596
Mass Murder Is a Choice. The Gun Industry Made It
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
596 points (86.7% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1428 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
When there are 24 million guns of that type sold and only a handful used illegally each year, is that really a problem on the manufacturer though?
Seems like the vast, vast, majority of them are used legally or simply not used at all.
When your product's only use is to commit mass murder and you advertise it as making you an invincible badass then yes.
Your point is irrelevant. "Only a tiny fraction of the land mines I placed outside a school killed any children."
That's the thing, that's NOT the only use for the platform. If it were, it wouldn't be the best selling rifle in the US.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
The primary reason for choosing one is weight.
My grandfathers Remington 721 weighs 8.4 pounds (3.8kg), carries 4 rounds, and in .30-06 is arguably a stronger caliber than the .223 in an AR platform.
My Henry .45-70, the caliber rated for all big game in North America (and jokingly rated by Marlin for T-Rex), weighs 8.1 pounds (3.67kg) and carries 4+1 rounds.
Something like the Ruger AR556 weighs a relatively svelte 6.5 pounds (2.95kg) and comes stock with a 30 round capacity, making it easier to carry.
I know, I know, 1.9 pounds (0.86kg) doesn't SOUND like a lot, but it FEELS a lot heavier when you're marching around the woods with a rifle strap digging into your shoulder.
And being able to pick up something fast and use it in a home defense situation makes all the difference in the world.
And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense.
(2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
(2010)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
(2016)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
(2022)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.
Sadly, no one will read this, those that do don't give a shit. Thanks for leaving all this info anyway.
It is not true that cutting food is the primary use of a funco brand model A kitchen knife
The primary reason for choosing one is weight
A huge comment, but I fail to find what you consider other uses beside what you commented on.
You don't require any other use besides the desire for self defense. That's the position of the Supreme Court.
The supreme court says whatever the fuck they want. It's not some sacred institution that should be respected.
You can go tell them that, and see how far it gets you.
The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the constitution means and they set the landscape of the current law of the land.
Their opinions can change (abortion), but it takes generations to make that change.
No it doesn't. It just takes putting your political toadies in the seats. They just say whatever the fuck they want to say. It's not an institution that means anything. Not any further than 'they get to say whatever the fuck they want' that is. Have you read their decisions? They're barely even trying to pretend anymore. Why are you?
It's the 3rd equal part of government as defined by the US Constitution, so yes, it IS an institution just as much as the Legislative and Executive branches.
You can't ignore a constitutionally mandated part of our government just because you don't agree with them.
Now, it CAN change. We saw it change on abortion rights, all it takes is a concerted effort to appoint judges who feel the way you do over a 50 year period of time.
I don't think you're being very present in our conversation. You're not following very well.
When did I say it wasn't an institution? When did I say it wasn't a branch of government?
Oh there are much easier and faster ways to deal with them. Like for instance just ignoring them.
2 Comments above:
"It's not some sacred institution that should be respected."
1Comment above:
"It's not an institution that means anything."
That's implied when you say "just ignore them."
You do NOT have the option of ignoring a branch of government defined by the Constitution.
Anymore than you can choose to ignore the Executive or Legislative branches.
sacred, should be respected
that means anything
No it isn't
Yes you do. It's been done before.
Yes fuck those branches as well but this is off topic
Wow, so you essentially have absolutely no idea how our system of government works.
Good luck with "just ignore it" if you ever end up in court, I guarantee that will not go well for you.
You should crack a history book before you start spouting off about how other people don't know things. When someone tells you something has been done in the past, it's kinda dumb to just spout off "that's not how that works!" with such a smug, sophomoric attitude.
Cite your sources then if you're so confident. Show me when someone has told the Supreme Court to piss off and gotten away with it.
You don't get to just say "yeah they have" and just drop it.
They are the SUPREME court. There is no higher authority in US law.
See:
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/after-unprecedented-defiance-alabama-has-a-fair-congressional-map-for-2024/
Which is on track to repeat itself here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/louisiana-legislators-jan-15-enact-new-congressional-map-court-says-rcna124726
Telling the Supreme Court "No, I don't think I will" is not an option.
As expected. No sources. Also a rule 3 violation for incivility. Comment removed.
As mods we can see all your comments, now you have a 3 day ban.
But honest question, why do you buy a gun like that if you're never ever going to use it? For what purpose do people buy these things anyway?
If police and proud boys have them...
I do use mine for target practice though. I shot competitively when I was younger and really appreciate the skill aspect. I have fond memories of my grandpa teaching me how to shoot, but hunting has never been on my radar.
January sixth, probably played a pretty big role in me actually "pulling the trigger" tbh. That and a PB demonstration down the street from me.
If I was honest, it's basically a super dangerous bowling ball to me.
Sorry I'm seeing your reply after writing a veritable essay to someone else above you. :)
But the primary reasons are weight and self defense.
A traditional hunting rifle has a stronger caliber, but is around 2 pounds heavier and has a lower capacity.
In terms of self defense, you want a lighter weight and a higher capacity. Makes it easier to carry, easier to control, and easier to defend yourself against multiple intruders, something which, unfortunately, has happened multiple times:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/17/deputies-30-rounds-fired-from-ar-15-in-deadly-florida-home-invasion/
Quick! While you're doing numbers, compare the number of times a gun didn't "solve" that problem vs the number of times a gun was misused and someone died. False-negative vs false-positive. It's just numbers and not relevant, but see how it goes.
All we can go by are the overall numbers and how often guns are used illegally, either for suicide or offense, and it's actually surprisingly small.
There are over 474,000,000 guns in the United States, of all types.
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/
On average, every year, there are 25,000 suicides by gun. 6 out of every 10 gun deaths.
https://www.everytown.org/issues/gun-suicide/
25,000 / 474,000,000 = 0.005274%
So if 25,000 is 6/10 that means the other 4/10 is somewhere around 16,666. (25,000 / 6, *4).
Of those, a further 800 to 900 are people shot and killed by police.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
Each death is, individually, a tragedy, but when you're talking 474 million guns and 330 million people, it's not a statistically significant number (0.003516% of guns and 0.005050% of people). There are a lot of stupid people out there and IQ is not a barrier to gun ownership.
If the guns themselves were the sole problem, the number of deaths would be in the millions, not the low thousands.
Defensive gun use numbers are hotly contested, but low-end estimates are in the hundreds of thousands of instances per year in the US source 1, source 2. Those numbers include times when simply pulling a gun was enough to stop a situation from escalating into a overt violence. Obviously people that oppose 2A civil rights wish to downplay defensive firearm use as a way to prevent violence, and people that support 2A civil rights want to champion those numbers. Per my second source, it is disputed that those instances of defensive gun use 'saved lives'--many of them might have been used to e.g. scare off burglars--but there's it's harder to dispute that defensive gun use is quite high. It should also be obvious that it's impossible to know whether a life would have been lost or not without defensive gun use; there's no reasonable way to know if, for instance, a home invasion robbery would have turned into a murder if you were unarmed.