Submitted by washingtonpost t3_126wwis in IAmA

EDIT: Thank you so much for your questions. That is all the time we have for today, but we will check back to answer any big, lingering questions later on.


Our story “American Icon” is one of nine stories that take an in-depth look at the AR-15’s rise to dominance in the U.S. gun industry, how the gun’s bullets are particularly devastating to the human body, and how it has divided a nation and more. Ask us anything.

The AR-15 thrives in times of tension and tragedy. Our story explains how it came to dominate the marketplace – and loom so large in the American psyche:

Ask us anything.



You must log in or register to comment.

DrJawn t1_jebj3i2 wrote

Why is the Assault Weapon Ban at the forefront of the gun control debate when 90+% of child homicides are from handguns?


DrJawn t1_jebnkmg wrote

I mean I know the answer, I just wanna hear them say it. I would accept any of the following and maybe some others

  1. Assault weapons ban is an easy 'win' for the Democrats because it will never get passed but it can make it look like they tried

  2. People only care when affluent (especially white) kids get shot, no one cares about all the impoverished children killing each other with handguns

  3. The media (WaPo included) over-covers school shootings, which increases the issue due to giving fame to shooters and promoting copy cats. Since most people in the US who live outside of cities don't see the coverage about the thousands of dead kids from handguns, they just don't care.

  4. The average middle class American lives in an area where school shootings are more likely than handgun fueled gang violence and again, only care about issues that effect them and not their fellow Americans with the least support for their own success

  5. The crime epidemic in the cities is directly related to the failed War on Drugs and it's policy of mass incarceration but no one wants to end either because the government on both sides profits from this. Also, no one wants to fund schools or after-school programs to give these kids in a role-model-vacuum a positive course for their lives because it's easier and cheaper to ban assault weapons and let everyone think the problem is solved

  6. Elected officials think voters are stupid so they propose overly-generalized solutions to incredibly complex problems in order to pacify the masses


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jeboqhn wrote

You're entire premise about the AWB being at the forefront of the discussion is bogus. There has been a tremendous push to strengthen background checks, enact red flag laws, limit magazine capacity, and so on.


dogsledonice t1_jece1i5 wrote

Because rifles are increasingly used for mass attacks - 4 out of 5 of the worst mass shootings in the US involved rifles, including the worst (Las Vegas). Sandy Hook, Orlando. That kind of firepower is more difficult to counter - look at Uvalde. Or, again, Vegas -- not so easy to rack up huge casualty numbers with handguns (which are more common, so yeah - they're used more often).


buzzothefuzzo t1_jed686t wrote

sure would've helped the effort to counter the attack in uvalde if the police actually you know... did their jobs... they have body armor, high powered, automatic guns, with standard capacity clips allowing them to hold more ammo than many US citizens can. why didn't they use them??


dogsledonice t1_jedange wrote

Because they were facing military-style weaponry, which is my point

For all the "good guys with a gun" rhetoric you folks spout, they seem to disappear mighty fast when faced with a bad guy with a semi-auto


triit t1_jeezix7 wrote

You obviously didn't see the body cam footage from Nashville...


dogsledonice t1_jeftxi2 wrote

Oh? How is that germane to how the Uvalde police responded?


DrJawn t1_jecruvw wrote

7% of gun deaths are rifles


what_mustache t1_jef4llc wrote

That seems like a lot if you assume they aren't typically for suicide.


DrJawn t1_jefgug7 wrote

Even less suicides are rifles. 53% of child gun deaths are suicides.


dogsledonice t1_jed4z8y wrote

I mean, use whatever stats you want to imply what you want to imply.

"Gun deaths" will include suicides, of which there are very many. Does anyone use an AR for that? No. Do they use ARs in slaughtering innocents in schools, churches, malls, concerts, bars, etc.? Yep. And both figures are grotesquely high *when compared to any similar country* other that the U.S.


spiritfiend t1_jebdijn wrote

Do you think ownership of major media outlets by US oligarchs affects reporting? Do you think more diverse ownership in media could shift attitudes on gun ownership?


DrJawn t1_jebnosq wrote

Massa Bezos is reading this AMA, they can't go against him


washingtonpost OP t1_jebkmvi wrote

From Ashley Parker:

My sense is that media ownership has very little influence over why people choose to own or not own AR-15s. I’d specifically point you to our polling story that delves into, among other things, why people own guns — and the top reason is to “protect self, family and property.”

This story also features interviews with several gun owners, talking about why they ended up deciding to own AR-15s. I found them so fascinating that I watched them all, some several times, and I don’t think media ownership — or anything related — come up even obliquely.


Jrapin t1_jec08bn wrote

What a laughably obsequious answer.


Incipiente t1_jegbph4 wrote

seems almost AI-generated, with a negative prompt such as "do not answer the actual question"


UnadvertisedAndroid t1_jeblnfo wrote

Many of these people were brainwashed into thinking they needed the AR-15 for protection by the media, so how is it that the media has very little influence? Even if not directly, they encourage gun ownership by way of hyperbolizing headings and showcasing tragedy because that's what drives views and clicks. Until we start holding them accountable for this, people are going to be frightened into thinking our country is a constant warzone.


Divallo t1_jeby5w1 wrote

Media ownership holds a lot of influence over what stories you cover and what you're allowed to say on those stories.

You aren't a journalist. As long as you stay under Bezos' thumb all you are is a complicit pawn.


yax51 t1_jebrrza wrote

Why did the Washington Post claim that Trump regulations regarding small-arms exports would put American guns in the hands of terrorists, dictators, and gangs?


maciver6969 t1_jecrvl7 wrote

Because like most of the media today they are at best hacks and at worst used as weoponized political tools for one side. Hell most people today cant remember when the media used to just report the news and not force their view or agenda on the masses.


buzzothefuzzo t1_jed5qvy wrote

i remember when fox news broadcasted news

a bygone era

crazy right?!


undefined_one t1_jebjivw wrote

Can you please explain to everyone that an AR15 is not a machine gun and shoots bullets no faster than a hunting rifle? The only difference is the number of bullets each magazine can hold. People have the wrong idea about the AR15. The media has made everyone fear it, when it's still just a semiautomatic rifle - like a hunting rifle. It just looks mean, so people play on that. I have one and it has never killed anyone. The lazy thing won't even clean itself!


what_mustache t1_jef2zkd wrote

>The only difference is the number of bullets each magazine can hold.

This seems pretty damn important...


undefined_one t1_jefs4wn wrote

It can be argued multiple ways. Yes, it absolutely impacts the ability to do harm, but not nearly as much as you'd think. I heard a news outlet report that when a shooter changes magazines they call it the "critical pause", and they say it can last between 10-15 seconds. They also say that this is the time when the shooter can be most easily stopped and so that reload time is vital. I've been shooting for over 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen it take anyone 10 seconds to load a new magazine. More like 2-3 seconds, and that's not even trying to be fast. So while I'm not so hard headed as to think capacity doesn't matter, I'm also smart enough to realize that as fast as reloads are, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Especially if the shooter practices. I know guys that can reload a mag in the blink of an eye. So whether it held 10 or 30 makes little difference. That's one argument. The other is still the same as drugs: you can outlaw them all you want and criminals will still have them. So then you limit the good Samaritan to 10 rounds while the criminal will still have the high capacity. Except the good Samaritan who carries for self defense probably doesn't have multiple mags.


what_mustache t1_jeh02vo wrote

>I've been shooting for over 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen it take anyone 10 seconds to load a new magazine. More like 2-3 seconds,

Right. I'm sure you're fast when casually shooting. But these people are not under ideal conditions, probably nervous, etc.

And don't try the "only criminals have guns". This isn't a problem in every other country that banned guns. We didn't see Canada and Australia taken over by criminals. Also, drugs are illegal...


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jebn56s wrote

As the owner of several ARs and several hunting rifles, I can tell you that the above comment is not quite accurate. The vast majority of semi-auto hunting rifles, like my Remington Woodsmaster, are in larger calibers than the 5.56, don't have pistol grips, don't allow for the C-Clamp grip, and don't accommodate muzzle brakes... all of which mean a slower rate of fire and reduced accuracy.


undefined_one t1_jefqdx8 wrote

I have several ARs, Blackouts, etc. I think it was obvious that I didn't mean what type of grip it has. I meant the world is under the impression that they are machine guns. You're right - hunting rifles are higher caliber, which makes them even deadlier than an AR. Muzzle brakes control recoil better, but make the gun louder, longer and heavier.

But again, for the people in the back, the AR15 is not a machine gun. You don't hold the trigger and bullets come flying out. It uses the same mechanics as a hunting rifle - you get one bullet when you pull the trigger.


csamsh t1_jeet9h2 wrote

Let's play "Spot the Liar!!!" I win. It's GeorgeCrossPineTree, so has obviously never handled a bolt action rifle or an MSR, much less fired one.


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jeewsqi wrote

Go ahead, spot one lie in my comment. You see a lot of c-gripping on a .30-06 M77? You can maintain your sight picture as well with a semi-auto .308 as you can with a .223?


csamsh t1_jef0th5 wrote

I can hunt with any rifle, first of all. AR’s make excellent/versatile hunting platforms, not really sure why you distinguish them from “hunting rifles.” Since you said m77, I’ll group bolt action rifles in as well.

  1. There are tons of pistol grip options for bolt action rifles. Even more for semis.
  2. What does c clamp have to do with anything? But since you asked, yes you can c clamp any rifle.
  3. Pretty much all modern rifles have threaded barrels. All barrels can be threaded.
  4. How does any of what you mention contribute to reduced accuracy?
  5. Your woodsmaster has the same rate of fire as any AR.
  6. My semi auto 308 is well tuned and a very soft shooter. If I were to shoot a 3gun match with the 308, I’d probably split almost the same as with 223. I won’t though because I’m poor.

washingtonpost OP t1_jebv9ha wrote

From Alex Horton:

You are correct that AR-15s are not machine guns. They shoot as fast as any other semiautomatic firearm, since firing speed is as fast as you can pull the trigger. But the comparison has only so much value. Typical hunting rifles are bolt-action and require you to recycle the round manually with each shot. They also often have limited ammunition capacities, typically around 5 with one in the chamber. What also makes them different from AR-15 is their size, weight and length. Most modern ARs have collapsable buttstocks and shorter barrels, making them more compact than your typical hunting rifle. I think in most situations when you want to cause maximum harm, like a mass shooting, those are some of the reasons AR-15s and not hunting rifles are used.

I think one reason AR-15s are so central to this discussion is market saturation. About 1 in 20 U.S. adults own one, according to our polling. Of course there are other types of rifles that are similar, like Mini-14s, and other foreign alternatives, like the Steyr AUG. But those are far less common. I think some reasons are AR-15s are available everywhere, easy to shoot, customizable and fairly cheap for entry level models. AR-15s also have a long and recognizable history from Vietnam all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan because of the use of the rifle’s military cousins, the M16 and M4.

Not to mention that AR-15s are symbolic on both ends on the spectrum. Gun advocates say AR-15s are the pinnacle of the 2nd Amendment, and critics point to it as emblematic of all that is wrong with guns and access to them.


maciver6969 t1_jecrmd4 wrote

What a load of crap. I own several hunting rifles and none are bolt action, and can accomodate different size magazines and function exactly the same as the ar line. Do you know the difference between an ar-15 rifle and carbine as well as the varients? For one, the one you mention having shorter barrels are typically carbines, and they are lighter, making them harder to keep on target reliably when shooting rapidly, making them less than ideal to use in a firefight - speaking as former military I was trained in CQB in the navy with the military version of both the carbine and rifle, I prefered the shotgun.

With the idiots in the press demonizing the whole platform yet most cant identify the differences when handed one randomly, and far too many of the morons in office chiming in with their stupidity - like several saying it is a machine gun. As an AR owner, the reason people I know own them is that they are common enough that you can customize it for the needs you have, need a light, they have a bolt on available. Need it more accurate, better barrels and gas kits. Going in brushy areas? Shorter barrel swap. It makes ONE firearm into multiple with minor costs, a great varmit gun, to an accurate deer rifle, to a beast for killing groups of hogs destroying several states agriculture, to a range rifle and so many inbetween.

Mine was originally chambered in dual 5.56 and 223, I later bought a kit to make it use .22lr, and bought a 300 blackout kit a few months ago.

How about why the media harps on the AR platform as demonic, yet ignores the actual statistics that say handguns are overwelmingly used in violence but arent focused on in any meaningful way. Or that the "mass shootings" definition is so full of shit it isnt funny, when almost every shooting is a mass shooting because it involves more than 2 people. Well with the shooter and a single person is fine, but add a 3rd person and they lose their minds. You want the real reason we have so many violence issues? The damn media. Sensentionalizing these stories and it lets every idiot with an agenda to become famous. Start putting the truth out, that a coward went and attacked people who can not defend themselves in so called gun free zones that advertise that no one will be able to stop them because they KNOW that no one is carrying there, just like the latest shooter did in Nashville, she did not go to the mall because there were rent a cops there. Or the Colorado shooter who went past 5 theaters to one that had a nice gun free zone sign up.

No you wont do that. Now tell us why you wont.


Absolutedisgrace t1_jed5v9x wrote

As a non-american, ive wondered why ar15s were even sold. They seemed like such a military weapon it seemed crazy. Your post is the first time ive seen a good "why" they exist.

Regulation and licensing really seems like the best method here. Never going to fully solve mass shootings but at least it could make it more difficult to go from shop to school in such a short time frame.


Emergencykebab t1_jedw2xa wrote

Your bias is so clear it’s painful to read. And this is from a Brit who thinks the US fascination with guns is unusual to say the least.


csamsh t1_jeete2v wrote

Lol. Wrong. Wrong.... everywhere.... on ... everything....


MinotaurGod t1_jeczc7v wrote

The AR-15 is based upon the M16 platform originally designed for the US military 60 years ago. That means 60 years of parts; enough to maintain 8 million of them. The civilian version, the AR-15 can use many of the same parts. An extreme amount of parts surplus, along with it being a rather simple platform means they are cheap, easy to repair, and have garnered a bit of a cult following, especially among veterans. It has also lead to a huge aftermarket as the AR-15 is very simple, and easy to customize.

The AR-15 itself is a rather average gun. It performs as most other rifles do. It requires quite a bit of effort to keep it running though. Its very susceptible to dirt, grime, etc, and getting everything to run smoothly and reliably can take a lot of work.

The reason its become the target of so many? Its extremely common, as mentioned above, and has certain 'features' that stupid people really love to latch on to: Its black, it can have pointy bits on it so it looks 'aggressive', and it has AR right in the title! Too bad the idiots don't realize that it does not stand for 'assault rifle', but instead stands for 'Armalite Rifle', after the company that designed it. It has also become targetted because idiot politicians and the media need a simple object to hold up to the masses. They cant make money or get ratings or votes from images of mental health issues.. what are they going to show? People cant get angry over images of.. brain wave patterns or something. An evil looking black object though? McTrump himself, while incredibly stupid in all areas that matter, was intelligent enough to realize this. Create something simple, like a red hat with 4 letters on it, and the idiots will be drawn to it like moths to a flame. Same reason pop music is so popular. People like stupid, mindless and simple.

The many things the politicians, media and most people get wrong:

The definition of 'assault rifle'.
What makes something 'tactical' or 'assault-style'.

Pistol grips/braces: How do they in any way affect.. anything?

Bump stocks: Unreliable and useless, more of a hindrance than a help.

'High capacity magazines'. You mean normal capacity? It takes virtually no time to swap a mag.

Bullet vs Round.
Magazine vs Clip.

If these people are unwilling to understand and learn the subject they are speaking about, they need to just shut the fuck up.


what_mustache t1_jef2sym wrote

Emergency room doctors with firsthand knowledge of treating gun victims have said that the damage 223 ammo causes is far, far less treatable than what are 9mm causes. It's not that the gun is black, it's the high velocity ammunition it fires, large clips, etc. It's almost like the military knew what they were doing when they designed it.


states_obvioustruths t1_jefawyt wrote

It's almost like one is a rifle round being fired from an 18" barrel and another is a pistol round being fired from a 5" barrel.

I feel like trauma surgeons also find that people hit by semis going 60 mph are harder to treat than people hit by sedans going 25 mph.


what_mustache t1_jegyvq5 wrote

Yeah, weird that higher velocity rounds hurt more.

But naw, all guns are the same.


MinotaurGod t1_jefgkyw wrote

9mm is not the only caliber of pistol round. There are pistol calibers out there that have as much energy as a .223. It also doesnt say anything about ammo type. FMJ? Hollow-point? You mention large mags... it takes an unskilled, uncoordinated person maybe 2 seconds to swap a mag. Lets take the Nashville shooting as an example. The cops did an absolutely fanfuckingtastic job of getting in and taking the idiot out, but it still took them 12 minutes to arrive. Thats 720 seconds. Do you really think 30 seconds for 15 mag swaps will make a difference? If nobody is fighting back, and they have all the time in the world, the amount of ammo they can carry in a single magazine is meaningless.

Guns in war have not evolved to kill large amounts of people. Thats what we have bombs and missles for. They've evolved to protect the person wielding it. The higher the velocity, the further away you can be from your enemy. The more rounds in the magazine, the more you can spam towards the enemy in hopes of hitting them while not getting hit yourself, as you likely wont have time to take a steady shot.


what_mustache t1_jegz55e wrote

Lol. Bro, your word salad of excuses sing gonna change physics. Ek=½mv2. Note that velocity is squared, not mass.


csamsh t1_jeesud9 wrote

Why are long gun bans the current focus of leftist politicians when long guns are overwhelmingly not used in firearm homicides?


Kahzootoh t1_jegugdz wrote

The vast majority of homicides are either situations where the victim and perpetrator know each other OR it's relatively small scale. Random murders are uncommon, and it's rare to see someone who commits a lot of random murders.

Mass shootings get attention because they are both seemingly random and they are often mass casualty events. The methods of many perpetrators of mass shootings often resemble terrorism more than what we would consider crime- lots of victims, no intent to escape, motives that are often irrational.

If the perperators of mass shootings were using pistols or other weapons- that would be the focus of legislation. When Columbine happened and other shootings of the 90s took place involving the TEC-9, the pistol was banned by several states (California banned it both by name, and by it's various features). Same deal with the Hi-Point Carbine, which was also used in Columbine- California, Connecticut and New York have all restricted the sale of the weapon at various times.

The AR-15 is what many high profile mass shooters are using, so it is the focus of the legislation. Unlike in the 90s where restrictive legislation passed in many states, it seems like the failure to pass legislation to restrict the AR-15 has caused a loop where more people buy them and then odds of a mass shooter using an AR-15 instead of something else are higher.


f1del1us t1_jefylqr wrote

Why are we so focused on the guns that people use to kill each other, when the vast majority are used by people to kill themselves?


csamsh t1_jeg446f wrote

That’s a fanfuckingtastic question. Better yet- why are people killings themselves? It’s almost like there’s a mental health epidemic that could be quelled if we had easy, maybe even universal access to mental healthcare.


f1del1us t1_jeg494d wrote

Then I wonder what would happen to all the murder rates if you started taking care of people and the suicides went way down….


csamsh t1_jeg5wff wrote

This idea might be a little out there, but maybe if we took care of our people, they'd do less killing. I could be wrong.


what_mustache t1_jef6c5b wrote

As a "leftist" most of us think guns are fine for home defense and hunting. Shotguns, actual hunting rifles, well regulated and licensed handguns are fine.

Unless you're a farmer beset by coyotes, you don't need anything that fires 223/556 ammo. The military designed that platform for a very specific reason, and it's not deer hunting.


humanzRtrash t1_jefp37z wrote

>you don't need anything that fires 223/556 ammo. The military designed that platform for a very specific reason, and it's not deer hunting.

You say that as if service members haven't complained about the performance of the 223/556 since it was first implemented. It's a significant step down from the .30-06 which was used in military service for nearly 70 years.

A 233/556 is a small rifle round be comparison. But the rifle it goes in looks scary.

Edit: FYI You be better off hunting with the .30-06


what_mustache t1_jegzm8g wrote

Ek=½mv2. Note that velocity is squared. Energy delivered by a round has less to do with mass and more to do with velocity.

And of course you're better off hunting with a larger round, but 30-06 rounds are ALSO high velocity.


camelzigzag t1_jebjbp1 wrote

What are your thoughts on the saying, "taking away guns will only leave criminals with guns?"


dogsledonice t1_jecbjjz wrote

What are your thoughts on the saying, "The more of a thing exists in a space, the more likely you'll interact with it"?


csamsh t1_jeet0tg wrote

If your logic was sound, you'd interact with more guns than you would people


dogsledonice t1_jefttmj wrote

Not sure what that means.

Do you disagree that when there are more of a thing in a society, you're more likely to encounter it?


Trapptor t1_jebqtmw wrote

If you think that that is a good argument against gun control, do you similarly think that “Taking away nuclear weapons will only leave criminals with nuclear weapons” is a good argument against prohibiting individuals from owning nuclear weapons?

Edit: the amount of downvotes this has gotten compared to the complete lack of serious responses is quite telling.


dogsledonice t1_jecd5nm wrote

Guns are magical. No laws can affect them, nothing can take them away, they're sent by Jesus.


acoradreddit t1_jec3skz wrote

I'll give you my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.


Screw_Bird t1_jebj7sm wrote

Do you think there’s an issues with how the ATF has handled enforcing gun laws and restrictions currently when it seems they are still very focused on helping the DEA with their failed war on drugs?


PixieBaronicsi t1_jeeo5k3 wrote

Do you think school shooters are encouraged by the publicity around them?

Can you think of any other act that an angry and suicidal teenager can do that will put their face on the TV and attract the attention of the president?


Bmc00 t1_jebd71s wrote

What steps do you think the country would need to take to make a difference in lowering gun violence? Also, what steps would the country be willing to take?


washingtonpost OP t1_jebg1y7 wrote

From Ashley Parker:

I cover national politics, and from a political standpoint, one thing that could make a difference is what always makes a difference — voters actually voting on this issue. The reason why some Republicans are reluctant to support even slightly modest measures that would restrict gun rights are because they believe — often correctly — that the Republican base will punish theme in a Republican primary. But in my conversations with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — who obviously represents the state where Sandy Hook occurred — he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win. He says in the wake of the Parkland shooting, he sees a real movement, led by young people, where politicians may now expect to pay a price for NOT supporting what he would term common sense gun reform. But of course, before it can become a real general election issue, it has to stop being a toxic Republican primary issue.


DrJawn t1_jebnvhe wrote

> he has become increasingly bullish on the idea that Democrats can now run on the issue of gun restrictions… and win.

This is all either party cares about. Pulling on your heart strings to secure and maintain power.


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jebp5pr wrote

Not really. The Democrats have been consistently pro-gun control for decades but have often had to bury those positions since they weren't what the electorate wanted. Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.


DrJawn t1_jebq6cb wrote

> Now, however, they feel that they can promote these long held beliefs without paying a price politically.

It's easy to push an agenda as a minority because you can push anything and when the majority rejects it, you can claim you tried. Last time they put their balls on the table was 1994 and they....banned assault weapons


ChairmanMatt t1_jec7gvl wrote

Here's some democratic platforms

>"It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons."

-1992 Democratic Platform

>"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

-2004 Democratic Platform

>"We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

-2008 Democratic Platform

>"We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements - like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few."

-2012 Democratic Platform

>"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets."

-2016 Democratic Platform

>"Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines"

-2020 Democratic Platform

Notice how every platform since 1992 has called for an assault weapons ban (1996 and 2000 omitted because the 1994 AWB was in place). Yes people are coming for our guns and some are very blunt about it


DrJawn t1_jec7seu wrote

What legislation has followed those platforms?


DarkLink1065 t1_jecjpht wrote

A significant amount of state legislation in CA, NY, etc. After the disaster of the post 1994 AWB midterms, Dems have avoided spending political capitol on federal legislation, though they do regularly introduce things like new AWB bills. I think Pelosi has introduced an updated version of the 94 AWB every year since it expired in 2004.


DrJawn t1_jecrjao wrote

Yeah it's easy to introduce bills when you know they won't pass. Like how Ted Cruz jerks himself off with his term limit bill every few years. He looks good, it doesn't pass, he runs again.

CA has lots of laws and magazine limits and it still happens there.

We need healthcare, including mental, for all. We need before school programs, after school programs, day care, we need to fill the role model vacuum with good people and start from the bottom up. If you raise good kids, they become good adults. If you diagnose mental trauma and illness at a young age, you can save more lives than one


ChairmanMatt t1_jec94cr wrote

The first thing on the list is literally 1992.

What happened in the 1994 midterm election, and what happened in between?

What happened in 1990 in New Jersey and what happened in the 1992 state elections (and 93 for governor because NJ does gov elections the year after presidential cycle for some reason)

What happens basically only in blue states (lone exception being VT with a R governor but D legislature in 2018)

And various executive orders in between and weaponization of the ATF, etc


DrJawn t1_jec9mwx wrote

It is physically impossible to come for guns. There are 500 million in the US, mostly unregistered.

It would be like prohibition.


ChairmanMatt t1_jecailk wrote

So the question is no longer litigation, but enforcement. Nice shift.

And that's the best case scenario, look up Vicki Weaver for something worse.


DrJawn t1_jecshdc wrote

Dude. I own lots of guns and I'm so far leftist anarchist I barely believe in private property anymore. I own guns because I don't want the only people with guns to be cops, because they're all bastards and 40% of them beat their wives

No one is physically ever gonna take all the guns. You can bury a gun in your yard. Put it in the drywall. The sheer amount of illegal guns in our already wide open system exemplifies this.

They don't even want the guns. They love when chaos reigns in voters. Empty promises and fully loaded wallets.

My only point is every one gets upset when some white kid kills some white kids but there's piles of black bodies in Philly every year and no one gives a fuck. No one in Philly is murdering people with rifles.


ChairmanMatt t1_jecxojv wrote

you sound exactly like the attorney representing NJ in court in a suit against their additional restrictions on carry a month or two ago.

> the laws shouldn't be overturned because they won't be enforced anyway

so then don't pass the damn laws.

This is all immaterial anyway. Bruen means the days of practically all gun control is numbered.


DrJawn t1_jed4jka wrote

NJ has super strict gun laws and they didn't save Camden, Newark, or Trenton but people think they're a win because no one cares when people get shot in the projects


dogsledonice t1_jecbr7v wrote

And, miraculously, gun deaths went down, until they were unbanned.


telionn t1_jeclgd6 wrote

Kind of? It wasn't until COVID that gun deaths actually went back up to the 1993 level. Adjusting for population I think it is still lower than before.


dogsledonice t1_jecmlex wrote


DrJawn t1_jecrz9r wrote

Does it count as a mass shooting if the shooter and victims are all black and poor?

Or are we only protecting white kids?


dogsledonice t1_jed58ek wrote


You have a point of some sort?


DrJawn t1_jeelgrw wrote

I want to know where the outrage is when kids are killing kids in poor neighborhoods in Detroit, Philly, St Louis, Chicago etc

No one cares because it doesnt fit on a bumper sticker and it's not suburban


dogsledonice t1_jeelpyy wrote

I agree. And common-sense gun reform would float all boats.


washingtonpost OP t1_jebi5r6 wrote

From Todd Frankel:

We wrote about one potential way to reduce gun violence: Banning large-capacity magazines.

It’s a pretty simple and very controversial idea – the more often a shooter needs to stop and reload, the fewer people that are killed. The standard magazine on AR-15s today holds 30 rounds. That’s usually considered a large-capacity magazine. A handful of states ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds or 15 rounds or 17 rounds. The basic idea is the same. Cutting down on the number of bullets that can be fired quickly.

Some experts call the period when a shooter stops to reload “the critical pause.” The shooting has stopped, maybe it’s only for 10 to 15 seconds. But that’s enough time for people to escape or for people to rush the gunman.

For example, a gunman wielding an AR-15-style rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in 2019. He killed one person and injured three others while emptying a 10-round magazine. California bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. And while he tried to reload with another 10-round magazine, people confronted him and chased him away. The shooting stopped.

A magazine ban wouldn’t prevent mass shootings from occurring. But researchers and experts say that studies show the ban reduces the death toll. It gives victims a chance to survive.


diaperchili t1_jedebw6 wrote

has anyone considered just banning gun violence instead


csamsh t1_jefnw7q wrote

Those "experts" have obviously never handled firearms or watched a good shooter reload


Harold_v3 t1_jebzlba wrote

Did people say why they felt they needed home protection?

Edit: and if so have they experienced home invasion or robbery or another form of confrontation that a weapon would be useful?


Incipiente t1_jegbcug wrote

fucking journos, if you can even call them that anymore. PS whats it like working for penis rocket man?


Dweebil t1_jegs09o wrote

Why research something that is ultimately a red herring? The symbol of the gun debate is irrelevant to the debate itself.


DadMakingCans t1_jebikx2 wrote

Ashley do you have fear in DC for your kids?


bajajoaquin t1_jebpwkf wrote

One of the things you touched on but didn’t explore a lot is the idea that a lot of this is really driven by marketing rather than politics. The smith and Wesson ad was mentioned and now the new Springfield saint victor ads.

A two pronged thought/ question then. Is there similarity in how the soda/junk food/ beer industries market to the biggest users and the way gun makers are marketing ARs? Is the imagery being used of the lone “operator” driving resolution of some problem driving mass shouting?


HomeWork2345 t1_jedxh0b wrote

What do you think? Why did transgender people start shooting people? What are their motives? And what do you think, can we put armed guards in schools?


Ok-Feedback5604 t1_jec8mpj wrote

No matter whether any party (Democratic or Republican) the president comes into power, why they avoid stricter rules for gun control?


stumpdawg t1_jebau7l wrote

Let me guess. It started with the NRA funneling gobs of money to right wing propagandists?


washingtonpost OP t1_jebkidy wrote

From Todd Frankel:

We looked at the role the NRA played in promoting the AR-15. The NRA is far from alone in supporting the AR-15. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and others do, too. Our reporting did find that while NRA membership has declined in recent years, members who are AR-15 owners and supporters became more important to the organization. And so the NRA has become one of the most ardent opponents of any laws that would restrict the AR-15.

But the rise of the AR-15 did not start with the NRA. As our “American Icon” story showed, the NRA did not openly welcome the AR-15 at its conventions in the 1990s or early 2000s.

From our story:“We’d have NRA members walk by our booth and give us the finger,” said Randy Luth, the founder of gunmaker DPMS, one of the earliest companies to market AR-15s.

That eventually changed. The AR-15 is today largely the star of gun conventions and trade shows.


Ok-Feedback5604 t1_jec8uhj wrote

Based on your reporting experience, what is your opinion that the gun lobby is really so powerful that it does not allow for strict gun control rules?


yargrad t1_jebl1uw wrote

Hypothetically, if there was a credible push for an amendment to overturn the 2nd Amendment, would gun owners and conservatives be willing to compromise and accept modest gun control legislation?

We are witnessing gun control protests at the TN Capitol, which could indicate that even voters red states want some kind of gun legislation.


washingtonpost OP t1_jebo2tt wrote

From Ashley Parker:

It’s hard to imagine a credible push to overturn the 2nd Amendment. I always think back to when I covered Congress, in the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting. Then, it felt like the entire country was horrified and outraged by what happened, and there was real bipartisan political will on Capitol Hill to get something done. And even in that moment — when 20 six and seven-year-olds had been killed at school — Congress was unable to pass even a simple background checks bill.

And when a new assault weapons ban finally came up for a vote in a Democratic-led Senate, only 38 of the chamber’s 54 Democrats voted in favor of the bill — meaning that 16 Democrats did not vote for it.

In the aftermath, I remember talking to a bunch of Hill aides, both Democratic and Republican, who had worked on the issue, and their takeaway was basically: If we can’t do anything after nearly two dozen babies are slaughtered, we’ll never do anything.

Since then, we have seen modest fits and starts, both legislatively and through executive action. But overturning any amendment — let alone one so polarizing — is a huge lift, which makes your question feel like more of a fascinating hypothetical than anything else.


GeorgeCrossPineTree t1_jebi049 wrote

To what extent do you think the 2nd Amendment is being used as a cornerstone / symbol of Christian nationalism?