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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support gun control 100%, I hate guns. I wish we could get rid of all of them. Every other country that passed landmark gun ban legislation after a massacre seems to have started at a much lower baseline of guns in circulation. Even if we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow and banned every single type of firearm besides maybe single shot hunting rifles, how long would it take to confiscate and destroy all 430 million guns? Decades? And we have probably 20% of the country being adamantly opposed to any kind of gun ban... they won't comply. Are we completely stuck? It's depressing.

Why do you hate guns? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever used a gun to hunt for food? Did you know the one of the fastest growing high school sports is trap shooting - https://www.foxnews.com/sports/guns-ammo-one-americas-fastest-growing-high-school-sports-benchwarmers.amp

DP I hate guns because of all the pain and suffering that guns have made so much easier to inflict on human beings.

—someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence.

—I feel that way about cars and liquor- someone who has lost several loved ones to a drunk driver

Interesting point. Who thinks it should be illegal to drive with alcohol in your system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Hopefully this is a sarcastic comment. .

[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.

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.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

If your target is unarmored sure, but cheap lvl3 and 4 is prevalent

Sure. Tell that to the uvalde cops.

The coward patrol.

Review the videos. Cops tried to get to that door, but a man out of uniform prevented them.

[Anonymous]

Good news OP you can continue to hate guns, it is a free country.

Bad news from your perspective. The founders were wise individuals and fortunately millions of people understand that they are part of the unorganized militia at the federal level as well as defined in a number of state constitutions.

That is why they not only own guns but train in there use so that they are “well regulated” (equipped and ready for duty, as was the common use of the term in the mid to late 1700s).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support gun control 100%, I hate guns. I wish we could get rid of all of them. Every other country that passed landmark gun ban legislation after a massacre seems to have started at a much lower baseline of guns in circulation. Even if we repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow and banned every single type of firearm besides maybe single shot hunting rifles, how long would it take to confiscate and destroy all 430 million guns? Decades? And we have probably 20% of the country being adamantly opposed to any kind of gun ban... they won't comply. Are we completely stuck? It's depressing.

Why do you hate guns? Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever used a gun to hunt for food? Did you know the one of the fastest growing high school sports is trap shooting - https://www.foxnews.com/sports/guns-ammo-one-americas-fastest-growing-high-school-sports-benchwarmers.amp

DP I hate guns because of all the pain and suffering that guns have made so much easier to inflict on human beings.

—someone who has lost a loved one to gun violence.

—I feel that way about cars and liquor- someone who has lost several loved ones to a drunk driver

Interesting point. Who thinks it should be illegal to drive with alcohol in your system?

That would only complicate the lives of functional alcoholics. They need their cars to make a living in hopes that they will seek medical treatment.

[Anonymous]

We should round up all the gun nutters and send them to Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should round up all the gun nutters and send them to Ukraine.

Sorry, but law abiding gun owners reject the suicide cult. Their guns are to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Anyone who doesn’t care about life and our Constitution could go to Ukraine to die on their frontline.

[Anonymous]

I plan on going out to the range with my multitude of legally owned guns and shooting off a few hundred rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I plan on going out to the range with my multitude of legally owned guns and shooting off a few hundred rounds.

You sound like a very boring, not to mention morbidly obsessive, person.

[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.

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.

Especially with the new m855a1 round, but a 308 is going to have more knock down power given the prevalence of lvl4 armor

Dead is dead

If your target is unarmored sure, but cheap lvl3 and 4 is prevalent

Sure. Tell that to the uvalde cops.

The coward patrol.

Review the videos. Cops tried to get to that door, but a man out of uniform prevented them.

Crickets?

[Anonymous]

It's culture not guns. I hate guns but from the perspective that in this country they are used without any sense of purpose or responsibility. It's not about having them it's about when and how you use them. I would never want them but that's because I don't feel comfortable using them at all. We are a society that has some who believe, not believe, want, not want guns. As such, none of us know what to do with a gun because we have no habits as a culture in working with guns.

It's too late now to take them back. It's not intuitive but actually the best thing to do logically is train people to use them and develop a gun culture to use them responsibly. What I'm suggesting is instead of fighting the battle you'll lose if taking them all away, embrace the fact there's an opportunity to educate people and hope more will use guns wisely. I know it's kinda a pipe dream but that's where we are now dong you think? So it's about coming up with PR and social norms to have people think of them as what they are - weapons. You have to take care of weapons or they will take care of you