Realistically what can we do about guns when we have 430 million in the US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

Broke liberals cannot afford to travel. A lot of them cant even find Switzerland on the map after public school education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

Dream on. People in this country have it pretty good and few fools are fighting a civil war over changes to gun laws. We settle our differences in this country by voting, not by overcompensating for teeny littles with lots of guns and idle threats.

It’s cute you think that. People were literally marching around with rifles and full kit a few years back.

At end of day the did not shooting. They voting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing you can do, which is why you must consider moving abroad and leaving the country altogether. The US is Brazil. A second tier country with tons of violence and crime. It's up to you to determine whether slightly bigger salaries are worth the risk of getting shot while simply driving, going to the grocery store, going to church or going to school.

Americans are entirely a hopeless, dimwitted bunch. They can see the problem right in front of them but do nothing about it. School shooting victims are the US' American Holocaust.

The US is objectively nothing like Brazil. I work in Brazil in its supposed wealthiest city. People literally live behind ten foot walls and barbed wire. The metros are horrible places barely fit for living. No one I know has been a victim of violent crime in the US. Of course I don’t live in DC, where violent crime is excused.

And this is relevant to taking guns away, how, exactly

Claiming the US is in any way comparable to Brazil with respect to crime is of course a flat out lie. And just as different are their gun control laws. Brazil has extreme gun control compared to the US, so, well, what point is this person trying to make exactly?

"political power comes from voting" - Mao probably


Ok, you’ve convinced me. The US AND Brazil both need total gun bans.

See? We CAN agree on something.

nobody gives a shit about you opinion. You aren't getitng rid of or banning guns because of the constitution, the supreme court, about 130 million gun owners and enough guns and ammo to dwarf cold war stockpiles and enough men of fighting age who will fight a civil war over it. If you get your wish of a police state crack down of private guns, we will get civil war 2.0 and you will be some dick sucking slave to the local warlord.

Dream on. People in this country have it pretty good and few fools are fighting a civil war over changes to gun laws. We settle our differences in this country by voting, not by overcompensating for teeny littles with lots of guns and idle threats.

It’s cute you think that. People were literally marching around with rifles and full kit a few years back.

At end of day the did not shooting. They voting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

.50 BMGs aren't used for routine purposes or carried by everyday soldiers in war and it's not particularly practical to do so. They are more typically used by snipers or for long-range anti-materiel work. They weigh nearly 35 pounds, as compared to 8-9 pounds for an M-16 or AR-15 which makes them far easier for troops to work with. They are both weapons of war, and it still is ridiculous to call an M-16 "weak" as it's comparing apples to oranges.

No one called the M16 weak. I said it was one of the weakest in the US military arsenal. You should work on your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

M-16 is a step up from sidearm. Spray and pray gun, weapon needed for the drugged our infantry in Nam shooting into the tree line until air support showed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

Gun owners in Switzerland undergo a significant psychological evaluation and criminal background check before they are allowed to own a firearm. The also require substantial weapons training. The mass shooter in Maine a few months ago, for instance, would for certain have had all his guns removed if he were in Switzerland when he was held for an involuntary psyche hold. Swiss gun owners are also subject to unannounced checks from police to ensure that guns and ammo are stored separately and safely. If they are not, they are taken.

Gun owners in this country would never consent to any of that. So Switzerland is not a good example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those who hate guns should spend some time in Switzerland and see if it is a gun problem or a people problem.

Gun owners in Switzerland undergo a significant psychological evaluation and criminal background check before they are allowed to own a firearm. The also require substantial weapons training. The mass shooter in Maine a few months ago, for instance, would for certain have had all his guns removed if he were in Switzerland when he was held for an involuntary psyche hold. Swiss gun owners are also subject to unannounced checks from police to ensure that guns and ammo are stored separately and safely. If they are not, they are taken.

Gun owners in this country would never consent to any of that. So Switzerland is not a good example.

but mere presence of the gun making the shootings!

[Anonymous]

Feel sorry for the automakers, no one buying their EVs and now people will be suing them over deaths from accidents.

Before you all go nuts it is really a good analogy. It is estimated that about 40% of single car fatal accidents are suicides. Smart people commit suicide this way because insurance companies won’t hesitate to pay out vs those gun suicides. The rest of the deaths are clearly the cars fault just like shootings are the fault of the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:M-16 is a step up from sidearm. Spray and pray gun, weapon needed for the drugged our infantry in Nam shooting into the tree line until air support showed up.

Interesting. What tree lines were Curt LeMay’s people shooting into while drugged up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feel sorry for the automakers, no one buying their EVs and now people will be suing them over deaths from accidents.

Before you all go nuts it is really a good analogy. It is estimated that about 40% of single car fatal accidents are suicides. Smart people commit suicide this way because insurance companies won’t hesitate to pay out vs those gun suicides. The rest of the deaths are clearly the cars fault just like shootings are the fault of the gun.

Yep. Car companies are going to go out of business, just like gun companies did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Once you get to a certain level of kinetic energy/momentum it doesn't matter if round A is weaker than round B, both are rifle rounds at the end of the day. If you're hit center mass with a 5.56, 308, 50 BMG it doesn't really matter... you're just different degrees of dead. But 5.56 is smaller and lower recoiling so you can carry a lot more of it and shoot more rapidly. Someone with a 5.56 will be a lot more deadly than with a .50 BMG rifle in a CQB situation.

I’m probably one of the few people on this forum who has killed adult men using an M4. I can tell you with absolute authority from having shot guys with it, the standard 5.56mm NATO M855 is just barely adequate for immediately putting a man on the ground at close range, and that’s only if they can be hit multiple times, such as with a burst. In most cases where I’ve seen a combatant hit only once in the torso at longer ranges (100m+) they are typically still in the fight and effective. Sure, they will likely die hours or even days later - but that leaves them a relative eternity to keep shooting back at you. I’m not sure what “degree of dead” that qualifies them as, but I’ve seen guys I’ve shot at 40-60m keep trying to kill me. I don’t call that a degree of dead - I call that not having enough bullet to stop a guy from shooting at me. No amount of rhetoric or exaggeration can change the fact that the 5.56 is a tiny, tiny little little piece of metal that isn’t really effective past even moderate ranges, especially out of shorter rifles like the M4. Sure, I can carry a 330 round loadout of 5.56. But so what? I’m not a SAW gunner. It’s more of a priority to me that the guy I shot and hit once (because that might be the only opportunity I had to put a round in him) goes down and goes out of the fight. Add to the fact that we left tens of thousands of plate carriers and plates in AFG that will be functional for decades, and the possibility that future foes will be wearing some kind of armor, and the 5.56 is even more inadequate. The first FOB I deployed to was still under construction by CB’s and civilian contractors when we arrived, and those guys had their own overwatch teams. They used some kind of variation of the M14, and I never saw a guy with a torso hit from a M14 fail to go down immediately, and stay down. I definitely would’ve preferred that over the M4.

[Anonymous]

Glad to have the Swiss joining NATO. Good to have a well trained (regulated) militia of about 3 million standing by at the ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my opinion as someone who fought in a war, the AR-15 is not a weapon of war.

Honest question: why is that? The AR-15 is basically an M-16 with the full auto disabled, and the M-16 was the primary battlefield firearm for the U.S. armed forces for many, many years.

You've basically got it. But that's a big difference. Also, aside from the side-arm, the M-16 is the weakest "weapon of war" in the US arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

What the hell are you talking about? The M-16 is the primary handheld weapon issued and used in the US military. Comments like that pretty much torch your credibility.

What weapon in the US military, other than the sidearm (which I listed), is weaker than the M-16?

Sig mcx in 300 blk subsonic, mp5s

I stand corrected. I'll correct. The M-16 is ONE OF the weakest "weapons of war" in the US military arsenal. Calling an AR-15 a weapon of war is like calling a Honda Civic a race car.

Look i dont give a fug, i own a 50 cal BMG. I just don't like your argument that AR-15s aren't weapons of war. It is a weapon of war, just like the constitution and the founding fathers intended.

They aren't used in conventional wars. If you'd like to argue that they are used by lesser militaries then you'd also have to call Toyota pickup trucks "weapons of war." It's a rifle for hobbyists.

.50 BMGs aren't used for routine purposes or carried by everyday soldiers in war and it's not particularly practical to do so. They are more typically used by snipers or for long-range anti-materiel work. They weigh nearly 35 pounds, as compared to 8-9 pounds for an M-16 or AR-15 which makes them far easier for troops to work with. They are both weapons of war, and it still is ridiculous to call an M-16 "weak" as it's comparing apples to oranges.

No one called the M16 weak. I said it was one of the weakest in the US military arsenal. You should work on your reading comprehension.

Weird flex, dude. Is anyone calling your pickup truck "weak" because it's not a Stryker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feel sorry for the automakers, no one buying their EVs and now people will be suing them over deaths from accidents.

Before you all go nuts it is really a good analogy. It is estimated that about 40% of single car fatal accidents are suicides. Smart people commit suicide this way because insurance companies won’t hesitate to pay out vs those gun suicides. The rest of the deaths are clearly the cars fault just like shootings are the fault of the gun.

* citation needed