Failed meme but NH placement is preciousSubmitted by WoobieBee t3_zvrdmk in newhampshire
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1rkw5v wrote
Reply to comment by Tyrannus_ignus in Failed meme but NH placement is precious by WoobieBee
I’ve lived in several states and the only real diehard anti-gun people I’ve met are moderate democrats. Most people I know with actual leftist views support 2A and agree that banning guns does little to solve the underlying problem of gun violence.
It’s a real shame we’ve chosen to let two parties speak for the entire populace.
the_nobodys t1_j1ro2ub wrote
Right on. This is actually an issue I've changed my mind about as a progressive. I could get behind a ban on assault style weapons I suppose, or getting rid of stand your ground and other laws that make it too easy to get away with murder, but other than that I think gun ownership is a non-issue. Most gun violence is due to inequality in general, I've learned.
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1s2oj2 wrote
The more left I become the more nuanced my opinions on gun laws get. I think we need way more than what we’re doing now, but I also think that banning guns period is impossible and dangerous, because of the absolute freaks who will own guns regardless of the laws (not concerned about street thugs so much as domestic terrorists). Fully agree with the other comment that moderate dems are the ones who are blanket anti gun. Lots and lots of folks on the left are pro-2A for a variety of very valid reasons.
AMC4x4 t1_j1ujx09 wrote
Funny, same. I guess the left really is moving on the gun issue. Thought it was only me and a couple of small groups, but maybe it's more of us. I still think any weapon capable of mass murder at scale should be banned though. Anything that makes law enforcement unable or extremely difficult to do their jobs shouldn't be allowed.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1urg9n wrote
Remember that there’s also a healthy distrust of law enforcement on both sides. The left wing views police as a racist institution installed to protect and serve the the interests of capitalists. Right wingers tend to be highly supportive of local police, but absolutely detest federal law enforcement.
I can’t say I disagree either. As long as the blue line brotherhood continues to cover up the misconduct of their fellow officers, none of them can really be considered “good cops.” Good cops don’t stay employed.
lonely_Huffelpuff t1_j1san2z wrote
Yeah I'm as left as they come honestly and I don't get why we'd completely ban guns at all. Any country who has, like England, the citizens didn't ever own many anyway and I just don't see how outright banning guns could even work here. Definitely should ban assault and semis though we never did and never could need those. You can't even hunt of defend yourself with them only kill or mame people with it.
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1sh1tl wrote
Fully agree. I see no reason for AR weapons whatsoever and I do not agree with anyone claiming the need for one. Shotguns and handguns are way, way more effective for home defense and a solidly built bolt-action rifle is plenty sufficient for hunting. There’s no place for a semi automatic rifle in the list titled “reasons to own a gun”. Look I’m even willing to compromise. If we want to keep these weapons legal for sport, then sure let people buy them, but they’d have to stay at the range or club.
Guns are useful tools for many people, but a semi doesn’t fit the job description of any acceptable use of guns any better than other types of weapons. The only thing it’s superior at compared with other types of weapons is hurting as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Fuck em.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1skzl4 wrote
I’d love to live in a world where extremists will give up their weapons because the government tells them so. When the Proud Boys and Patriot Front destroy their ARs, I’ll destroy mine.
Living in an age where far-right factions are threatening civil war is not a time to disarm.
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1slrud wrote
And this is where the nuance comes in. Because I agree with you 100% and will not try to tell you that you’re wrong for owning an AR. I am personally strictly anti-AR. I don’t own one and I will not own one. That said, a lot of very, very bad people do own one (or several). As such, I understand the people who own one specifically because these extremists own them, and the best deterrent/defense against these thugs who have openly expressed their desire for mass violence is to have the same weapons they have. But, nobody I know who leans left and owns an AR ever wants to use it for its purpose. At all. It’s always something they own as a form of insurance against the bad things that are creeping closer and closer to us.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1svodb wrote
> But, nobody I know who leans left and owns an AR ever wants to use it for its purpose. At all. It’s always something they own as a form of insurance against the bad things that are creeping closer and closer to us.
I’d say that’s a fair assessment. We’re not the ones marching out with our rifles to intimidate and harass others. This is what gives the perception that leftists are unarmed. Though, some more recent events have seen leftists displaying arms as a sign that they won’t be intimidated.
There’s a difference between being a idealist (“guns are bad, let’s get rid of them”) and being an realist (“bad people won’t get rid of their guns, I’d better be prepared if shit hits the fan.”)
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1syehj wrote
Exactly, you are putting it into exactly the right words. You’re right about people on the left being more open about their weapon possession recently, but like you said, entirely in response to escalation and threats from right wing militias. And it’s worked! Incredibly well! It’s one of the things that changed a lot of my left-leaning friends’ minds about guns, watching alt right dudes chicken out when they were confronted by a group that’s as heavily armed as they are. It leads to a de-escalation of the situation because ultimately these militia guys are cosplaying cowards. It’s just such a useful deterrent against these goblins.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1t1wkq wrote
> ultimately these militia guys are cosplaying cowards.
💯 absolute truth.
tylermm03 t1_j1v5cvx wrote
Believe it or not, AR-15’s and rifles and in general make up a small percentage of homicides, handguns make up the majority of homicides in FBI statistics. You’re also around 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death then killed with a rifle. As a gun owner myself, I think the problem causing most violent crime is mental health and socioeconomic problems, especially considering the fact that cities tend to have a lot more homicides then rural areas (see table 8).. Also considering the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban was found to have mixed results. One of the things noted in this article states that because there was a grandfather clause, it made guns grandfathered in much more expensive (this happened with machine guns when the registry closed in 1986, they now range in price from $9k-$300k depending on what you’re looking at) and thus less accessible to criminals, so they ended up turning to semi autos that weren’t banned. Instead of arguing over whether a certain gun should or shouldn’t be legal, I’d say the best thing our nation could do is find a solution that both sides would agree to, specifically Group Violence Intvention programs (aka Community Violence Intervention programs). Programs such as these have actually been proven to reduce violent crime and crimes involving firearms as much as 60%. I myself support these programs being implemented and I’d bet the majority of gun owners would as well considering that no rights are being infringed, no guns are being banned, violent crime is being reduced and a significant number of lives are being saved.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v5sba wrote
That makes sense, therefore it will likely never happen.
tylermm03 t1_j1v7cu3 wrote
Unfortunately you’re probably right :/ . Politics suck.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v7r36 wrote
The Dems will cry “but guns are bad!!!” While the Republicans will say “fund programs that help people other than myself? Why would I want to do that?”
jdkeith t1_j1urzh3 wrote
More like if the cops and three letter agencies give up their rifles, then we can maybe talk.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1us5mp wrote
I don’t disagree.
Sugarloafer1991 t1_j1udx4u wrote
Only real purpose I’ve seen for these besides killing people is for wild boars in the south. There’s way too many of them and semiauto rifles are the best way to take them down. Not only are they destroying farmland but they are dangerous to people/animals
SprinkleAI t1_j1u8mdo wrote
You realize handguns are semi-automatic, right? It just means that you don’t need to manually load the next round, it’s chambered for you after you fire one.
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1u9kah wrote
Semi automatic rifle was the wording I used. A handgun isn’t a rifle. Shut the fuck up I know plenty about guns and own several myself, stop being smug and pulling gotchas to try to prove how smart you are. It doesn’t work.
SprinkleAI t1_j1ubvsg wrote
Lol, just checking. Wasn’t following the point that semi automatic rifles aren’t okay but handguns are. I know some people who don’t own guns don’t understand the difference between full auto and semi. Not saying you’re one of them, just trying to inform for those who aren’t aware.
PM_DOLPHIN_PICS t1_j1uh9nq wrote
Sorry for coming across hostile, my mistake. I am tired of folks who try to invalidate an opposing view on firearms by using the “I know more than you” card and that’s where my mind immediately jumps to lol.
SprinkleAI t1_j1urfoy wrote
Makes sense! No worries. Happy new year!
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1ut9b9 wrote
The funny thing I see is that places like Walmart have stopped selling “handgun and assault rifle” ammo. Yet, they still sell .308… which is a significantly more powerful round than .223/5.56 (most common AR round), because it’s for “hunting rifles.”
There are AR-platform rifles that shoot .308, just as there are semiautomatic hunting rifles. All they’re doing is trying to place a label on something due to how it is perceived to those unfamiliar with firearms. It’s really just splitting hairs, and broad definitions can lead to slippery slopes.
BurningPage t1_j1sw7vm wrote
Just take guns away from cops and we’ll be fine.
RisksRewardsRelics t1_j1v4lw0 wrote
Nah, let’s give them more military surplus equipment. How else are they going to bash the skulls of minorities, people exercising their first amendment right and other depraved individuals? /s
othermegan t1_j1u9ho9 wrote
I was talking to someone recently who explained why they’re on the fence about gun laws. He’s a cop so he is well aware of how easy it is to go out and illegally get a gun. He also loved hunting so you’d think he’d be super pro-gun. But he’s not.
His main point was that the whole point of Americans being allowed guns was so that the government/military didn’t have egregious power over them. If Britain came back or someone named themselves King and tried to use the military against the people, the people could defend themselves. But that was written back when it took forever to reload a musket. The founding fathers would never have dreamed of automatic weapons.
So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons. Every law abiding gun owner turns over their guns and we’re left with a handful of slower weapons. What happens if a narcissist becomes president and tried to incite an insurrection (that would never happen, right? /s). This person now has control of the military. What type of weapons will the military still have? Automatic weapons. How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?
It definitely gave me food for thought and firmly planted me on the fence more than I was already
ZacPetkanas t1_j1up1is wrote
> So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons.
We effectively have. Or do you mean semi-automatics?
> How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?
Occupation would require patrols, curfews, etc. The idea would be to use a cheap weapon to kill the soldier and take a better weapon of off of them (I believe this was the concept behind the Liberator pistol in WWII).
Would it work well enough to provide effective resistance to the occupiers? I'd say probably not; the French resistance wasn't able to liberate France from the NAZIs using similar tactics.
edit: fixed typo
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j1vvrtt wrote
People debate about the causes of gun violence all over the place, but the real answer is mostly just population density
Trailwatch427 t1_j1s45yn wrote
I've lived in several states and I would not really agree with that. Where I lived, for most of my life, the people most likely to own guns were hunters. Fifty years ago, hunters owned a few guns for hunting, and that was it. They were unlikely to own a handgun, and certainly nothing military. Just hunting guns. Next most likely types to own guns were criminals or those on the edge of the law. I'm serious, I lived in a Mafia area, also biker gangs, inner city gangs, etc. These people had legal and illegal guns, mostly illegal.
Now it is a totally different world of gun owners in the US. People own arsenals of handguns and military type guns. I don't know any "moderate dems" who own guns like that. Most Dems I've known in my life weren't hunters, that's a country thing. Maybe in rural areas with hunting, you might find some liberal rednecks with guns. But most Dems interpret the second amendment in its strictest sense. That means that guns are for military and the police. A few hunting rifles are okay. And really strict controls on who gets to own them, and what type.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments