firearms, they will have to input each gun they make intended for the US market into the US database. If a gun is found in America that was made after the database was initiated, and it was not in the database, the manufacturer will be fined 2 million dollars and given a warning. After 10 warnings, the manufacturer will lose all rights to ship and sell their legal guns into the US. This will force the gun manufacturers, because of their lucrative military and police contracts, to upgrade their tracking mechanisms and cut ties with any vendors that they sent firearms that distributed any gun to America without being in the database. Any current US gun owners will have 1 year after database initiation to access the database and enter their guns. If they decide to sell or trade the gun, it will be up to the gun owner to make sure the person that they are trading to is licensed, so that they can enter their license number tied to the gun serial number into the database. Any guns found without being entered into the database after 1 year, is a potential felony and possible fines. Any guns that can not be entered into the database for any reason (no serial number etc.), will have to be turned in for disposal, or submitted for a variance due to historical significance of the firearm. With the database, any gun that is used in a crime should be able to be tracked directly back to the last person entered into the database. If the gun is stolen, the gun owner is responsible for updating the gun status in the database to stolen within a one week window. Ultimately the illegal use of a gun tied to another registered person can be held against the registered gun owner. If a gun is found that is not entered into the database and the gun is a model of gun that was made after initiation of the database, the manufacturer will be the first entity investigated and potentially fined. For any person arrested with an unregistered firearm after the 1 year window, that is an automatic felony and jail sentence. These changes in the gun law will take years to make a difference, but overtime, they will dry up the amount of guns that leave foreign and unscrupulous US manufactures and make it into the US supply. The reason being is because most gun manufacturers make the majority of their money from legal gun trades and would have to upgrade their practices or lose their much more lucrative legal gun deals. Nothing ever will be 100%, but it will be a reduction in available black market guns. The lower capacity magazines will make it harder for people wanting to do mass shootings to easily buy 100 round drums, like the shooter in Dayton, Ohio. And finally, the licensing and background checks will make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands.

[@thebeginner4074]

I'm pro gun control and I can agree with everything that you're saying.☝️👍 On a another note, what do you think about red flag laws?

[@sarahtiferet9025]

Ummm No! it's not complicated . Most countries allow their citizens to own guns, but they have strict gun control . Many of those countries like Australia and England had ONE ( just one ) Horrific mass shooting and withing a very short time they passed Gun Control Legislation and have have almost no or relatively rare mass shootings and death or serious injury by guns . Unlike the US where Guns are the #1 reason children die . And now with so many guns in homes young children are accidentally killing their parents and siblings The constitution was written to be amended or women , men who don't own property and black people wouldn't be allowed to vote

[@arighteousname5882]

That was one of the dumbest takes on gun control I've ever heard of. Makes me question if your actually a gun "enthusiast"

[@yusufjohnson9357]

@@thebeginner4074 I think the red flag laws are largely useless. What I mean by that is, it sounds good as a way to get politicians in the headlines, however it's not what's going to stop most of these mass shootings. For every strange person who may be stopped because someone reports them under the red flag law, there are many more people who kill folks without any warning whatsoever. That's why after a shooting there's always those people saying, I never thought he would do it, he seemed like such a normal guy. That's the biggest problem I see with people on the Democratic side, is that they get extra loud and fight really hard for laws that won't stop killings. And then the Republicans push back on those laws saying that they are a waste of time, and Democrats fight even harder for those laws as if the pushback itself is simply because it's a gun law, rather than any truth behind the statement that the law itself will not fix the problem. So on one side Republicans don't want anything to change, and then on the Democrat's side, far too many of them know so little about guns, that they are making proposals that won't fix anything. and that's pretty much how I feel about this red flag law. Combined with other laws could it help, sure, but by itself it won't do anything.

[@christopherschlacter4953]

Excellent points, unfortunately you have rightwing politicians and gun advocacy groups who refuse any kind of regulation as they claim any restriction is the first step to a total gun ban. That is the paranoia these types feed to millions of gun owners who have no knowledge of actual gun laws and even worse dont want to know.

[@dnyce6278]

Why is it when we talk about the death of a celebrity, particularly musicians, people refuse to say they died of a drug overdose? Every article I Googled talked about an enlarged heart, and very deep within the article does the fact that drugs contributed, or more importantly where the main factor.

[@samizdat113]

The primary function of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that Americans always have access to weapons suitable for modern combat.

[@bordy217]

...in a well regulated militia

[@samizdat113]

@@bordy217 You are quoting from the prefatory clause. The operative clause clearly states that it is the people who hold the right to own and carry guns.

[@bordy217]

@@samizdat113 Because a well regulated militia was necessary for a free state. We have the best military money can buy now. Should be good.

[@bordy217]

@@samizdat113 The founders also knew that society would change and that the Constitution would likely not always be adequate for the advances in society. They were smart enough to recognize their own ignorance.

[@samizdat113]

@@bordy217 Having a powerful standing army changes nothing in concern to the 2nd amendment.

[@tjm9737]

David “click bait” pakman

[@fightthepowah1264]

If you took black people out of the equation, gun violence and mass shootings would be faaaaar less common. But no one wants to say that part out loud. When comparing Red States having more gun violence per capita. You forget to mention that Black people disproportionately make up the vast majority of gun violence in all these States, including blue ones. For each state I list, this is out of 100,000 per capita. -Missouri: White 2.77 Black 59.42 -Michigan: White 1.52 Black 49.14 -Illinois: White 1.05 Black 47.94 -Indian: White 2.09 Black 46.06 -New Jersey: White 0.65 Black 31.69 -Tennessee: White 3.29. Black 33.42 -Wisconsin: White 0.92 Black 33.53 -California: White 2.05 Black 32.27 -United States total: White 2.10 Black 29.12. And again this is per capita. So the argument of "Well there's more White people than Black people in the U.S. doesn't work here."

[@Jordanbigel]

So you don’t want any controls on guns, you want controls on black people. Racist BS.

[@ratofvengence]

Awww, that's cute. Did it occur to you to look at socio-economic status rather than skin colour? Probably not...

[@maclectic]

The question is: Are RPG's, nuclear weapons, and grenades in common use for lawful purposes?

[@stephendavidbailey2743]

A lot of the nation's gun problems would go away if only lever action, pump, and revolvers were permitted. One can dream.

[@arighteousname5882]

😂😂😂😂

[@philosothink]

actually, very few of them would change under this scenario. You'd cause people to learn how to speed-load revolvers, AGAIN, it's an old school thing. And also, get ready for this bit of insanity... they'll carry more than one of them... 4 of them gets you 24 shots, they're far cheaper than other weapons to produce, so having more than one is feasible. This would take 40 years to do, legislatively. In the interim, I'm pretty sure a national healthcare program that focused on suicide, would stop more gun deaths than anything else other than an upturn in the fortunes of the middle and lower classes of America.

[@stephendavidbailey2743]

@@philosothink One can dream. Or move to a country that values human life and rights.

[@philosothink]

@@stephendavidbailey2743. I feel for you man. I can imagine that being on the other side of the comfort curve about guns in society must make for nervous times. The biggest problems we're facing though, are not guns. The ratio of guns to people in America hasn't altered much over time, however suicide, mass shootings and gang and domestic violence have. Since the disaster of Reaganomics began eating away at the financial security of the middle and lower classes, we've witness a decline in mental health services, and a rise in using pills alone to regulate mental health issues. Suicide is getting ridiculous. As a white male over 50, i'm statistically in greater danger of killing myself on purpose with my firearm, than anyone else. Believe it or not, that's the largest demographic, dying to gun violence. This fact alone will change gun laws over time, if you think about it. But man, what a horrible way to capitalize, on the declining mental health, of the people who not only funded the nation that hates them, but built it with their hands and blood and sweat. This is a deeper issue than the 2nd. It's class warfare, and gun violence is a symptom not a root cause. I'm rather sorry that your life is troubled by guns in our society. But bear in mind, that statistically, you're more far far more likely to live to an old age, and never be shot, than ever see someone shot, or be shot. Let the statistics properly frame your fears and give them no more merit than they deserve. I had to come to this conclusion under a mobile home, at the age of 35, and the fear wasn't firearms, it was spiders. My co-worker, an alcoholic, pill addicted white supremacist, who'd steal anything not nailed down, if he thought he'd be able to get away with it, had just put me in a rather tight spot, pride-wise. He lifted a section of the mobile home skirting, a skill I'd avoided on purpose for years, due to... spiders. He did this effortlessly and apparently without emotional attachment or dread to the task ahead. Inspecting the ductwork of the AC system. He turned ball cap around backwards, dropped down to his hands and knees, and fearlessly tore off through the JUNGLE OF SPIDER WEBS !!! It was a horror scene. Webs the full length of the mobile home, bottom of the house, to the ground. I froze at the entry. "Uh, Scott, aren't you concerned with the spiders at all?" He stops, looks back at me with his missing 4 teeth grin, "Whatsamatter, Sam, you afraid of spiders?" he drawled at me. I had no hat to turn backwards. I snatched up a stick from beneath the shrub near the hole to get under the house, and started waving it around, making a path. "If I was afraid of a spider, Scott Nothisrealname, you'd never know it." "Besides, these are last years webs and these spiders are all dead, Sam. It's February, you're safe from these killers til spring." So my fears were all founded on my misperception of the dangers involved. The only real dangers under that house, as it turned out, were the pointy rocks we had to crawl on and the cat poop. I genuinely hope your fears about this can be reduced by framing the danger in actual statistics. Believe it or not, the study that concluded that you're more likely to shoot yourself, or a family member will be shot by your gun, than you are to ever use it to defend yourself, found out that there were two other factors Americans face, that make one more likely to be shot, than OWNING A GUN. Renting. Living alone. But those two findings don't help either Republicans or Democrats get elected, do they? I may not share your vies on this, but as a fellow human being I'm troubled by the fact that my rights are causing you fears, and I wish the something could be done about this issue. I sincerely believe a national healthcare program, which, since this is America, had a focus program for firearms related health problems like suicide, troubled teens, and people for whom medication provides no relief from their mental ills. Certain Americans, clearly need their 2nd limited.

[@stephendavidbailey2743]

@@philosothink I am 77 and childless by choice. I have no relatives that I am close to or care about. My point is, seeing those custom painted child coffins for the Uvalde children was - I can't find the words. Some of those kids had their heads blown off by the military grade ammunition used by the killer. And beyond that, gunfire is the No.1 killer of children under 18; more than cars or poison or drowning or disease. Old, childless and alone except for my partner means mass child deaths and runaway global warming don't affect me much - I won't be around for the uninhabitable world. But my partner has very young great nieces and nephew, and I feel a great deal of unstated anger towards their parents because of the suffering these children will experience by the time they are adults or at latest, early middle age. These are highly educated people who should have known better. My mobile home horror story involves a dead possum which expired on the cloth underbelly. I had to crawl under the mobile, locate the corpse - I am sure you can imagine the smell - and use a box cutter to cut out the section, then drag the whole mess to a nearby woods. When I was 18, my grandfather took me on a hunting trip with some of his friends. I knew nothing about the gun allotted to me and when trying to unload it, it went off and the bullet missed one of the others by a few inches. I have never touched a gun since. Some people are not suitable to use guns or raise children.

[@apenza4304]

“A great series of questions” should have been the title of this video.

[@ellobetchess]

Do you want to take your chances against a pistol or an AR15/Machine gun?

[@brandons9138]

Depends on where your battle is being fought. I tight quarters the long gun is at a pretty large disadvantage unless specially fitted for CQB situations.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Name a shooting where a machinegun was used.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

If you banned semi automatic rifles, the murder rate wouldn't even change. Then what? You'll come for all the handguns next. The answer is NO.

[@edwardcowan7012]

Why don’t we make it about the money. Gun violence and the related security costs society a lot of money. Gun owners as a group should bare the financial burden. Maybe if they had to pay the true cost of that they might not think guns were such a fun toy. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says they have no financial obligation related to their gun ownership.

[@jamestobler8473]

It also matters who the victims are. Attack of private school in Washington DC where congressman children go. Let's see if there are any legislative changes then.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

A sporting event was targeted by a mass shooter. That already basically happened at a Republican sporting game.

[@w0ody16]

Good discussion about the issue

[@RicoBeenSuave1]

I wish I had an AR 15 with 30 round magazine.

[@craphead9842]

Don't make the more dangerous guns in the first place..for the general public.. Job sorted.... Tony cuenca

[@kerisek11]

In my country, you can buy only small pistol

[@TimSpangler-v9i]

This conservative is ok with some of Pakman's points regarding waiting and/or banning only certain weapons

[@earllsimmins9373]

Simple enforce Clauses 15&16 of the Constitution.

[@chrissilver7719]

If people want to follow the 2nd Amendment then it should be ok as long as its a gun from that period a flintlock musket. That seems reasonable

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

If people want to make an opinion then they must make it in spoken speech or written speech via ink and quill. If you want to keep on making ignorant and stupid comparisons be my guest. At least research common arguments. Your type of argument has been argued and argued for decades. Its getting old and all it does is serve to discredit you. Stop and think and be smart and get informed.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

Democrats.. 🤦‍♂️

[@chrissilver7719]

@@1911GreaterThanALL why if you want to live under laws written in the 18th century then it should be under the same context. As for bringing up the same arguments that's because its inconvenient for your support to prevent a progression of laws. Unless you don't mind lots of your own citizens being senselessly murdered and injured by readily available weapons of war.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@chrissilver7719 Weapons are also used in defense. 500k-2.5m estimated per year cited on CDC.

[@buzza2077]

​@@chrissilver7719man his point went right over your smooth brain. The argument is stupid not inconvenient. On top of it you refuted your own point. He stated freedom of speech can only be written in ink and quill pen if we go by your standard of following the law of 18th century. Yet you also in the next sentence say we refuse to be progressive with new laws. That is exactly what is happening with the second amendment protecting modern rifles. You just can't argue either way because your point is ignorant and moot

[@h8myname813]

But it’s ok for the cops to have those guns? 🤔 Interesting 🐼

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Don't use critical thinking. Just accept transgenders as whatever they claim to be or you are a bigot. Oh what? Disagree with me? You are a racist.

[@arnoldripkin1]

An assault weapons are basically rifles with a pistol grip. But don't ignore the psychological element involved in their use.

[@bubbiesdad]

If it weighs as much as ten boxes.

[@greggiles7309]

New Zealand rates 18th in world for Gun ownership. We just dont use them as Fashion Accessories. Gun license Laws are age restricted to age 16.

[@Brozius2512]

@@DanyarJaldaan Then how come the US always sticks it's nose in other countries business? Maybe the US should mind it's own business.

[@greggiles7309]

@@DanyarJaldaan We dont have a Constitution. So show me where your police care about yours. tRumpF thinks its a archaic document and wants to burn it. AmeriKAH is my entertainment watching from the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

NZ shooter killed all those people not using an assault weapon and being a licensed owner. What is your point again?

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@Brozius2512We should do that too. More and more conservatives believe that now, and the liberals don't as much. Both parties are the problem there though.

[@drummingtildeath]

If youre worried it might not achieve much... well just try it and see. You don't really lose anything.

[@paulmc3457]

In all honesty? I really believe that debating, discussing, or even praying for gun reform is possible? It's like beating a dead horse.

[@buckyc.9069]

If you wanna play with machine guns, then at least join the National Guard. If you can't do that, then your patriotism falls into question.

[@MikeW-c3p]

You make no sense at all

[@buckyc.9069]

Hey user whatever tf. Happiness is a warm gun huh?

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@buckyc.9069Are you in the National Guard? Btw, per the Militia Act of 1903, I'm in the "reserve milita" of "the people aged 18-45".

[@leavemyponyalone5681]

I live in Europe. Almost no one i know owns a gun. No one carrys a gun. In the town where i live you see someone getting murdered ones in 10 years. Just ban guns for the mass population i guarantee you crime will go down.

[@Boredasfuck29]

Europeans generally don't seem to understand how many guns there are in this country, or that we have a very unique problem when it comes to violent criminality, and have for a long time.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

You guys are also losing your rights all across the board over there.

[@FranchescoGutierrez-b5f]

I question this all the time... Could I own a nuclear missile? Those are arms right? Also with no training or background checks to openly carry... Could I walk around with a 24" machete? 🤔

[@jessicapatton2688]

Wow, all the people jumping his shit because he used to word “confront.” It’s gonna be ok lol

[@kepler186f4]

There is no reason for a civilian to own a military grade assault weapon.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Define "military grade assault weapon".

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

You're the victim of propaganda. 2a is about "military grade" weapons, in the first place. We DO NOT EVEN HAVE ACTUAL MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS, second.. Get away from liberal garbage and clear you head for awhile. Good grief.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic - NRA

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@Brozius2512 Funny but I copied and pasted that into google and 0 results populated that.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL It's literally the 2nd link in google.

[@dondindac]

I hate to say it but this is another example of how people do not understand gun culture. I generally agree with David and I think he makes some compelling arguments but he betrays his ignorance when talking about RPGs. I am sure he was trying to pick an extreme example to illustrate his point but RPGs are not banned in the US. They are classified as Destructive Devices (DD) under the NFA. So people literally can (if they meet the criteria) purchase and own shoulder mounted RPGs...

[@Craxin01]

What we really need is a change to gun culture. I think changing some of the rules will toxify the current already toxic gun culture, at least in the short term. Perhaps the laws laid out by David Pakman will have that short-term effect, but in the long term, it'll slowly calm down and detoxify the current gun culture.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

What is toxic about the gun culture?

[@GeekFurious]

Just look at New Jersey as a model because it has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country, while also being the densest population states in the country, with ZERO mass school shootings (the usual alt-right trolls will find a shooting that happened NEAR a school where people were shot and claim that fits as a mass school shooting even though that's nonsense). They haven't necessarily banned "assault weapons" (since there are a bunch of such firearms that they haven't banned that should qualify) as they've added obstacles to buying guns. Also, they've made it relatively easy for low-income people to get healthcare. And the school systems regularly seek mental healthcare for troubled students. All those factors likely contribute to their success. And where do the vast majority of illegal guns that are used in New Jersey crimes come from? Pennsylvania... the state where pewpews are fun times for everyone.

[@martinasherman5124]

Why the hyperbole? Where is the ALL CAPS "Confronts me"? Not only does it not require capitalization, it doesn't belong...period. Maybe it's because you both remained fairly calm throughout, which makes it seem nonconfrontational to me. Maybe it's just click bait. I wish I had been drawn to this worthwhile discussion in a more transparent way. Let the content stand on its own. I expect better from this program.

[@user-ty6lt8xp8t]

yeeaaah, no. how about we abolish the atf and let americans do whatever they want with guns? statistically speaking people don’t usually mess with others who they think are carrying guns

[@madisonbadger9454]

David sir. Brilliant commentary. The likes of which is never seen before. Very powerful

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

The problem with claiming "assault weapon" is that the definition for assault weapon is mostly arbitrary and focuses on ergonomic or other features that have nothing to do with lethality of a firearm. This is one of the reasons why the 94-04 federal assault weapons ban did nothing. Our own government studied the effects and came to the conclusion that again most crimes are not committed with assault weapons. It is another reason why the NZ shooting happened to great effect. The shooter didn't use an assault weapon. Some of the most heinous mass shootings defined as 4 or more shot haven't been committed with an assault weapon. Majority of homicides aren't committed with an assault weapon. It really demonstrates the ignorance of gun grabbers. You are attempting to ban something that even when you look at statistics aren't even used in the vast majority of crimes. Yet the focus is still on this regardless of the science or statistics. No matter how much you want assault weapons banned that won't happen as even the senators that implemented the NFA 1934 admitted that an outright ban on a firearm would be in fact an easy point of contention for the second amendment and an easy overturn. DC tried this with handgun bans and yet that was overturned citing the second amendment. Its not going to work and really if you think other countries are better then simply move and leave the rest of us alone. You get what you want and we get what we want.

[@edstein5642]

Within the first few minutes… citing that handguns may be ahead of “assault” weapons in overall fatalities is disingenuous. The predominant firearm for mass shootings are weapons associated with warfare; a ‘long arm’ if you will with a magazine holding in excess of 5 rounds. In particular, weapons that fire the .223 cartridge. AR-15s (M-16 too) being the most notorious. The .223 is useless as a hunting round because it tears it’s target to shreds. Victims frequently must be identified by fingerprints or DNA. How is that any different from other weapons of mass destruction such as antipersonnel mines, full machine guns, shoulder fired rockets, or grenades? Anyone cognizant of weapons & tactics understands that the supposed resistance to or overthrow of a repressive government can’t hinge on individual citizens or militias sporting ammunition-consuming semi auto long arms. Against the army-navy-air force-marines & various tactical specialties units? That’s nuts & tactically defective. Get real. Ban the .223 round & every weapon that uses it. It’s a SMALL sacrifice considering humanity has killed tens of millions of people with lesser calibers & lots of bolt action rifles. You’re scared banning the AR-15/.223 is ‘just the beginning’? Get real! We restricted the BAR & .45 sub machine gun to thwart gangsters 80 years ago & it helped level the playing field for law enforcement. How’s this any different?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories A troubled past and leaked plans are common to those who take part in mass shootings. Most use handguns, NIJ-supported research shows.

[@brucesmith5501]

If they eliminate the drug violence how much will the % of shootings go down

[@arighteousname5882]

What does that have to do with anything?

[@kevinsmarts9953]

It would reduce a lot of individual murders but in regard to mass shootings, most of them are domestic violence related. Some of those also include drug use but rarely the drug trade or dealing. It would help though and a more realistic drug policy that has some chance of working would be great because the war on drugs has failed spectacularly.

[@jamesbianco7805]

​​@@arighteousname5882ecause these statistics of gun deaths take into account suicide and gang violence, which is the large majority of gun deaths.

[@arighteousname5882]

@jamesbianco7805 right but not "drug violence " hence why I'm asking

[@nhlpa17]

Hand guns are used in shootings often, but the difference comes when you talk about ending that threat. A mass shooter with long guns (assault rifles etc) is a much greater challenge to 'take out' especially if officers first on the scene do not themselves have carbines, etc. So a bad guy/girl with a hand gun is much easier to stop than a bad guy/girl with an AR-15. Ban the assault weapons. Its the only thing that makes sense. Nobody needs an AR-15 OR LIKE WEAPON.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

How about move to a country that already has that crap and leave us alone. This is the last place on the planet that allows for that. We have nowhere to go.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

Yeah we do. There's too many of you people in this country.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL 407 mass shootings already in the US, they are heading for a new record. Just saying!

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@Brozius2512 And? Get up and move. I already did that to get lax gun controls. IF you want the same crap as other countries move to said countries. Simple.

[@thepinkerton657]

Oh no, the terror! Gtfo.

[@nc7537]

...are you implying that fear/paranoia has zero ramifications? lol Hell, it's largely the basis for so many people on the right wanting to own guns in the first place! Even outside the subject of guns, fear is a large contributor of violence and conspiracy theories like "the deep state," "2020 election was rigged" or "9/11 was an inside job." What was it that happened on Jan 6th of 2021 again? Perhaps you can remind me. Yes, even THAT started with fear. Let's try thinking beyond the surface for once, shall we?

[@cade8986]

I’m from FL. We have a huge hog problem. While I’m on board with stricter background checks, waiting times, etc., I can’t get on board with a total ban on “assault rifles”, because hunting groups of hogs would be impractical without semi auto carbines. And poison has been proven to kill unintended species. Maybe a special license you’d have to apply for with even stricter background checks.

[@vooveks]

Read “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment” on Politico. Tells the truth about this whole thing. The fact you even have these arguments and don’t just ban all non-sport/agricultural/special use case firearms like every other normal, civilised country, is looked at with incredulity by said countries, being that their gun deaths per capita are so low as to be almost insignificant.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

The NRA was correct in giving meaning due to the historical context of the amendment. It was created after the founders VIOLENTLY REBELLED AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. The amendment doesn't have anything to do with protecting sporting use of firearms. Our country has third world problems manufactured by being the most diverse country on the planet. When you have third world peoples you get third world problems. When you get third world thinking you get third world problems. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Majority of gun murders are gang/drug affiliated. Majority of non murder homicides are police shootings. Remainder are accidental shooting deaths.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

Why don't you people actually study history, law, the Supreme Court rulings over the centuries, etc, instead of trusting Politico? 😂😂😂 You guys mock Fox than get your info out of the trash can. Lol

[@chrismoore4500]

We don't have to ban certain things outright. If you want to own an assault weapon or high capacity you can but you have to jump through more hoops that goes beyond general restrictions. Automatics perhaps too but, maybe even a higher level. You would need to have a special license that you would have to update regularly. Yep, this is exactly the government keeping tabs on this specific thing but it's the gov keeping tabs on you, on behalf of your neighbors/family/co-workers etc. There are so many gun nuts that drink and shoot just regular guns for fun. which can be ok within reason but alcohol and guns are very common with the loudest of these cold dead finger people (

[@buzza2077]

Pointing out this again. How will any of that stop a person from drinking and shooting guns? Which is already illegal. Ill tell ya how. It won't. I can tell you this. Many gun owners I speak to are done negotiating and giving in here and there cause you lot will never stop. We gave an inch and now you want a mile.

[@chrismoore4500]

​@@buzza2077 People shooting guns and drinking are a thing. It's very common where I live. If these people only have standard guns doing this is one thing. It's not about banning people from drinking and shooting which should be a thing anyway but isn't consistently everywhere. Not a good idea no matter how you want to spin it. "done negotiating" "and giving in" lol

[@geirleirvik1478]

Muzzle loaded - that was the status at the time of the writing constitution. Pistols were only single shot. If you want to be conservative about it.

[@geirleirvik1478]

@@DanyarJaldaan So nuclear bombs to everybody then….

[@Brozius2512]

Don't bother, whyamimrpink78 is just a troll and he's not very intelligent.

[@buzza2077]

​@@Brozius2512not a troll he is factually correct

[@buzza2077]

​@UlasG_Subslllike skimming over his phrase "common use" to fit your bs narrative.

[@Brozius2512]

@@buzza2077 No he's not, he never is. He always twists facts, changes numbers in statistics and just plainly lies. He even said he had a PhD, everybody was laughing at him because he made such dumb mistakes that even a 12 year old wouldn't make.

[@je8784]

Absolutely no reason for full auto, high capacity, explosives, or means of making full auto or increased speed of firing rate. Background checks and mental assessments.

[@tjm9737]

That’s ridiculous. Criminals will always have those guns so I want at least equal to that to protect my family. Who are you to say what I need to protect my family. Sit down sir.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

I suppose fun isn't a legitimate reason to own something? I don't suppose you own anything for fun eh? Also if you think firearms used in crimes are generally full auto then you are wrong. Check again. Also your claim of nothing to increase firing rate would be impossible due to the fact that a simple change of a shorter and lighter trigger can increase firing rate. Background checks are laughable given the percentage of false denials due to our records being laughably inaccurate. How would mental assessments work? What are the criteria?

[@clydecash5659]

ARs are such garbage rifles. They cannot handle sustained fire without permanent damage to the muzzle and barrel. I think mass shooters use them because they are ridiculously cheap for a rifle (around $350)? I mean I paid about $1000 just for my P226 Sig (handgun).

[@buzza2077]

Well most ARs have heavy barrels which can and do withstand heavy fire. What POS are you buying for $350? Cheapest I've found is $600-700.

[@briano9397]

Wouldnt be surprised if this thumbnail geta you demonetized. What is the editor thinking

[@kevinpeterson3830]

For handguns

[@vivisimonvi]

1:37 - What fell in the background lol?

[@JoeyBFromScranton]

Joe biden fell again

[@Hooyahfish]

I love guns, but it is wayyyy too easy to buy them.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

We didn't even have background checks 30 years ago.

[@Hooyahfish]

@@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT and we also couldn’t buy assault rifles back then either.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

@@Hooyahfish Uh. . Yes we absolutely could. "Assault rifles" are what exactly? It's a made up phrase. They're just semi auto rifles that have certain characteristics like a pistol grip, collapsing or folding stock, flash suppressors, efc.. They've existed since the 50'sc and 60's, but similar semi auto rifles, that fire the exact same way but don't have those characteristics, have existed for over 100 years.

[@Hooyahfish]

@@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT hahahaha!!! Learn your history fool. Look up the assault weapons ban from the 90’s.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

@@Hooyahfish What does that have to do with what I said? Lol. That "assault weapons ban" only banned CHARACTERISTICS of guns. You could still buy an AR-15 from 1994-2004, it just had a plain stock. Lol. How do I know this?? I bought my first one in 2002.

[@stevesecret2515]

A bolt action rifle, a five or six shot revolver, and a shotgun that doesn't hold too much ammo. That is all the guns you need.

[@stevesecret2515]

@@CK-ri7uf Does the bill of rights say what guns you need? I stated my opinion. Besides, how that we know the supreme court is for sale and that precedents mean nothing, a liberal court could do anything they want about guns.

[@stevesecret2515]

@@CK-ri7uf Wrong---the 2nd amendment refers to "arms". Doesn't mention the word "gun" at all. Machine guns, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles, nerve gas are prohibited. Any other weapon can be outlawed too. It is up to the supreme court and now that the supreme court is on the take anything could happen.

[@buzza2077]

​@@stevesecret2515well another ignorant gun grabber. First supreme court ruled the determination of what arms meant. Second, machine guns aren't illegal, mortars aren't illegal, you just need the right tax stamp to purchase. The only weapons civilians are refrained from owning is mass killing weapons such as chemical/nuclear weapons and missiles. Learn the laws before spewing your ignorance

[@stevesecret2515]

@@CK-ri7uf The government can and does tell you what kind of weapons you can have. Can you buy a shoulder launched anti-aircraft weapon? NO? Can you buy a rocket propelled grenade? No! Nerve gas? NO And, as we have plainly seen the supreme court doesn't care about laws anymore, only political wins. A future liberal supreme court can just do what ever they want. They could enforce the well regulated Militia line in the 2nd amendment and not allow gun sales to non militia people.

[@stevesecret2515]

@@whyamimrpink78 Some bomb making supplies are banned. I don't believe you can buy those weapons- link to the process?-- What about Thomas and Alito accepting bribes? Great court for fascism. 2nd amendment says arms and does not mention the word gun--read it, you in a militia?

[@SaidAhmad]

I think, knowing which guns are on the list is kind of important for those of us who already own guns that might be on the list. How would the law define assault guns? Would it involve semi automatic carbine’s like say the Sig PC? or what about any rifle or carbine that has a magazine of more than 10 rounds? we need a really clear definition if we are going to propose this ban. 🇲🇭

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Either way its stupid and pointless just like the federal assault weapons ban 94-04. Even our own government said it didn't accomplish what it set out to do. This is the reason why it was allowed to expire.

[@tjm9737]

You will be banning them out of existence for the jaw abiding citizens and are extremely naive if you think the govt only stops with one ban.

[@bicofire7390]

what is the 2nd amendment for?

[@maryostiguy8129]

Are pistols used in most shootings? I think I've heard of the AR-15 being used in the past recent school shootings....

[@maryostiguy8129]

@@DanyarJaldaan well, getting rid of assault rifles would be the first best step. Then maybe,the restrictions of buying/owning pistols will decrease their chance of killing more children. Till we get a handle on those kind of fire arms. You have to agree we should be protecting the people of America from being shot in public places....

[@maryostiguy8129]

@@DanyarJaldaan 3rd most deadly shootings? What was used in # 1,2&4 th???

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories A troubled past and leaked plans are common to those who take part in mass shootings. Most use handguns, NIJ-supported research shows.

[@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT]

​@@maryostiguy8129 The point is that it doesn't really matter. You don't think you can get a high body count with a couple of handguns and shotguns?

[@maryostiguy8129]

@@FUCKTHEFASCISTSCONTROLLINGYT any # body count is too many.1 body count is as bad as 26 in sandy hook, parkland, las Vegas. & The one in Texas where the cops were to afraid to go get the man with the AR-15. That's the point. Who cares what is used

[@KenS1267]

The caller is playing semantic games and should have been verbally smacked down hard. The fact is that beyond a very low floor, I think it is 5 but I'd have to check it again but it is definitely lower than 10, of killed and injured in one location in a mass shooting the overwhelming majority of guns used are weapons that people consider assault rifles, primarily AR-15 styled ones. That also correlates very strongly with the break between when mass shootings are someone shooting people in their own family or people they know, which is still horrific, and complete strangers. I'll be blunt, because this is life and death, banning assault rifles makes sense because the weapons are made just for killing people (do not bleat about any other use I know all the lies you'll spout and can take you apart on the history of the AR-15 and Ak-47 and the ammo of each), these weapons are the primary ones used in these large attacks where people attack strangers and we have data from the previous ban where these sorts of attacks basically stopped (there was Columbine and not much else for a decade). Once that is dealt with we can start worrying about getting a handle on controlling the rest of the gun violence problem.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

Assault Rifles defined by the ATF means they are NFA items. Majority of mass shootings are committed with semi automatic weapons not automatic or selective fire firearms.

[@KenS1267]

@@1911GreaterThanALL Liar. The only definition of assault rifles ever in federal law was the one in the assault weapons ban. The NFA was passed in 1934. Assault weapons were not even a thing until after WW2. I know you expect people to not know these things but I literally told you in my post that I know more about these things than you do so why did you even try?

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@KenS1267 " AK Assault Rifle Image of an AK Assault Rifle Classification Machinegun Distinctive Characteristics Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin. Special Note Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns." -ATF firearms guide.

[@KenS1267]

@@1911GreaterThanALL So? That's a description of the AK not a legal classification of all assault rifles. you remain a liar.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@KenS1267 Assault Rifle is a CATEGORY or CLASSIFICATION of firearms. What is a PISTOL? Is it an action type or design of a specific firearm? No. It is a CATEGORY. Firearms that chamber an intermediate rifle caliber and are fully automatic or selective fire are ASSAULT RIFLES. Assault Rifles by this category means they are machine guns which are federally regulated under the NFA of 1934 and all further amendments. By the way I am an FFL clerk. I run paperwork on NFA items. What do you think in the form 4473 means when you classify something as class 3?

[@aaronsmith2611]

I am curious . . . of all the people who think they need a gun for protection, what is the actual percentage of people that need to use them for that. My guess is that it's actually a fairly low percentage. Personally, I think gun ownership is more about bravado than anything else. And to that end, those "good guys" with a gun, once they feel empowered, how often do they turn around and threaten someone because they have a gun.

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

"...need a gun for protection.." Considering I have ordered a home invader out of my home twice this statement seems ridiculous. It took 45 minutes for the police to arrive. "...actual percentage of people that need to use them for that..." No idea. Keep in mind that firearms ownership is not tracked via gun registry so we have no idea for sure the number of unique firearms owners. Secondly 500k-2.5m self defense gun uses are commonly cited and posted on the CDC website. This figure was ordered by Obama to be found in order to research gun violence and legitimacy of gun ownership claims of self defense. "...gun ownership is more about bravado..." I don't get exposed to much of that. I have interests in guns due to their history, mechanics, personal satisfaction of personal bests and being the "gun guy" that is knowledgeable on the subject. Ultimately a firearm makes it possible for common people to rise above the criminal element by matching or exceeding force. "..."good guys" with a gun, once they feel empowered, how often do they turn around and threaten someone because they have a gun." We can see those that act in law enforcement capacity do stupid things with firearms well. Individuals are individuals. Humans are humans.

[@aaronsmith2611]

@@1911GreaterThanALL I still stand by my statements and I would need more than anecdotal evidence to sway me. That said, I am sorry to hear that you've had home invaders. Though, given that you've had multiple individuals invading your home, I am curious about the circumstances surround that. What kind of city or neighborhood do you live in that might contribute to that? What other conditions might contribute to that? I don't mean to second guess here, I am legitimately curious. Perhaps I've been fortunate in my 50+ years to never need a gun. As for the bravado statement, I've seen that on multiple occasions. I have friends who are gun owners and decent enough people, but they've made claims of being the hero in hypothetical situations just because they're carrying. And law enforcement in the US has earned the reputation of abusing power and their weapons, so obviously they don't get a pass here. But, brushing it off as "humans are humans" does not justify bad behavior, in fact that's part of the problem.

[@buzza2077]

​@@aaronsmith2611I have had to use my firearm three times. Twice for breaking and entering and a third time for a driver who hit and ran and once I caught up to him he attempted to attack me. I'm guessing you'll just dismiss my accounts as antidotal because you don't want to hear about legit experiences. I used to live in a nice part of town but I also live in Colorado which has gone to complete sh*t in last 6-10 years. What issues created the crime you asked him. Well mine is mainly democrat policies, like soft on crime, sanctuary cities, promoting homeless camps just to name a few. Two of the people I used my firearm for were illegals. One of the B&E and the hit and run. Both had several warrants out from several arrests in Colorado. With liberals resistance to work with ICE these parasites can repeatedly commit crimes with no recourse until the crime is so bad it can't be ignored. Due to democrats defund the police it took 12 weeks to get my police report, the illegal was in and out of jail before I got my report.

[@Brozius2512]

@@1911GreaterThanALL It's takes a wimp to embrace a gun but it takes a man to live without one!

[@1911GreaterThanALL]

@@aaronsmith2611 "...multiple individuals invading your home, I am curious about the circumstances surround that..." The first time was in Sacramento when I rented a Duplex apartment. The neighbor was a known felon according to the Sacramento PD interactive website over a decade ago. He was a known prior convicted felon selling narcotics. These people tend to do such things and frankly I couldn't afford anything better at the time. The second time was in Reno NV when I was finding better work. Yet again Crummy neighborhood and a known neighbor with a prior record. Again these kinds of people tend to do home invasions when they have a record of drug use and prior convictions especially considering he had violent convictions from what I was told. I think in both instances they saw only 1 car which usually means I am not home. However, occasionally I do leave my other car at work and get dropped off by a friend. This is my theory though. "...made claims of being the hero in hypothetical situations just because they're carrying." That remains to be articulated. I see all sorts of instances of normal people carrying a firearm being useful and taking down a bad guy committing some sort of crime where the use of lethal force was warranted. Why do you take that a negative? If it results in them or you or a third party rising above the criminal element then what's the difference? How is that negative? I don't know maybe I am just tired of scum bags because of those two occurrences with prior convicted felons and in both instances they chose to commit more felonies. If it means that a felon or someone willing to go commit a crime against someone else dies I don't really care I'm all for it. I'm tired of repeat offenders. "...law enforcement in the US has earned the reputation of abusing power and their weapons, so obviously they don't get a pass here." The implication of your argument of "not needing a gun" implies that ultimately you are going to rely on the police. Why should you rely on the police if you think they are essentially incompetent at their job? I mean I support the competent police as a thin blue liner but I think everybody recognizes that you get incompetent idiots in any group of people. "..."humans are humans" does not justify bad behavior, in fact that's part of the problem." That would highly depend on individual examples. I have disagreed and agreed with people on police shootings. I see some shooting that people claim have NO PURPOSE and are ILLEGITIMATE and in some instances even private citizens would have every right to use lethal force in those very specific instances according to the law. So in some cases I think people simply take issue with the law and competent officers rather than incompetent officers not following the law. It depends.

[@kertvangorder2791]

Any gun can be modified to become more deadly, but once

[@arighteousname5882]

How so? How can a firearm be more "deadly" by modifying it?

[@kertvangorder2791]

@arighteousname5882 A pistol or a rifle can discharge a bullet every time the trigger is pulled or it can empty its mag by pulling the trigger once. And the mag on a pistol or rifle can be as big as you want.

[@arighteousname5882]

@kertvangorder2791 I'm sorry but objectively speaking changing the fire rate of a weapon system and the ammo capacity of said weapon doesn't make it more deadlier. That's not how it works, the effectiveness of a firearm has more to do with the end user of that firearm and how proficient they are rather then some arbitrary "modification".

[@kertvangorder2791]

@arighteousname5882 You're right. The capacity of a weapon doesn't make it deadlier unless you plan on killing a lot of people, and you know how to use that weapon. You could end up shooting yourself in the foot. The military calls it training.

[@jamesbianco7805]

Anyone who thinks full auto is more deadly has clearly has never shot a gun.