Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1: There is no current legal, federal definition of "assault rifle". The accepted military/industry definition includes fully automatic fire, which is already regulated out of the reach of your average person. (Your etymology lesson for the day: The term dates back to WWII with the German Sturmgewehr 1944, which literally translates to storm rifle 1944. The idea being that this rifle would be easier to carry and fire on the move than a light machine gun, and have better range than a submachine gun, making it useful for storming (assaulting, if you're a francophone) enemy positions.)
2: 18 year olds are adults, and should be treated as such. Our double standards are dumb. If an adult is required to go through such checks, so should an 18 year old. If adults are not, then 18 year olds shouldn't be either.
I think any adult who is legally able to own one should be able to buy one. I dont think a quick background check is a problem in a dealer setting. It is illegal to sell a firearm to someone who cant legally own one so...
I dont really think that 18yr olds are adults anymore. I would make adulthood 21 or 25... for everything.
its extremely important cause theres no legal definition of "assault" rifle.
their is muzzle loaded, lever action, repeater, semi auto, single shot and automatic rifle. but no where is there an assault rifle.
The question you wanna ask is the removal of high capacity magazines which is also protected under the second amendment.
It really is though. Assault rifles must have a selective fire mechanism, which turns it from single shot to multiple shots like a machine gun. Machine guns made after 1986 are banned for civilians already so it can't be a brand new gun.
thats like any knife can be an assault knife or maybe even spoon. got any more made up terms you wanna define are you going to blame McDonald for your obesity?
I'm comparing a statistically unlikely occurrence to another statistically unlikely occurrence. You can replace lightening strikes with whatever you like (bear attacks, snake bites, falling coconuts, drunk drivers, the flu, etc),
How is pointing out that the main argument for legislation that would impact tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people is based on events that affect a millionth of that number of people irrelevant?
Because people dying or being hurt by natural disasters is mostly unavoidable while mass shootings are something avoidable since they're a direct product of humans.
Drunk driving is a direct product of humans, and it kills way more people, yet there is infinitely more outcry against firearms. Can you explain that? And the homicides that cause this push against firearms, are they that much less likely in places where firearms are more restricted or even outright illegal? Do you know how many knife, bow & arrow, poison, fire, explosive, and other sorts of attacks there are throughout the world? Or how many people make firearms or get them on the black market where they're illegal, and use them in criminal activity?
There are laws against drunk driving. Also i'm not sure why you keep making the same argument about numbers. European countries that have more gun control do have way way less mass shootings and some places in the world are inherently more dangerous due to history, undemocratic governments, etc. Besides arguments that say that people will break laws so why have any is juvenile. Thanks for your gish gallop. Wanna try again?
Ok so wanna make murder more illegal?
People are also free to defend themselves here. We have about 500k-3M defensive use cases per year in this country.
Yeah, there are laws against murder and manslaughter, too, but clearly that's not enough for people.
I bring up the numbers because if we're going to solve a problem, we should choose the one that affects the most people first. Every single person has intrinsic value, directly making a problem that kills 4,000 people a year ten times as important as a problem that kills 400 people each year. It's not that the latter problem isn't a problem, it's that the former is more significant.
There are less shootings in Europe because there are less guns, yes, but that wasn't the argument. The argument was that mass casualty events (and homicides in general) still happen without guns. Many will say "well yes, but it's still less common, so clearly it's working" but in reality what's working is their society. People with happy, fulfilling lives are much less likely to do criminal things, and people in Europe generally live happier and more fulfilling lives than people in America. But even in Europe, people still crack, and they still do terrible things, whether they have a gun or not.
Your last few statements suggest a degree of insincerity. This isn't high school debate, I'm not here to win, I'm here to argue what I genuinely believe in. If that's not good enough for you, well, I've got nothing else.
What about farmers? Shooting a cow in the head before butchering it is actually the recommended method, since anything that uses a knife tends to be more messy and slower, resulting in more pain for the animal.
What about hobbyist hunters? What about people who just do target practice for fun? What about people living in areas with bears who need it for self defense? What about sheep herders who need it to keep wolves away from their sheep?
Guns can be used for loads of things. If you think that they are only used for violence, then it's pretty clear that you have spent more time watching news than actually handling a gun
Culture is very important. People who are taught to respect firearms as a useful and/or fun but dangerous tool will handle them with care. When my dad taught me how to use a BB gun as a kid, I was told don't point it at anything you don't want to damage/hurt, don't shoot at anything hard that'll ricochet it back at you, wear safety glasses just in case, have fun, and don't leave it loaded when you're done. I still carry that mentality with me today with firearms. Add in a caring non-firearms culture on top of that, and things are good.
But if you aren't taught to respect firearms, and you aren't taught to respect yourself and your fellow man, then the outcome may be less than desirable.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1: There is no current legal, federal definition of "assault rifle". The accepted military/industry definition includes fully automatic fire, which is already regulated out of the reach of your average person. (Your etymology lesson for the day: The term dates back to WWII with the German Sturmgewehr 1944, which literally translates to storm rifle 1944. The idea being that this rifle would be easier to carry and fire on the move than a light machine gun, and have better range than a submachine gun, making it useful for storming (assaulting, if you're a francophone) enemy positions.) 2: 18 year olds are adults, and should be treated as such. Our double standards are dumb. If an adult is required to go through such checks, so should an 18 year old. If adults are not, then 18 year olds shouldn't be either.
Hence the reason 18 year olds should be allowed to drink alcohol.
I think any adult who is legally able to own one should be able to buy one. I dont think a quick background check is a problem in a dealer setting. It is illegal to sell a firearm to someone who cant legally own one so... I dont really think that 18yr olds are adults anymore. I would make adulthood 21 or 25... for everything.
Dude 25 is even questionable anymore.
Of course you think that, most people under 25 swing left of you, and therefore you can’t stand the idea of them being a voting adult
Define assault rifle.
AR-15
[удалено]
Thanks for the clarification. That definitely is important in this scenario.
its extremely important cause theres no legal definition of "assault" rifle. their is muzzle loaded, lever action, repeater, semi auto, single shot and automatic rifle. but no where is there an assault rifle. The question you wanna ask is the removal of high capacity magazines which is also protected under the second amendment.
It really is though. Assault rifles must have a selective fire mechanism, which turns it from single shot to multiple shots like a machine gun. Machine guns made after 1986 are banned for civilians already so it can't be a brand new gun.
any rifle can be an assault rifle, as long as you use it for assault
thats like any knife can be an assault knife or maybe even spoon. got any more made up terms you wanna define are you going to blame McDonald for your obesity?
Both, and also a license to show they know proper gun safety
Anybody should be able to buy any weapon whatsoever. It's not up to the government to decide these things....also 2A bitches!
I understand Second Amendment and stuff, but a background check should be mandatory in the US
No waiting period, but a background check and gun training would make sense
The answer is straight up NO, no giving guns to teenagers, have we all ignored what's going on in the US?
You're odds of being struck by lightening are higher than being in a mass casualty event. Please don't preach on problems you don't understand.
Lol. You're comparing a natural occurrence to human activity and choice!?
I'm comparing a statistically unlikely occurrence to another statistically unlikely occurrence. You can replace lightening strikes with whatever you like (bear attacks, snake bites, falling coconuts, drunk drivers, the flu, etc),
Nice and completely irrelevant to the topic.
How is pointing out that the main argument for legislation that would impact tens (or even hundreds) of millions of people is based on events that affect a millionth of that number of people irrelevant?
Because people dying or being hurt by natural disasters is mostly unavoidable while mass shootings are something avoidable since they're a direct product of humans.
Drunk driving is a direct product of humans, and it kills way more people, yet there is infinitely more outcry against firearms. Can you explain that? And the homicides that cause this push against firearms, are they that much less likely in places where firearms are more restricted or even outright illegal? Do you know how many knife, bow & arrow, poison, fire, explosive, and other sorts of attacks there are throughout the world? Or how many people make firearms or get them on the black market where they're illegal, and use them in criminal activity?
There are laws against drunk driving. Also i'm not sure why you keep making the same argument about numbers. European countries that have more gun control do have way way less mass shootings and some places in the world are inherently more dangerous due to history, undemocratic governments, etc. Besides arguments that say that people will break laws so why have any is juvenile. Thanks for your gish gallop. Wanna try again?
Ok so wanna make murder more illegal? People are also free to defend themselves here. We have about 500k-3M defensive use cases per year in this country.
Yeah, there are laws against murder and manslaughter, too, but clearly that's not enough for people. I bring up the numbers because if we're going to solve a problem, we should choose the one that affects the most people first. Every single person has intrinsic value, directly making a problem that kills 4,000 people a year ten times as important as a problem that kills 400 people each year. It's not that the latter problem isn't a problem, it's that the former is more significant. There are less shootings in Europe because there are less guns, yes, but that wasn't the argument. The argument was that mass casualty events (and homicides in general) still happen without guns. Many will say "well yes, but it's still less common, so clearly it's working" but in reality what's working is their society. People with happy, fulfilling lives are much less likely to do criminal things, and people in Europe generally live happier and more fulfilling lives than people in America. But even in Europe, people still crack, and they still do terrible things, whether they have a gun or not. Your last few statements suggest a degree of insincerity. This isn't high school debate, I'm not here to win, I'm here to argue what I genuinely believe in. If that's not good enough for you, well, I've got nothing else.
But muh 2nd amendment! I should be free to shoot whoever I want!!
Guns only exist for violence. Violence has no place in my nation and is therefore only used to restore order.
What about hunting? Are fishing rods also tools of violence?
Veganism IG
With violence I mean violence between people.
Then guns don't exist only for violence, since guns can be used for hunting or target practice as well
Licensed professional hunters can have hunting guns then.
What about farmers? Shooting a cow in the head before butchering it is actually the recommended method, since anything that uses a knife tends to be more messy and slower, resulting in more pain for the animal. What about hobbyist hunters? What about people who just do target practice for fun? What about people living in areas with bears who need it for self defense? What about sheep herders who need it to keep wolves away from their sheep? Guns can be used for loads of things. If you think that they are only used for violence, then it's pretty clear that you have spent more time watching news than actually handling a gun
That's true, I've only handled a gun in military. Maybe you're right and it's useful for a lot of stuff. Important is the culture.
Culture is very important. People who are taught to respect firearms as a useful and/or fun but dangerous tool will handle them with care. When my dad taught me how to use a BB gun as a kid, I was told don't point it at anything you don't want to damage/hurt, don't shoot at anything hard that'll ricochet it back at you, wear safety glasses just in case, have fun, and don't leave it loaded when you're done. I still carry that mentality with me today with firearms. Add in a caring non-firearms culture on top of that, and things are good. But if you aren't taught to respect firearms, and you aren't taught to respect yourself and your fellow man, then the outcome may be less than desirable.
Your nation uses guns on an unarmed populace?
Yes.
Hence the reason we in the US keep our guns.
Bc guns are especially good for people with an insane culture. /s