>

What are you implying it means then?
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. >

With the current Congress, I think the cloud yelling method may have the best odds. >

House GOP is divided and there are enough moderates to vote for more gun control.  It's now easier to get 60 votes in the senate by 1 seat.  
I foresee shootings to continue and public pressure rising for more gun control.  Bleak future, but that's what it will take. >

Wasn't it a handgun? >

"assault pistol" according to the "genius" sheriff
but yes, it was a handgun >

Ironically enough a pistol would’ve been arguably more effective than a mac-10 >

The DOJ concluded the 1994 AWB had no measurable effect on gun violence, yet democrats keep pushing AWBs
Trust the Science >

Assault weapons are the abortion of the progressives... it's emotional legislating instead of evidence based decision making. 
It's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right from coming over. 
It's also, and people won't like to hear this, already been decided at the Supreme Court level with Heller and Bruin, so unless new rulings are made that supercede, these bans will be struck down. >


t's also THE wedge issue that prevents people on the right

Anyone who doubts this, look up the percent of woman union members who vote blue vs. the percent of union men who do.  FYI, it's roughly 80% woman and just over 50% men.  
Hunting is very popular amongst blue collar workers.  There are roughly 14 million Americans who hunt and many of them will never vote democrat as long as it's the party pushing gun control.
With the current political climate and a supreme court that is likely to be solidly conservative for a generation now, gun control is a dead issue only suitable for burning political capital and turning off moderates. >

We should start our process of doing something by hardening any location that is designated to be weapon-free. If any public location is designated by law or by choice of the property owner to be weapon-free, it should be required to have security checkpoints at all entrances to ensure that the weapon-free environment is maintained. >

I’ve also thought something along these lines would be a better solution.
What about something like if you make a place a gun free zone you can be held liable for not protecting people in said gun free zone.  In my mind you took away someone’s right to defend themselves so you are now responsible for their safety.
I don’t not know if this would help or not but seems to me to be a better solution than being allowed to sue gun manufacturers, the families can sue the establishment for not having security. >

Sigh... banning assault rifles won't make a difference. Stronger background checks across the board will help, but ultimately mental health investment is needed in the US. Everyone knows the healthcare system is broken in the US. 
Mass shootings are the popping pimples of the sick US healthcare system... >

If he does this Democrats are not going to do well next election. For every 1 wine mom this swings to vote blue, it will turn away 5 independent voters >

There aren't many independents >

Making assault weapons illegal (if they can ever figure out what an assault weapon is) would be every bit as effective as making murder illegal has been. Demented people will find a way... like the dude in the Bronx who killed 87 people with some gasoline. What we need to figure out is why we as a society are producing so many demented people. >

Man protected by weapons doesn't want the Plebs to have them. A trend of a lot of politicians. >

The people protecting him have training, background checks, and are mentally sound. If all other gun owners met those standards you would not have daily mass shootings. >

I live in a state that requires all of those things. I own guns, and don’t mind going through those hoops. >

Let's do it with all the other rights too. 
Also somehow Maine, VT, and NH don't have a problem. Maybe it's the actual people? >

Probably >

They used pistols……. >

I sure do like being effectively held hostage by mentally ill psychopaths who, just because they were in a bit of a pissy mood or read too many memes on gray web imageboard sites, now I’m the victim of it. And with absolutely no respite. The police will always show up after the people get killed and the shooter will just kill themselves so no justice could be had, they get the last laugh. 
All in time so the government can steal money from my paycheck every month and still force me to pay more in the form of taxes under the threat of imprisonment. Just so they can not support me so I don’t fall into poverty or at the very fucking least be able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life without fear of being shot by some utter piece of shit. 
I live in Monterrey Park. Shit like that doesn’t happen here. The people here are nice. They get on with their lives. It’s Lunar. It’s supposed to be one of the best times of the year. And this happens. 
We can’t even enjoy our own fucking lives and the government would much rather suck their own cocks and enrich themselves off of lobby dollars to a brand new oversized SUV to fit in that remodeled garage while we live day to day dodging bullets, playing the fucked up power level estimation game where we have to look over our shoulders at the food court in the mall for that weird guy who is sitting by himself wearing all black and looking upset, or having to touch the children of our community what to do when an adult decides that it is time to end their life in fucking grade school.
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT. >

How about we stop blaming guns and come to realize universal healthcare and expanded mental healthcare will drastically reduce these incidents but democrats and republicans won’t do that bcuz they’re both paid off by big pharma to push out antidepressants that rarely work >

How about no assault weapon ban.  I like that idea better. >

Dems need to remember the last time they tried to violate the second amendment in the 90s with the first assault weapons ban. They lost control of the government for years, also known as the "Republican Revolution".
Just try it lol.
Their virtue signaling will end badly but it's unlikely they will ever succeed in any new gun legislation. 
They have to rely on the ATF to change a few words in the definitions of what guns are to get anything done and even then all it takes is a few tweaks of a gun to make their changes irrelevant.
No more 80% lowers? Ok we'll make 75% lowers which takes 5 more minutes of work to turn into a 100% and is completely legal. 
Even better, something called an ar-zero which is a fully made lower from a single block of aluminum with nothing but the press of a button and a few changes in position.
Want to ban pistol braces? Ok. We'll just put foam covers on or recoil tubes and stick a tennis ball on the end so we can shoulder fire comfortably.
Shall not be infringed! We will always win. >

Well we got Gen Z to prevent another red wave (it worked in the fucking midterms) so I don’t think that’s anything to worry about. >

America is already awash with guns, bit late. >

There are a billion guns within our borders right now, nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue. The fuck you think is going to happen? We ban assault weapons and then ride off into the sun together? People are still going to die left and right to gun violence because there will still be guns. Lots of them.
America has a culture of violence that isn’t going away; it’s ingrained in our sense of rugged individualism. Unless the country turns socialist and communist, notably with a change to the bill of rights, this kind of cultural change is never going to happen. >


nobody is giving them up, and the country is quite divided on this issue.

with 2024 right around the corner, really the perfect time to re-pitch "let's re-try a policy that didn't work and caused decades of opposition voter turnout that wrecked our party's grasp on power" 
it's like the dems genuinely want to lose 2024. >

Dude is just on auto pilot now. Do we even know the type of gun used, Joe? >

i would pay good money to get joe biden to attempt to explain the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle >

This is such a dumb argument.  I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.  
You don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shootings are acquired legally.  How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?
You are applying a standard that would be impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country.  It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion. >


I would pay good money to see any male Republican legislator explain female reproductive anatomy, menstrual cycles, the similarities in symptoms between a home abortion and a miscarriage or even just point to the clit on a picture of a vagina.

"my opponents legislate things they proudly don't understand so it's okay when i want legislation about something i proudly don't understand"
​

You don’t need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to know they are dangerous weapons and most of the ones used in shooting are acquired legally. How would knowing the mechanics of the gun change that fact?

you do need to know the mechanics of a modern semi-automatic rifle to legislate them effectively. the AWB is mostly targeting cosmetic features because it was written by people who don't understand this and didn't care to figure it out.
​

impossible for Congress and the President to achieve given the wide breadth of every topic they touch in governing the country. 

until they achieve that level of understanding, or hire staff who have it and actually listen to them, they've got no business writing shit all for legislation. not just for guns, but for every other topic you mentioned too.
​

It’s also a standard not used anywhere else, like in the case of abortion.

"my legislators know precisely fuck all about what they're writing and voting on and that's okay"? is that really your stance here? >

First, if you need to restate (and I’m being liberal with use of that term here) what I said to put up a straw man and then knock it down, you’re probably not engaging with what I actually said.
Putting that aside, I’m pointing out that this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts.  Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate?  You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy.  I’m accepting that they’re not experts in either…you are not.
This is partially why lobbyists exist and is the reason for the administrative state.  Congress writes the broad law and implementation is passed over to the administrators (experts in the field) to make the cut and dry rules.  There are simply too many topics to expect Congress and the President to have that level of detailed knowledge.  If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.
I expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle.  Do you not see the difference?  I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you. >


this idea that Congress and the President need to be experts on everything they legislate is both naive and only seems to be brought up by gun nuts.  Have you ever demanded a legislator be able to explain the inner workings of any other topic for which they legislate? 

i demand that legislators understand what they write laws about on any subject. technology, abortion, guns, you name it. another party's willful ignorance doesn't excuse the same from the party claiming to be better than them. 
anything less than that standard, they should resign. they have incredibly easy jobs that mostly revolve around soliciting bribes and fulfilling what was asked in exchange for the bribes, with better salary & benefits than the vast majority of the country and budget to staff a full office of people who can learn about the different topics they need to legislate and apply that knowledge to the legislation. 
​

You seem very upset about the level of knowledge of guns but not at all about the level of knowledge of female anatomy

it's almost like we're in a thread about gun legislation, not abortion legislation. i'm just as mad about badly-written laws on other subjects, but the democrats are normally the party opposing them instead of peddling the same badly-informed laws for decades.
​

This is partially why lobbyists exist

and you trust lobbyists, virtually all of which are on corporations' payroll including the gun industry's, to inform legislators to make choices for the good of the american people?
​

If we expected them to become that well versed in every topic, literally nothing would get done.

literally nothing does get done in congress unless there's a corporation paying lots of people for it, so this doesn't sound like much of a change. quality over quantity.
​

I expect them to know more than “fuck all” about a topic, but that’s a far cry from explaining the inner mechanics of an assault rifle. Do you not see the difference? I’m not sure I can break it down more simply for you.

what the democrats know about guns is fuck all. this was proven by the original AWB, which targeted cosmetic features they thought looked scary, and is proven again by their attempts to bring back the same ineffective law instead of write one that might actually work. 
if they want the battle cry to be "common sense gun control", common sense dictates they actually understand what a gun is before writing such a bill. 
yes, that might even require them to reach the level of understanding the mechanics of a gun, because the gun manufacturers sure as hell do and will have their engineers working up AWB-compliant versions of their products long before the bill reaches the president's desk. >

Maybe investing more into mental healthcare/ all healthcare would do more good at this point. But since the US thrives on rugged individualism that will never happen. >

I think that would also help, almost like an accessable universal healthcare system that includes access to mental health professionals for these troubled individuals, I wonder why America doesn't have that...? /s >

Bro those are already banned here in CA and it did NOTHING to stop criminals from taking citizens lives. Ban the guns, only bad guys will have guns. >

The funny thing about this is that all the recent high profile shooting are happening in California which has the strictest gun laws in America >

Since California is home to about 12% of the United States, it's not surprising that things frequently happen in California.  You get a lot less of everything when you have fewer people. >

I find it hilarious that California has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country and that they say it makes people safer. Yet when gun violence happens they'll find any and every reason to not look at themselves, but only think they need more laws ontop of laws.
Clown world. >

Republicanism kills more people than guns do. Maybe we should ban that? >

How would that even work? >

Same shit every time 
Mass shooting 
thoughts and players
Call to ban weapons
Nothing happens 
Mass shooting 
(Restart cycle here) >

Yes let’s ban weapons when fascists are trying to take over. >

C'mon Biden wtf are you doing? >

“Assault weapons”.  Smh, what a dipshit. >

Shithole California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Look how good that’s working out. >

Statistically less gun violence then most states… >

It has the most mass shootings in the country.. >

It’s the largest state by population. What about per capita? >

It still has the largest number of mass shootings… >

Because it has the most people by 10m… Are you surprised it has more then MS? >

The state with the most restrictions on gun ownership, shouldn’t have the most mass shootings, regardless of having 10 million more people. >

Oh interesting, CA is 18th when you take population into account… >

How about we start with ending career politicians for being corrupt and we expand the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed, even by politicians, if we’re going to something because the worm spoiled the bunch >

Have you been drinking again? >

Do we even know what weapon was used yet? >

A pistol according to a BBC story I read. >

Then why use this event to ban assault weapons? >


You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Rahm Emanuel >

Now that they Democrats have lost the house, and know they can't pass any gun reform, they are back to calling for it.  See how this works? >

Gun cult won’t care. Even if every child was murdered they wouldn’t give one fucking shit >

They’re profile tho, save the children >

These threads always put the sociopaths on display. 
Go on shitbags. Tell us more about how mass shootings are fine and nothing can be done about them. >

Dawg you couldn’t kill a rat let alone a person >

And you don't know nuthin'. (11B, CIB) >

Every News cycle, after a mass shooting, follows the same maddening pattern. Newscasters trying to figure out the motive for the tragedy, and what steps could’ve been done to prevent that tragedy. 
Spoiler alert: the problem is the guns. We have more guns than people in America. That and SOBs, who should never have a gun can pick one up at their local shop quicker than you can say mass shooting.  The problem is the guns. It’s always the fucking guns. >

There needs to be a proposed series of steps to  mitigate the problem that doesnt involve magical thinking like "let's just make a billion guns disappear" or "let's create a lookup database with everyone's mental health diagnosis on it" >

He should start by banning the secret service and FBI use of these weapons to see how that goes. >

I could care less if they ban assault weapons, but it’s just managing a symptom of the disease. 
We live in a ~~society~~ world that doesn’t promote empathy unanimously due to a number of reasons…One of the biggest ones I can think of is economic philosophies that put profits over people. >

The people commenting on this is just astonishing. Just so much miss information and really
Bad “ solutions” to the problem. >

He clearly is not aware that a large part of his voter bloc owns “assault weapons.” I’m all for a Dem run in 2024 but doing this is going to fuck them so incredibly hard we’ll be forced to deal with Republicans. >

The pro-gun narrative has showed its cards.  Essentially that gun control doesn't work, doesn't address the problems etc.  And while blocking federal studies for decades.  So to defeat them, we need lots of studies and stats showing that gun control works. >

After reading some of the arguments why this isn't going to completely stop all shootings in the USA, I guess the answer is:  Let's just leave things as they are because there is no solution.
I disagree.  As with Obamacare, we have to start somewhere.  Working to eliminate assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a start.
A mistake is made when calls are made to eliminate all weapons.  That encroaches on American citizens historic right to hunt as a sport or for food.  That right runs very deep in our country.  Assault weapons are a new thing which has been enabled by the right and the NRA, and they have used in many of these mass murders.  Make them illegal. >

There is no historical “right to hunt” thats why hunting licenses exist. The right to keep and bear arms however…has a tag line that it shall not be infringed. >

I'm pretty sure Jesus wanted us all to have assault weapons... >

Please stop with this Biden…it’s not going to go anywhere. >

This is what keeps so many people I know from voting Democrat.
Most of these assault weapon bans mean almost nothing, the laws are usually pretty clear on what you can and cant own.
Besides that the only way you can own anything "cool" is if you're rich enough and can afford the tax stamp and weapon or you really don't give AF and modify a weapon illegally. 
In the early 2000's when I was a teen, I dated a girl whose dad was filthy rich and he used collect weapons, he had a private range on their property and when I asked how they were legal he said that if you had enough money you could buy anything as long as you paid the right taxes. >

I hate this all around and laws aren’t going to fix it.  There needs to be a shift in culture and a focus on mental health.  Someone motivated to kill will kill by any means necessary.  I’m tired of the argument on both sides.  Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals by definition do not follow the law.  High capacity magazines should be outlawed that is a promising step to take but people will find a way around it.  Look at Illinois some of the toughest gun laws in the US and look at Chicago’s gun violence stats.  I can’t count how many feeds on social media show off switches on glocks and I highly doubt the majority of those owners have obtained that apparatus legally and have it documented with the ATF.  Mental health and poverty need to be the talking points not banning the shootier 100 round clip banana assault force machine gun semiautomatic grenade launcher in black. >

I am once again here saying that a lot of Americans think the right to kill is more important than the right not to be killed.
they make celebs out of people who kill for having a plastic bag thrown at them, the sickness isnt ever going away. >

People in here begging the government to protect them from everything. This is how they own you! Begging for more government to take your rights away in exchange for your precieved safety. Those guns are along with our right to free speech are the only thing stopping our government from full blown tyranny. >

What is false equivalency >

10,000 people die every year from speeding. About 500 from mass shootings (with a very generous definition on what that means). Both are preventable, yet we only talk about one. >

Since guns in the hands of private citizens provide no real benefit to our society at large and our society is largely based around cars and being able to travel for work and so on, it's pretty easy to see why. >

Counterpoint: guns are a constitutional right, cars aren't. 
It's fair to think that's silly and wrong, but it is how things are right now.
Regulating either will reduce people's personal freedom, but one of these kills more than the other, and is easier to regulate without worrying about the Supreme Court striking those laws down. I say we do what we can with what we have to save lives.