>

With the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds.
One suggestion I don't see enough of us to actually prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence and throw the book at them. The Men's Rights activists are just as intense as the 2A fanatics, but they are an easier group to go after. Homicide by firearm is so entwined with domestic violence that it seems like an obvious area to look at. >

The basically singular push for an assault weapons ban is getting a little tiring to me, especially because it doesn't actually address most shootings and wouldn't at all reduce the number of mass shootings. We should absolutely do something about the issue, but banning assault weapons won't stop shooters from using other weapons which are just as deadly. It feels like a symbolic step which sounds big in soundbytes, not an actual step which would measurably reduce mass shootings. >

Like the scary ghost guns.... yep, most criminals I know own jigs, routers, drill presses, and have the mechanical aptitude to craft  firearms. /s 
But whatever, sides have been chosen and you're just yelling at folks who would rather eat their own tongue than change their minds. >

Are you familiar with handguns? The type of gun responsible for the vast majority or murders? The one that wouldn't be banned under an assault weapons ban? >

Quite familiar, thanks. Sounds like you need to read more. Feinstein's proposal includes anything with a detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds or a bunch of other characteristics that she deems "military" in purpose...
Completely farcical. >

I understand the need and difficulty concerning writing adequate gun legislation but restricting the mag capacity of a firearm to reduce their lethality is like reducing a car’s fuel tank capacity in order to limit it’s speed. >

Does less bullets contained not slow down the amount of rounds one can reasonably fire off. I mean, the logic adds up. 
It's more akin to limiting miles per gallon in an effort to prop up the fuel industry. >

I can do a mag swap in under 2 seconds. It does nothing. >

It gives someone two seconds to stave your head in with a fire extinguisher.
Also, the vast majority of mass shooters aren't going to be as practiced. So even more time. >

Very few people will run towards an active shooter as well, your point is moot. >

neither cali shooting involved an assault weapon of any description. how would that help prevent future crimes? >

It is functionally no different than any other 9mm semi-automatic handgun...Its just scary looking. >

yes
​

Regardless the results would have been the same if he had used any other 9mm pistol. >

the funny thing is I'll get upvoted for saying "he shot them with a pistol that is basically a regular pistol even if it's made to look like a shitty submachine gun from the 80s" but I'll get downvoted if I say "hey maybe the guy who murdered a bunch of people with a pistol shouldn't have been allowed to legally own a pistol, or any gun"
​
EDIT: hahah I called it, this comment is downvoted and the one above it is upvoted lol. >

It's easy.  Pro-gun NO MATTER WHAT = upvotes.  Anti-gun with thorough, researched, provable statistics = downvotes.
What this ACTUALLY shows is Reddit is full of young testosterone-fuelled American men. >

I don't even consider myself "anti-gun" I just think that maybe we shouldn't focus so much of protecting the rights of murderers. >

Aren't "assault weapons" already banned? >

Both CA shootings were done with handguns by retirees.
Banning 18-20 year olds from buying types of rifles has absolutely no effect on these last two shootings.
The “MAC-10 assault rifle” used in CA this week was a shitty clone of a Mac 10 that is heavy, inaccurate, horrible to use, and recoils like crazy. Yes it looks impressive, but it’s a piece of shit. >

Have you tried holding it sideways? >

As a moderate liberal gun owner you’d never find me holding a knock off mac-10, or even a late model mac-10 for that matter it’s just a piece of shit for the LARPing Y’all Queda.
No different than all that NC-star crap those folks put on their weapons.
Buy one good rifle, pistol, shotgun and that’s all you need, anything else is being abused by the gun sales industry. >

My wife's uncle had an M11 he got back in the 80's. It was a legit stamped FA. Biggest pile of shit I've ever shot. The open bolt is such garbage. The MP5 however.... >

So many shitty guns in the 80’s. >

Demilitarize the police first. >

"Biden sets in motion the democrats losing 2024"
Seriously, stop. It doesn't matter what's happening right now in the news because polls consistently time over time over time again show an AWB is unpopular.
The mass shooting in CA were 11 people were killed at the dance studio was done with a pistol. >

Gallup disagrees with you.  Although polls with different wording are all over the place, they have summarized the results of many polls as consistently showing that about 6 in 10 Americans support an assault weapons ban.  In fact, in all the decades they've asked the question and all the different wordings they've used, Gallup has never found a majority opposed to the policy.  It may be poor political strategy, but it's definitely not an unpopular policy. >

Except that when these laws actually go to vote, they're highly rejected by the public. It's quite clear that Gallup is either poorly wording their questions to skew results or their pooling base is wildly offset. >

Do you have any data at all, or just confirmation bias? >

Yea, when these laws go to vote they're wildly rejected, but the MSM and polls say it's somehow highly popular.  And just like 2016 and 2022 polls were wildly incorrect.  They're all junk at gauging public opinion or wording questions to purposly skew results based on who is paying them. >

Hold on .. this fella' repeated what he said earlier, but this in bold text :(
In my book, that negatives him having to provide any proof whatsoever, and he has just clearly won the debate.
Don't question him further or he may increase the font size and say the same thing again  :(  Just let it go ... JCuc is too much for any of us to handle with his use of bold. >

Banning scary looking guns isn't the solution. Maybe we need to try and address why so many Americans find thf best course of action to be mass murder. >

Okay. Can someone explain to me what an assault weapon actually is? >

According to Biden it is semiautomatic weapons >

If that's the case, most handguns would be outlawed. >


If that's the case, most handguns would be outlawed.

Now you understand the democrats goals.
That was literally the point of the NFA. To ban handguns... >

The lack of Common Sense Gun Laws in America is just another huge failure of the US Congress. Add to it healthcare, equitable taxation, global warming, and our bloated defense budget. WTF is the purpose of the US Congress aside from enriching themselves and their dark money donors? Disgusting. >

we have background checks already. i agree that taxation healthcare and global warming are all neglected in this country but gun crime is a symptom of the disease the country is inflicting upon us. plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem because they take care of their people. healthy people dont harm others. disarming ourselves wont help the mentally ill they will still seek violence through any and all means while you and i are left to trust the police. i do not trust the police. >


plenty of other countrys have guns as well but dont have the same problem 

They don't have the same problem because they have a much stricter regulation of weapons.
In other countries you need to get a license from the government to own a gun. 
That is, you need to to take courses and you need to prove you have a legit reason to own the weapon. >

and thats one of the issues as to why you wont convince people like me or others like my opinion, we do not trust the government. the government has made promises in the past and broken them time and time again. if your looking for an example i would cite indians and black people being mistreated abused and butchered. 
we dont trust the government to not be corrupt and only give licenses to those who donate to the local politican or sheriff's election fund which is how new yorks licensure works today. we in states where licensure doesnt work like that are disgusted by such things and if it were passed into law i would be forced to move where i felt i could be safe either by my and or a competent police force. 
one last thing, abolish the uvalde police force. >

Right -- but now you are changing the topic.
You claimed there are plenty of other countries with guns. The point is that they have heavily regulated access to arms.

we dont trust the government to not be corrupt

The government is only as good as its citizenry. The American government is far less corrupt than most governments around the planet. 80%, at least, of the world's countries are more corrupt than the U.S. is. >

your right im sorry, but to also contradict myself we are incomparable to other countrys. no other country has what we have. finland and sweden and australia dont have 330 million people to live, fight and rule over. our cultures are all unique and germanys laws wouldnt work in brazil and visa versa. each country is strange and weird compared to our laws let alone everything else if we did come up with something for ourselves i believe it would have to be something wholey brand new curtailed to us. 
we do look quite good in comparison to the worst corrupt nations but i still would rather it be improved as im sure youd agree and though the american people range wildly from good to the heinous i also think our voting system exploits that. we need voting reform, ranked choice voting would seriously curtail this. no more voting for the lesser of two evils. >

You suffer from a grass is greener over there POV.

our voting system exploits that

The American democratic has some weaknesses, but the voting system is far superior to European ones in many ways. 
An average American gets to vote on many different geographic scales (neighborhood, city, county, state, federal).
Americans also get to vote directly on referendums far, far more often than other countries.
Parliamentary voting systems in Europe have many democratic drawbacks. 
In the Nordic countries voters aren't given the chance to vote on people in executive positions. They only get to vote on representatives to Parliament. Then parliament (their Congress) decides who will populate all the different executive positions. >

im not asking for nordic countrys voting, ranked choice is only used in Australia ireland malta scotland and wales as far as i am to understand. i had to look it up because as far as i knew it had not been implemented how i had desired. If we could have better politicians who more gravitated to places in the center and stuck there instead of crawling to the fringes come election time id be happier with our system instead i have to choose between ridiculous extremes. i dont even have a particular place in mind i want to point to as an example for what would been greener than here. i just see our politicans failing us and am left wondering what the hell.
take abortion for example the dems have had 50 years as of two days ago to some how safeguard the right to abortion federally, sure not the fully 50 but you get my meaning, they havent done shit. i blame them more than the republicans for it being repealed. the republicans have said this whole time what they wanted to do but the democrats let it happen. why should i want to vote for false promises from them? >

Might as well go yell at a cloud. >

Biden got the most major gun control law passed in last 3 decades.  Its not as fruitless as you'd think.