Fyi, That hasn't really been the case in Brazil.Originally Posted by Jason
Fyi, That hasn't really been the case in Brazil.
Can you expand on your statement, and why you think it relates to what we should do in the US? Also, is Brazil an outlier, or do you believe that gun laws like Brazil's also cause the same problems in other developed countries? Aren't there other developed countries with strict gun laws similar to Brazil, and don't those countries have far fewer gun homicides than the US? Why is Brazil the "proof" yet those other countries aren't? (I see Brazil used as an argument by many right wingers on the subject, so I'm genuinely curious)
Also, for what it's worth, manufacturing has not been banned in Brazil, even though private ownership largely has. From what I can see on the interwebs, they have a huge export market, and some of that gets re-imported back into their country.
Clearly if we do similar in the US (ban ownership, but still have all sorts of guns just laying around), nothing will really change. But if manufacturing and import are curtailed, then gun availability will change. Assuming we actually do a decent job of stopping illegal imports.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...tm_source=vxfb
Separately, I wonder if simply banning AR-15 rifles and the like would help out. Simply from a damage standpoint during these mass shootings. That being said, pistol homicides far outpace rifle homicides in the US.
Last edited by Jason; February 26th, 2018 at 07:16 AM.
I wonder how much research is being done into the development of self-shooting guns. Self-shooting guns would always follow all the appropriate rules and protocols and never panic. Furthermore, more use could be made of non-lethal ammunition and/or shooting techniques, since the self-shooting gun would not be an actual human life which would be in danger. The gun could instantly calculate the appropriate amount of various tranquilizers needed for the subject encountered, and select and load and shoot the appropriate cartridge with an appropriate shot to an appropriate target. This could allow apprehension by a human (or non-human, possibly inanimate) assistant. And even if the attempted tranquilization failed, the gun would not be a human life at risk. The SSG could have other weapons in its arsenal, too, such as gases to temporarily incapacitate in various ways.
Why not have armored hugging robots? Whenever gunshots detected, the robot would move toward the gunman and give him a hug until swat team shows up.
I do often wonder why non lethal weapons aren't good enough for home protection, but I guess they wouldn't be useful in protecting from a "tyrranical government"
An ex-coworker posted a link to a school mass stabbing on facebook with the comment "should we ban knives too?"
20 people stabbed, no one dead, about a third serious injuries.
So it was actually a perfect example of why we SHOULD ban high powered automatic weapons. Two people attempting basically the same thing, one doing much more damage simply because of an assault rifle.
I'll try to get to this tonight, I'm at work right now and need to get the appropriate information to you on why.
That's the thing pro gun people keep going on about. Pistols kill way more people than rifles. Most of them are in gangbangers hands. The amounts killed by rifles, hunting or otherwise is miniscule in comparison. A lot of the shootings that happen with rifles are reported on because of the ease on which they can make the story appear more gruesome and scary.
Let's think about it. Does a Glock or a revolver look nearly as intimidating as an AR15? Nope.
Does a hunting rifle look as bad as an AR15? Nope.
Many hunting rifle can be had in semi auto form. They are also larger caliber bullets which can do more damage. "High capacity" mags can be had with many different designs of rifle.
I come to you with this as to inform. Not to belittle. We are currently going through a knee jerk reaction period. Airguns are currently receiving some pretty serious backlash right now and for ZERO reason.
I'll type up more after I get off work.
Respectfully, the damage from an AR-15 is more gruesome and scary than the damage done with a pistol, at least according to the article linked. I get that you can still murder a lot of people with a smaller firearm, but is it as easy? Should ease of mass murder be a factor in deciding if a weapon is legal or not? We already have a "red line" in that regard. Is an AR-15 (or equivalent) a good home protection weapon? Is it a good hunting rifle? If neither, then why are they legal other than "freedom"?
I do want to be clear, in the ideal world, I'd love to see guns banned for private ownership in the US, as well as manufacturing, and import/sale for private use. So I know I'm in the minority in the US. I'm just trying to figure out a "middle ground".
Politicians talk a lot about it being a "mental healthcare" issue, while removing restrictions from ownership, and making healthcare harder/more expensive to maintain. So I'm not really sure exactly what that solution is. Not to mention, the mentally disabled are more likely to be a victim of violence, than they are to be someone who shoots up a school. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if a history of abusive behavior does correlate.
I'm definitely of the opinion that it seems like something like an AR-15 is better suited to killing a lot of people very quickly in a single incident. More people are killed by handguns obviously, but it seems (and I do not have data to back this up, and if it's incorrect I'm happy to know that) like shootings with handguns generally kill significantly fewer people per incident than incidents like the Las Vegas or Parkland shootings. In other terms, a single person can do way more damage with an AR-15 than they can do with a handgun, and if all those people killing people with handguns had AR-15s instead, we'd be in a significantly worse situation than we already find ourselves.
I got into it with someone on a friend's FB post, though I wasn't really arguing anything gun related. The original poster reposted some image showing two guns, one that looked like an older hunting rifle, the other was an AR-15. It said that both were semi-automatic, both could hold 30 rounds, both fired the same size ammunition, but that one nobody worries about while they all want to ban the AR-15 because "it's scary looking." (Not going to go out and try to find it again, but I think the phrasing was similar to "Totally fine to own" vs. "OMG ITS SCARY BAN IT!") My only point was that that's a really bad argument because it can be turned around really quickly - if the only difference is how they look, then why would you worry if the AR-15 gets banned? You can still get the exact same gun, only less scary looking.
The immediate response from all of his friends was that they aren't identical, most pointing out that the AR-15 was a newer gun and was therefore "better." (I use quotes there as literal quotes, not paraphrase quotes). I couldn't get anyone to answer me about what made it better, and I'm not knowledgable about firearms. My immediate guesses would be that it's lighter, less prone to malfunctioning, maybe better balance, or less recoil, easier to aim? However, nobody would stand behind the idea that the AR-15 was a "lesser" or even equal weapon than the other one that they attempted to equate in all ways other than appearance.
Last edited by Tom Servo; February 26th, 2018 at 01:07 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote