137
What is something that is completely legal that should be illegal?
(midwest.social)
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 04 Apr 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1239 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Automatic weapons for the most part are already illegal, assault rifle isn't a term that actually means anything and neither does military grade. In fact only 3% of gun deaths in the states are from rifles. The real issue is the illegal gun market and the endless supply of hi-points and other pistols.
You've been lied to.
An "assault rifle" is specifically a selective-fire rifle with detachable magazines and intermediate cartridges. AR-15s, AK-47s, and M16s meet this definition. You are likely thinking of "assault weapon," a term which is not well-defined.
And while it's true that most mass shootings and gun deaths in general are perpetrated by handguns, assault rifles are responsible for the deadliest mass shootings.
Because it is so challenging to pass gun control legislation in the US, the least we can hope to do is forbid ownership of the deadliest types of guns.
I agree that this is not sufficient though. We need to have more stringent requirements for acquiring any firearm. 28 states don't even require background checks for private sale of guns. Our laws fall way too short on gun trafficking.
The illegal gun market is just a symptom of the very legal gun market. The head of the ATF even said, "virtually every crime gun in the US starts off as a legal firearm."
We need background checks, and I don't think private unlicensed gun sales should be legal either.
Okay except most rifles, including AK47's AR15's and M16's are semi automatic only so they aren't selective fire. And if we ignore that requirement and go with the the other two requirements it means that .22lr hunting rifles with a box mag count as "assault rifles"
Pistols are still the deadliest type of guns no matter what metric you use.
The head of the ATF is also responsible for operation fast and furious. Not to mention that is a nothing statement when you think about it. Of course they start off as legal firearms. Gun traffickers are "legally" buying these weapons overseas end mass from firearm companies and warlords or they're being stolen from legal gun owners.
That's just whataboutism.
Honestly true. I just think he's a moron so I discount much of what he says.
Also I looked up the statement about most guns being legal. Based on data from his own agency its 54%. While that is technically the majority, thats a coin flip. "Virtually all" in my books is 70% or higher.
That's a silly statement. Why do you think soldiers prefer to use assault rifles in combat? I said "deadliest" meaning the most capable of killing, not the most statistically likely gun to kill someone.
"Most capable of killing" doesn't mean anything though. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. What gun its fired out of doesn't really matter when its against soft targets. 9mm 5.56 and 7.62 are all the same lethality.
Edit: Also comparing the use case of gangers and even school shooters with soldiers is foolish. The main benefits of a rifle (in war) are range, stability and higher cyclic rate. Virtually all rifles are semi automatic so cyclic rate doesn't matter. And at the range pretty much all school shootings take place in, pistol vs rifle doesn't matter. Stability is also largely irrelevant based on distance and the fact that unarmed civilians dont shoot back.
All this to say, 91% of school shootings are perpetrated with pistols. So this hyperfixation on "assault rifles" is silly. I say again, you've been lied to.
Ok I don't really agree with all of your lines of reasoning but I'm curious what you think the solution to our gun problem is. We at least agree that we have a problem, right?
Oh certainly.
Legislation needs to focus pistols. Cracking down on the black market of highpoints.
I thought the last few school shootings were from legslky owned rifles?
That's what you hear about. You don't hear about the other 40,000 gun deaths (almost half suicides) anymore than you hear about the 40,000 vehicular deaths.
Kis shoots up a school and kills 5? All over the media for a solid week. Asshole ripping down the interstate takes out a family of 5? Meh. Quick local news blurb.
OP's point is that rifles, legal or not, aren't what's doing all the killing. It's the pistols. Nobody will talk about it because there's no way in hell for a pistol ban to pass. But words like "assault" and "military" get traction.
Remember Virginia Tech? Worst mass murder at the time? Kid did most of his killing with a .22 pistol.
They were. They were horrific tragedies. They are also the outlier of outliers. And any legislation targeting them is either a) going to have zero effect on crime, b) only going to harm law abiding citizens or C) both
isn't it specifically going to rein in the outlier of outliers that school shootings are? I think people would be really happy with that, even if the average crime rate doesn't go down
I doubt it If they cant get an ar they'll just go get a black market pistol for $100. And besides, the way to curb school shootings isn't through firearm restrictions. It's through actual proper mental health programs and funding. Something that the US government refuses to fund because it'll actually fix the problem instead of just being a feel good gesture.
The only shootings where mental illness plays a major factor are suicides. When it comes to gun violence, only 4-5% of perpetrators have a severe mental illness. When it comes to school mass shootings specifically [ source ]:
And with regard to school shootings generally:
If we could reduce bullying and do a better job at making students feel like they have value and matter, that would go a lot further toward reducing school shootings than anything involving mental illness (aside from, perhaps, efforts to reduce the stigma associated with it).
Substance abuse - drugs, particularly those that are illegal, and alcohol - as well as poverty and inequality is much more strongly linked to gun violence.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t continue improving our available mental health resources (the majority of deaths from guns are by suicide, after all), but we shouldn’t use mental illness as a scapegoat.
Huh well alright then. I thought mentally illness played a bigger part. Now I know. Thanks!
No, because 91% of school shootings were performed with a handgun.