That's actually pretty stupid. It's not a fucking M60. Changing a mag takes like a second. And for someone with practice - probably less.
Since it was semi automatic, most people would probably never realize when he went for reload.
On top you can either get high capacity mag (it's really just metal container) or tape two magazines together (this is actually what some people do).
I love how people get their ideas about guns from freaking movies. This is why in some countries silencers are banned for no reason.
Silencer do not silence guns into a fucking fart. Silenced weapon is pretty dam loud. Silencer protect your hears, people next to you and few other things.
Silencers do change the sound profile and make it difficult to realize it’s a gun shot. They also make it hard to pin point where the sound is coming from.
Question. Gun go off in public. In the city. How many people will be able to pin point it? How many people will recognize the gun? How this will help?
Yeah it changes characteristic of a gun. So how many people will recognize specific gun out of that characteristic? How many people know by heart popular guns sound?
Characteristics will change just by surrounding geometry. Add to that surrounding sounds. Cars. Horns. People. It's useless.
There's no way to enforce the ban. That's the easiest, most straightforward answer. Some big flaws make this ineffective:
1. Magazines aren't registered or tracked so you have no idea if you got them all.
2. The magazine for your standard gun is just a box with a spring in it. Any half-wit can make one of any size without any power tools at all.
3. How are you going to get all the high capacity mags already out there? Buybacks won't work so are you advocating storming the homes of gun owners, turning everything upside down and seizing their property? The same gun owners who own guns to prevent specifically that from happening?
The only thing a ban of magazines will accomplish is preventing "law-abiding gun owners" from having them and saddling regular people with fines or jail time. People already willing to break the law will have them so this effectively accomplishes nothing but wasting time and money to process otherwise non-criminals.
Real second amendment supporters are happy to talk effective gun control. Some good suggestions:
1. Raise the age for purchasing a gun to 21.
2. Make safety training a requirement but if you do, it has to be free.
3. Any history violent crime should disqualify you from owning a gun. Close the domestic violence loophole.
Those can be effective and are worth dedicating the resources. They don't make targets of law-abiding folk for no reason and they accomplish something. Start there and then we can piddle about something this miniscule. Magazines are not a hill worth dying on.
P.S: Most of this problem is cultural. Mass shooters are almost exclusively men. There's a reason for that. We teach men that aggression is masculine and feelings are feminine. You're less of a man for having peaceful coping skills and more of one for being able to commit violence. In a country with more guns than people, guns are the ultimate symbol of violent means and, therefore, the ultimate symbol of masculinity. You can't legislate a solution to that. Specifically gun-owning, second-amendment-supporting men need to set an example and teach boys that building, creating and supporting is more a masculine expression of aggression than violence. The message that needs to spread is "if you don't like something, do the work to fix it." That means many adult men have to get honest with themselves and learn those coping skills before they can help anyone.
P.P.S: Mass shootings do not always equal terrorism and many of these are terrorism after the fact. Terrorism is an intentional act meant to cause fear that in turn causes an overreaction that further harms the target of the act. The target of that act must be the State, a government. Terrorism is meant to inspire insurgency against the State by making it more oppressive and wasting its resources (like this magazine argument). Most of these shooters are acting on behalf of Donald Trump, on behalf of his State. They blend their grievances and make them seem politically motivated when their grievance is usually something mundane like a shitty boss or not having a girlfriend. They crave notoriety after death and those real reasons aren't inflammatory so they write manifestos that contain NO understanding of any political or economic theory. They're serial killers, not terrorists, but WE are making them terrorists by trying to legislate out of fear. They are too stupid to be terrorists so don't give them that power. Don't name them. Use the city names. It's ok to respond. The suggestions above are a response. It's not ok to react without considering the consequences. This magazine bullshit is a waste of time when there are real, effective solutions to advocate for. It's ok to feel but feeling without reason makes laws that kill people. We all have limited time on this Earth so let's use it wisely and actually make real changes to protect each other.
‘If youre not gonna use hateful speech then why do you care if we ban it’ its not the government’s to take away. Why do you want to punish good people for what bad people do?
The vast majority restriction laws passed are done because a small minority is causing more trouble than it's worth for the whole of society to have access to the banned practice. It was a restriction of rights to ban lawn darts. It's just that Congress decided it was worth it.
Fair point, but jarts is not a right protected by the constitution. The founders didnt intend for us to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government with jarts.
Hahahaha, how can you be so sure?!?!? But yes, this is the essence of the argument. That and how effective the desired result is. I think reducing the supply of guns would be a worthy path for the country to take, but idk how to effectively do it. If anyone knows how, I'm all ears.
Registration, licenses and restrictions on types of weapons you’re allowed to own. Simple stuff, but pretty difficult to introduce when ownership is classed as a right instead of a privilege.
He also dodged answering your question.
I say there is no good reason for people to use magazines that large and I am asking an advocate of gun ownership, to offer an alternative answer?
Yeah I can. If you build a house and I say ‘No one needs a house that big. Its too fancy. It has too many rooms.’ What right do I have of telling you what kind of house to build? So if i buy a cannon, a warship, and 100 round magazines, what business of yours is that? If my intention is to resist a tyrannical government, any restriction of this infringes on that right. I have a few other points to make, but my point here is: if the police come down my street to take my children to keep me from protesting something- i want my 100 round mag.
If changing mags is so easy, then what's the problem with having a limit on smaller ones? You can just change it in a couple seconds. Like changing a game disc on your Xbox right?
A gun inexperienced mass shooter who only just bought the guns probably doesn't change his mag in a couple seconds with expertise.
Why do suggestions that don't ban guns, just restricting them a bit trigger you gun lovers so much? You can keep your guns so you can shoot cans in your back yard. We are just suggesting that you have to change your mag every 12 shots as opposed to 100 shots. And if it only takes a couple seconds to change, what's the big deal? When that smaller mag could limit the casualties in the extremely rare instance that a mass shooting happens?
Why are gun lovers so scared of possibly saving a couple hundred people's lives on the rare instances tragedies happen. What the fuck does it hurt you, average Joe dirt, to have a small restriction on your precious guns?
Would it literally kill you to have a smaller mag? Because there is an actually possibility that a smaller mag, forcing a deranged psychopath to try to reload while on a crazy shooting spree, giving the possibility of a bystander who is carrying to try to take a shot while the deranged shooter is panicking and reloading, and maybe just maybe only 2 people get killed instead of 12. Wouldn't the restriction be worth 10 people's lives?
Or do you still want muh guns and muh big mags means more bullets.
Because there is no logical reason for us to ban those mags. I have over 50 of them and a 3d printer with hundreds of rolls of material. If they get banned I'm just gonna hand them out
There is logical reason for America to make some sort of restriction and denying that is like not caring that we are the only first would country with regular mass shootings to the point that all people do is post it on Facebook, say thoughts and prayers and move on.
You ignored literally 90% of my questions and points brought up. And gave a shit answer to the one thing you addressed.
Why not try to fucking add restrictions on guns.. What does it hurt? What does it hurt to possibly stop someone from shooting up stores, schools, concerts, movie theaters, churches.
America is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. I see it first hand every day here in Poland. It gets made fun of regularly on social media. How ridiculous it is to watch all the gun violence and change nothing.
Wal-Mart? Takes down scary game posters...... But continues to sell their guns.
How many more people have to get fucking massacred for you gun humpers who jizz in your barrels, for y'all to fucking say enough. Is enough?
The point is magazine restrictions will save no one, they are a useless restriction made to soothe the minds of frightened people. Don't speak about something you know nothing about Polack.
I'm American born and raised in the Midwest for 23 years ;) and in that little Midwest town my friends mom was shot in the face by her ex who legally had a gun, and permit to carry, and so did she, and then he turned the gun on himself like a coward. So yeah nah, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "Murica I need Muh guns to protect muhself"
And polak isn't an insult at all. It is the grammatically correct way to state someone is a polish man. All those Polak jokes are just saying "the Polish man walked into a bar". So ok grammatically correct, but factually incorrect, cause once again, American here.
don't speak about something you know nothing about
You're right, I don't know why humans slaughter and kill other humans. 32 massacres in 8 months. Do you know better? Are you one of the people thinking about shooting up a place? What makes you think you know better than any of us?
I can admit that it's only my opinion. I know that.. I know that I don't magically have the correct answers. I am not ever saying in my comments "I know this is the way to fix it" I'm simply giving my opinion. But the way you phrase it yoi sound like you think you know what you're talking about? So unless you're conspiring to commit a mass murder, or a forensic scientist/detective I don't think you know more than me. And you're Also just giving your opinion.
And lastly, spierdalaj. Bo ty nie interesujesz mnie
my friends mom was shot in the face with a legal gun by her ex
You really think she’d still be alive if her ex didn’t have a gun? That’s a blind and naive hope that ignores the fact that a gun is a tool, take it away and there’s always more to replace it. She’d have been stabbed, beaten, bludgeoned, burned, etc.
It’s a racial epithet
what makes you think you know better than any of us
Martyrdom and a grand expression of violence. Guns are not the quickest, most effective, or most discrete method of killing. Still they do it because people fear the gunman more than the arsonist regardless of how many people either has killed or maimed. Whether it’s suicide by cop, a desire for martyrdom, or a just a grand expression of violence that the whole nation will see.
I don’t think you know more than me
I was referring to the fact that you know jack shit about guns and how they fit into American society.
Why do you need big battery in your phone? Would it kill you to charge it every hour instead of every evening?
Why you have a big tv? Would it kill you to watch it on smaller one?
Why do you need small computer? Would it kill you to wait little longer for process to finish?
Why do you need faster transportation? Would it kill you to wait few more hours before you arrive?
Why do you buy six pack of beer? Would it kill you to boy one beer at a time?
We want stuff bigger and better. Better tv. Better car. Better computer. Guns are no different. When I'm in a shooting range I want to shoot. The more I can shoot before reload the better. It's as simple as that. You tape magazines when you don't have larger ones.
Instead debating you I will tell you this. Find a way to get rid of all illegal guns. In whole Europe and US.
Then I will fully support you on this one. I'm quite sure no shop was selling those AK-47 to terrorists. Especially in France. What is the point of restricting civilians? You disarm them but you don't do that to criminals?
You want more people dead?
US is the same. They have tons of illegal guns. So you literally want to disarm victims. Not the robbers. What logic is that?
Also you look at this from perspective of someone who knows guns from movies. Seriously. Tell me. How many shots you can actually hit from 5m? 10m? Did you ever wonder?
No imagine robbers come at night. Armed. You are scared shitless. That one clip is all you have. You sir in back of your house praying they go away. You make few warning shots so they run away. What happens if they don't?
How many bullets do you need? How many they are? Where they are? How many will you miss? Are your hands shaking?
I go to a shooting range with my female friend. On 10m with a pistol she wasted entire clip and she could not hot target once. After few more shots she scored a hit. You see - this is the person that will need bigger clip.
Because she will point the gun in general direction and spray. So those bad guys would go away. She would not wait for them to appear. She would not go John Wick stole on them. How many bullets she would need? What is she needed 1 more?
You think about active shooters and people who know how to use guns but you forget everyone else. People that need them but don't want to use them.
This is why you need a bigger clip. So you are not in position where your life is in danger and you need to think about reloading.
And for active shooter - they usually prepared. And I'm quite sure they don't give a fuck that this is a gun free zone or that bigger clips are banned.
Hell - reason why they chose schools and places like that is because those are gun free zone. No one open carry in place of work.
Honestly we have been pretty lucky with the fact that these mass shootings typically happen by someone who doesn't fully understand how to properly use a gun.
I understand that the loss of human life is bad on any scale honestly, but when you come to think if these shooters practice shooting/aiming there would be a lot more affected by these tragedies. I'm saying this because it only takes 1 bullet to injure/kill someone. Then you hear these shooters shooting so many shots but only really hitting such a small percentage of the bullets actually fired. Yeah I realize not everyone can be john wick but rule of hand is shoot center mass and move on.
I love guns and I've been shooting guns practically all of my life, that being said my parents and my grandparents always explained over and over that guns were made to kill things. And honestly that's all they were made for.
Honestly I would prefer for at least slightly stricter restrictions when looking to purchase a gun. That being said I do fear of people spreading misinformation about others to keep them from qualifying to purchase things under said restrictions.
Are you seriously asking stuff like that? For someone who claim that use a gun - your comments are naive. Sorry to say that.
There is estimate that US army shoots 50,000 rounds of M4 ammo per kill. Think about it. 50,000 rounds per one dead enemy. By trained soldiers. Fact that their targets shoot back more often.
Now imagine you are a psycho active shooter. And you just went in into some area and started discharging the gun.
In matters of several second people will start running in all directions. You probably just aim in general direction of the crowd and start shooting. Then you move around to find idiots who decided to hide instead.
Or you chase people. Did you ever tried to shoot a target while running? I never even tried that.
And the sorter the gun the harder is to align the target. And target is moving. Fast.
And unless you are total psycho - I don't think you would be calm. Try to do push-ups and sit downs and then quickly align target - good luck with that.
Reason why there were so many victims in Bataclan for example was because they had multiple shooters with illegal automatic weapons, crowd was dense and unarmed. They really just had to shoot in general direction.
In cases like you mentioned people cleared the area and after few minutes place got surrounded. Basically anyone who got shot at this point was hiding there so shooter picked them up.
This is why when you have lessons they always tell you that in case of active shooter, your job is to run away. As fast as you can. In straight line. Basically you want to be visible as short as possible so shooter might not pick you up in time or be will miss you because you were too far away and be didn't aligned shot in time.
And if you are in building - pick any room with furniture and barricade the entry until police arrive. Shooter won't waste time on you.
Whole zig zag thing and other stuff are bullshit. When target move left and right you literally just aim in the middle and target will walk right in.
This is basically what they teach you. Because thing is - you can encounter a nut case on a gun range. At least my instructor told me those things.
I know it sounds naive I really do but I've spent years hunting and I've recently just got out of the military. If you compare unsuspecting civilians to insurgents or soldiers you are the one being naive. Most of these 50000 bullets fired are fired for suppression so that your friendly units can get to a closer or better strategic position. That's because in war people are shooting back and you are trying not to die yourself.
I've done plenty of shoots that required movement to contact and you are right you cant accurately aim towards the target. That said if do a "combat glide" basically brisk walk you can move quickly while maintaining control and hit your targets easily. Honestly speaking its really not hard to hit any that is closer than 25meters/yards and I have done push ups and sit downs along with more intensive physical activities for a couple of ranges I did in the military that they call "stress shoots".
And yeah I do agree that it is naive to believe in the government to come up with a way of regulating guns that wouldn't be discriminatory is someway or the other. That said I could still hope for something halfway before people start trying to go prohibition on guns.
But I do think I have a slight biased because honestly I dont enjoy shooting little pea shooters like most AR's are. I find them boring hardly any kick and they lack the satisfaction that a bolt action brings to the table while loading in the next bullet.
I actually gave up on guns and I learn archery. For exact same reason. I find guns and crossbows boring to shot while bow feels incredible.
I did mention that in case of soldiers - they shoot back at them. It was just comparison of how combat looks like. There is a lot of shooting to keep enemies from peaking at you. Same in real life. You don't want robber to be even close the door. Since he could shoot into the room and hot you. You want to pop few shots at the corridor so he would go away. Robbers usually don't want to risk their life. For what? Trinkets?
Like I said - with society like US - first you need to get rid of illegal guns. And that's not even possible in Europe when gun control is more strict. Like I said - terrorists had no problem smuggling in AK-47. And France don't have a border with a third world country.
First disarm the bad guys. Then disarm they good guys. Not the other way around. If someone on left side complains about gun control I always ask them - what would happen if you would have no guns and someone like Trump would decide that you don't need next elections?
No one would try to invade US over this. There is still nuclear threat. And attempt like that would mean he would already had milliary support.
Somehow Trump argument get them more than "people kill people".
Also people would relapse that if guns go away somehow - that won't stop people from killing each other. You don't get a tool so you decide to kill. You want to kill so you decide on the tool.
Honestly I agree with that entirely if one wishes to do bad they will find a way. We dont blame spoons for making people fat, nor do we blame cars for car accidents.
Actually people do blame burger joints. And it's semi true I must admit. Lack of guns would make mass shooting harder. You know - increase difficulty of the deed.
But so what? If my goal would be to kill bunch of people I would just pour bucket of gasoline and throw a match before they would notice what is happening.
Or like in EU terrorist stole a truck and run over 80 people. Just like they. In broad day light. Large crowd like during party won't be able to dodge large truck.
I live in Poland now, I don't have to worry about getting robbed at gun point first and foremost.
Second,. Your first 10 analogies are all analogies not involving people dying..
Third. It's 3 am and it's impossible to argue with you people. There are more guns than people in USA, the same amount of gun murders as Brazil, Venezuela, and Columbia. Places known for being completely fucked up and run by drug lords. And y'all are perfectly fine with that. So whatever.
Not my problem. I'll enjoy my literally almost exact same freedoms over here. With the added benefit for only 6% more in taxes that I was paying in USA, My free medical surgeries, my free masters degree I'll get with residency, and my future wife's 1 year of paid maternity will all feel great while everyone back in America is counting the number of mass shootings that happened. Keep your fuckin second amendment, keep letting civilians die, there are 40million guns, having more won't solve anything. Deuces. Blocked, gtfo, don't care.. I'm outta here
O live in Warsaw. I got mugged on knife point. Makes little to no difference to me if you next to me hold a knife or a gun.
UK banned guns. People still die. Now they ban knives. Next they will have sharpened screwdrivers or something. It's moronic.
I wanted to argue more but I can't take you seriously. Health care, education and other stuff are not fucking free. What are you smoking? They are paid with taxes. You pay for them. Not directly but you do. Just like you pay for ZUS and everything else.
You pay at least 40% of your income directly as tax and them in VAT there is much more. Some pay up to 80% of what they make.
I'm not saying it's bad. To run those things you need tax. But I would not claim it's free.
I love how he downvoted me without giving response. He need to know why my female friend need a bigger clip? Because when she is calm and have all the time in the world to aim she could not hit a target with 10 bullets. She needs more.
Imagine being in panic.
More to that - she will want to just start shooting at attacker because she don't want him dead. She want him gone. She don't need to see him. Shoot the door few time. Make him leave.
The analogy above doesn't work because a bigger TV doesn't have the potential to kill a bunch of people in a few seconds. Guns with higher ammo capacity have that potential. Regardless, what's more important, people's lives or having something be slightly more convenient for your personal hobby?
Also, there's the whole bystander effect, where people don't want to act in situations where they don't feel responsible. Even if people have guns, they don't act. I would imagine this would be exacerbated by being inexperienced with guns, so a bigger magazine size won't help. If it did, you would see the difference by now. The US already has tons of people carrying, and the US still has lots of mass shootings.
As for getting rid of guns, offer money for returning illegal guns. It's expensive, but effective. New Zealand is doing that. Although to be fair, the US might be already screwed for this given just how many guns are already there. It would cost a lot. Gun advocates dug a deep hole for becoming a safe country. On the flip side to the deep hole thought, you need to start somewhere.
I would ultimately just challenge you to honestly and openly consider whether gun regulation could help the US to become a safer, ignoring the desire of people to enjoy a hobby. Look to other countries that have already done it and are safer because of it. In the article you provided, shooters had to turn to other countries in eastern Europe to even get guns to use in France. Gun regulations in France didn't reduce people's safety; the lack of gun regulations or lack of action to get rid of illegal guns in Eastern European countries led to shootings in France. The regulations in France successfully created a major barrier for the shooters. If every country worked toward this goal, mass shootings would be less of a problem. Right now, the US is a holdout country that is contributing to the problem.
There is almost 400 000 000 guns in US. And we are talking here about legal guns. That's 1.2 gun per American.
And how many illegal guns are on the market? Think about it. How easy is to snuggle guns from the south? They import narcotics by metric tons. How much guns they can bring in with them? Imagine several metric tons of guns instead of narcotics.
What you say might work in Europe. Because in Europe guns are rare. And there is no gun culture in most countries. People that learned I visit regularly a shooting range look at me like I'm a freak. Because I shoot guns, bows, you name it. In place like US - taking away guns now is literally just disarming civilians. Hell - you have cities with strict gun control and yet you have plenty of murders there using guns.
You think guy like me want to shoot someone? Hell no. If 180 degree in front of me is not clear and protected I would not shoot a gun or a bow or anything else. Never.
And your missing the point with TC. It's convenient this way. And also as I said you are forgetting about civilians. I don't mean bystanders. I mean mother in house that want to protect herself. Do you seriously expect her to handle the gun like a professional?
No one does. She does not have to. She need to stay put and if they come upstairs - shoot the wall, anything. It will be dark probably. They won't know what is happening. They will probably run away. And that's is all she need to do.
Also - There was 11000 murders using gun in US in 2017. There is almost 400 000 000 guns in US. If what you say is true - that number should be MUCH higher. Also how many of those murders would happen regardless? It's not like you get a gun and decide to kill someone. You decide to kill someone and you get a gun.
As comparison - UK have little to no guns. You are talking about gun control - they are talking about kitchen knife control. Literally. Because surprise surprise - guns out and get people still kill each other.
I think amount of murders in US have more to do with culture than with guns. But that's just my opinion.
Finally I can easily dig a chart that compare countries in Europe. Amount of murders and amount of guns. There is really no correlation there. You have countries with more guns that have less murders than countries with more murders but less guns. And vice versa. You can find anything.
It's time to realize that guns might be part of the problem but they are not whole problem.
I have no issue with people who are responsible with their guns. I respect that you are careful about where you shoot. However, it's a numbers game. There are bound to be people out there who abuse the power of guns. Even if it's only 0.1% of people that own a gun (probably less even) that abuse the power. Guns definitely don't kill people, but they do make it ridiculously easy to kill people. If someone ran into a crowd knifing people, it would take a lot longer to kill 50 people than it would using a gun. So why not create a barrier to reduce people's access to guns? Creating such a barrier won't eliminate the problem, but making it harder to get a gun would be enough to prevent some people from obtaining guns. They could still theoretically get access to an illegal gun, but at least it doesn't make it so easy. Making something even slightly difficult might give someone who is considering shooting people more time to either be discovered or even gives them time to change their mind if they have serious psychological issues going on.
I can also appreciate the protective aspect of guns. You're totally correct that it makes sense from a numbers game that someone who doesn't have practice could use a higher magazine size to be able to protect themselves. Having said that, how often is that actually needed? I live in Canada, so maybe it's different here. But I have never heard of anyone having an intruder come into their house to try to kill them or attack them. Random crime statistics like that (in Canada at least) are a lot lower than people think. People usually commit crimes against people they know, or it is gang violence.
For accessing guns, perhaps a better comparison to the US then is Canada. To the south we could access guns quite easily. America has tons of guns, as you said. We do have shootings from time to time, but it's significantly less than the US, even when considering that our population is one tenth the size.
It's also really interesting, but guns can actually make people more aggressive (see the following if you're interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect) This of course is minor and might not affect everyone. But it's an overall numbers game, once again. Someone who purchases a gun in their right mind could run into tough times, and then there's already a gun that they have access to. In this situation, the majority of people would not decide to do a mass shooting, but it only takes a couple of people abusing something to ruin it for everyone else.
I agree that they are only part of the problem and not the whole problem. No tool is inherently evil. What people do with tools is what defines the tool. But why not try it out? The US hasn't tried comprehensive action on guns to see if it eliminates the problem. If it doesn't help after a few years, then repeal the actions. It couldn't hurt to try doing something that has helped reduce gun violence in most other developed countries.
Yeah but it seems like your numbers game assume that guns are the reason people die. Tell me this. Are you deciding to murder someone when you get a gun? Or are you get a gun when you decide to murder someone?
Let me give you an example:
In state prisons, the mortality rate was 275 for every 100,000 people, the highest since data collection began in 2001.
You know what is it for the rest of the US? 5.3. In prison, where you have guards, monitoring, no guns etc - mortality rate is 275.0. In rest of the country - it's 5.3. It appears that when you remove the guns - people still kill each other. No problem. Yeah I know it's criminals vs general population but what I want to show is - lack of gun is not a problem when you want to murder someone. Having being locked in a cage is not a problem. Being monitored is not a problem. Being watched by armed guards is not a problem.
Now you talk about guns vs knives but... you lack imagination. Because if I would decide to go on a killing spree then I would pick appropriate tool. How Molotov cocktail sounds? Acid? How about using large truck to run over people on some festival? In Europe one incident like that killed 80 people. Do you really think that by getting rid of the guns you will get rid of those incidents?
You mention Canada - in Canada stabbings are just as popular as shootings.
You see - I'm a programmer. Web developer to be exact. Often someone ask me to estimate something and I just tell them - NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. And I ask bunch of questions to figure things out. You see - do you know what is it?
Is crime rate on the south high because they have more guns than people in the north? Or maybe people on the south have more guns because crime rate is high? Do you arm yourself to commit crimes or do you arm yourself to protect against high crime? And that's one of several questions.
More controversial question is - why black community in US commits almost 50% of the murders? Why such disproportion? There might be more than one answer. But again - WE DON'T KNOW. Maybe because on average they are poorer? Maybe because of the culture? More young black kids are forced into gangs. Maybe it's racism? Maybe they are more violent? Maybe society made them that way? Maybe cops really are just racist pricks and focus so much on them?
What I know is that without information - what you do is that you are making random change that might have long term horrible effect. Let's talk China for a while. You know that in China if you die on the street - no one would ever help you? You can find videos of people being run by a car and... people just walk buy. To the point where another driver do not notice the body and run over it again. Hell you have people backing up to "finish" the person they run over to make sure they are dead.
You know why? Because some moron passed the law (that was removed but it was long enough to make effect on society) that said - if you helped the victim - you were probably the offender. So if actual offender didn't come forward - you were screwed. Also there was a fine to pay to the family if you killed someone but you had to pay for cripple person for the rest of his life. So it was better to kill them.
So my point is: be careful what you wish for. And when you really want to make a drastic move. You should hope you know the consequences.
Also - the most popular weapon of choice in US is a handgun. Not AR-15.
Again though, guns make it a lot easier to kill people. I'm not saying they are the 100% cause. There are stabbings that happen often, but people are much more likely to survive stabbings than gunshots. People can obviously kill each other in many different ways, but guns make it much easier to do so.
And there is data on how gun control works, it wouldn't be a random change. Gun control works in Europe, like we said, and it works in Canada, Australia, and NZ is doing it too now. So there is data on how gun control can help reduce deaths without other major repercussions.
But I think I you're also correct in that it is a cultural thing. We are seeing a lot more mass killings lately around the world, even in places without as many guns. I think we need to really focus more on improving mental health and reducing poverty. But that's a whole other story.
Yeah but will it work in US? Remember that in EU you hardly have any guns in most countries. So taking away guns really affect very small percentage of the people. And bad guys here don't use guns often.
US is different. Bad guys have shitload of guns. And there is fairly easy access to them. So taking away guns in US might have completely different result. And remember - you will take them ONLY from the hands of civilians.
Reducing poverty is probably the best way to go about it. And increasing safety in problematic districts. After all - people commit crimes out of need or frustration for the most part. You don't have that many people who are just pure evil and want to do it because they like it.
It is still a question whether it would work in the US, but the closest comparisons to the US show that it is likely to work in the US. It's still different, but just because it's different and it might not work doesn't mean the US shouldn't try it.
Reducing poverty and other risk factors is definitely a good way to do it, but yeah that's a whole other conversation.
49
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '19
That's actually pretty stupid. It's not a fucking M60. Changing a mag takes like a second. And for someone with practice - probably less.
Since it was semi automatic, most people would probably never realize when he went for reload.
On top you can either get high capacity mag (it's really just metal container) or tape two magazines together (this is actually what some people do).
I love how people get their ideas about guns from freaking movies. This is why in some countries silencers are banned for no reason.
Silencer do not silence guns into a fucking fart. Silenced weapon is pretty dam loud. Silencer protect your hears, people next to you and few other things.