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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Really common knowledge. Here is one that estimates on the low side - https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.134.2.175?journalCode=ajp#:~:text=A%20fo%2D%20rensic%20pathologist%20has,as%2030%25%20(1).

Point is that a percentage of auto deaths are suicide, same as gun deaths. Guns kill the same way as guns kill by human action.

[Anonymous]

But very few in Illinois.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you for proving my point. The AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" just like the pickup truck is not a "weapon of war."

[Anonymous]

An interesting read - The Gun is Civilization - https://www.rugerforum.net/threads/the-gun-is-civilization.413202/

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

It’s the ammo, the m855 is dog shit and tends to overpenetrate, the m193 will fragment and explode and the mk262 has been used to great effect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Really common knowledge. Here is one that estimates on the low side - https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.134.2.175?journalCode=ajp#:~:text=A%20fo%2D%20rensic%20pathologist%20has,as%2030%25%20(1).

Point is that a percentage of auto deaths are suicide, same as gun deaths. Guns kill the same way as guns kill by human action.

Nowhere near the wild claim of 40% and even the 1.7% of fatal is largely speculative. I count the claim to be a fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you for proving my point. The AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" just like the pickup truck is not a "weapon of war."

Lots of pickup trucks are used by militaries for all kinds of purposes. Probably 80% of the military vehicles in Afghanistan were Hiluxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

In Switzerland there are limitations and conditions for gun use - typically you are eligible after completing military service (which most Americans have not) and even then it's only when you are deemed fit - which involves a criminal background check and which can include psychiatric evaluation, consideration of drug use or alcohol use (which would also make a significant chunk of current American gun owners ineligible). And when you're deemed eligible, that license is, apart from a bolt-action rifle, a.) only good for one weapon, and b.) only valid for 9 months, after which it needs to be renewed. They don't hoard guns the way Americans do.

Swiss-style regulation would go far toward reducing gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you for proving my point. The AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" just like the pickup truck is not a "weapon of war."

Lots of pickup trucks are used by militaries for all kinds of purposes. Probably 80% of the military vehicles in Afghanistan were Hiluxes.

Ok, so all vehicles are weapons of war. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Forgot about this fact, 2023 set a record for Black Friday gun sales. Guns were a hot holiday gift item.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2451460/black-friday-gun-sales-smash-record/#:~:text=Sales%20of%20firearms%2C%20led%20by,previous%20record%20set%20in%202017.

[Anonymous]

In 2023, gun violence trended downward. Cities in states with strong gun laws saw the biggest decline.

Of the 300 largest U.S. cities, cities in states with the strongest gun laws saw 19.4% fewer total gun homicides in 2023 than in 2022, while cities in states with the weakest gun laws saw only 5.1% fewer total gun homicides.

Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-2023-gun-violence-trended-down-across-the-country/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2023, gun violence trended downward. Cities in states with strong gun laws saw the biggest decline.

Of the 300 largest U.S. cities, cities in states with the strongest gun laws saw 19.4% fewer total gun homicides in 2023 than in 2022, while cities in states with the weakest gun laws saw only 5.1% fewer total gun homicides.

Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/in-2023-gun-violence-trended-down-across-the-country/

Son gun sales soared AND gun violence dropped everywhere?

[Anonymous]

It is really pretty simple. More guns in the right hands (potential victims) less crime. More guns in the wrong hands more crimes.

Like most things, simply a matter of context.

[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.

How did I miss this nugget… it’s estimated that about 40% of single car fatal accidents are suicides.

Does the CDC or other government agency address this? How would they even know if a car crash is a suicide, unless the driver left a note saying so?

[Anonymous]

It’s not the number of guns, it’s who has them. This country should follow Chicago’s no guns policy based on its success