The underlying reason why they go after AR15's so hard?

[RX-79G]

This is what makes the AR such a focal point for the public and politicians. Many people are shot by gangs using pistols all the time; all those single events don't carry the same weight in the mind of the public as a mass shooting. And don't get the media coverage. Back when the 1968 GCA was passed, handguns were the focus. Which has shifted with the preponderance of AR's in private ownership.

Plus, handguns are entrenched in law by concealed carry. But both are subject to mag bans.

Concealed carry - a movement spawned in large part by the 10+ round mag ban of the 94 Crime Bill.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You leave likes?

 

[Koda]

Then I don't understand. You said of preventing mass shootings:

Since you said that mass shootings are preventable, and then said addressing mental health is a way to do it, why are you now saying it might not be possible? That sounds like you are contradicting yourself.

In the full context of my comment I didn't say they were preventable. I should have added entirely preventable but the context of my opinion was not that they are preventable but that they are not a downside to an armed populous. Mass shootings have happened in countries that prohibit guns to be clear...

 

[RX-79G]

In the full context of my comment I didn't say they were preventable. I should have added entirely preventable but the context of my opinion was not that they are preventable but that they are not a downside to an armed populous. Mass shootings have happened in countries that prohibit guns to be clear...

I doubt anyone would have trouble demonstrating that the countries with the most gun prohibitions have the fewest and smallest mass shootings. So that really isn't a strong argument to make.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I don't think many cared for the AR15 prior to Bush banning foreign military style weapons in 1989. Calling them jamomatics and referencing Vietnam. It wasn't until choices started drying up that the AR started getting taken seriously by lots of people. And then the 94 crime bill encouraged folks to innovate the design. And then the government dumped tons of them onto the police, and that made them look like a good idea, too. Then two Gulf Wars.

Had things gone differently, we'd probably still be focused on M14s, HKs and AUGs.

There are 20 million AR 15s in America today, there was only 5.5 million Garands produced for WWII. Six million 30 carbines so it's pretty obvious the AR15 is Americas gun.

 

[Koda]

I doubt anyone would have trouble demonstrating that the countries with the most gun prohibitions have the fewest and smallest mass shootings. So that really isn't a strong argument to make.

It might appear that way but it is a strong argument. If one mass shooting can happen why cant others?
What people often leave out is the other factors at play like the social, economic, geographical factors. Often these highly restrictive countries have better social healthcare, which reduces stress... (a point many conservatives here in the US dont agree with).
Canada has been a role model for gun control, but theyve had several mass shootings (including one with an AR15 IIRC. ?)

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It might appear that way but it is a strong argument. If one mass shooting can happen why cant others?
What people often leave out is the other factors at play like the social, economic, geographical factors. Often these highly restrictive countries have better social healthcare, which reduces stress... (a point many conservatives here in the US dont agree with).
Canada has been a role model for gun control, but theyve had several mass shootings (including one with an AR15 IIRC. ?)

 

[RX-79G]

There are 20 million AR 15s in America today, there was only 5.5 million Garands produced for WWII. Six million 30 carbines so it's pretty obvious the AR15 is Americas gun.

I agree. Now. Just not for the first 25 years.

 

[RX-79G]

It might appear that way but it is a strong argument. If one mass shooting can happen why cant others?
What people often leave out is the other factors at play like the social, economic, geographical factors. Often these highly restrictive countries have better social healthcare, which reduces stress... (a point many conservatives here in the US dont agree with).
Canada has been a role model for gun control, but theyve had several mass shootings (including one with an AR15 IIRC. ?)

I don't think anyone is nearly as concerned with possibilities as much as actual incidents. The places that can have mass shootings don't have as many.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Actually there are a lot of reasons to go after the most popular firearm in the USA but most likely it's to distract people from the country crashing around them.

 

[American123]

if it was theyd go for all the handguns.

To be clear, there isn't a single firearm they want people to be able to own, they just are realistic and understand they can only bite off so much at a time successfully.

Look at firearm laws from 1776 until now. The trend most definitely is not "more" liberty.

 

[RX-79G]

Look at firearm laws from 1776 until now. The trend most definitely is not "more" liberty.

Unless you count who can own them and where they can be carried.

 

[Alexx1401]

The people that defined mass shootings at 4 or more are not the ones that want to ban AR15s?

You are watching someone who supports the people who want to ban trying to "spin" this. How many people die weekly in one city, Chi-town, alone? There is a "mass shooting" there weekly and sometimes daily. Yet the people trying to spin this seem fine with that and ignore it. None of them are done with AR's and even if they were they would still ignore it. Why? The people they support have been running that place for decades so they get a pass.

 

[RX-79G]

You are watching someone who supports the people who want to ban trying to "spin" this. How many people die weekly in one city, Chi-town, alone? There is a "mass shooting" there weekly and sometimes daily. Yet the people trying to spin this seem fine with that and ignore it. None of them are done with AR's and even if they were they would still ignore it. Why? The people they support have been running that place for decades so they get a pass.

I think it is more like "I don''t live in South Chicago or Watts, but my daughter does go to a random elementary school."

 

[Alexx1401]

Isnt it clear that anyone who would commit a mass shooting has mental health issues? Why cant we prohibit people who are adjudicated with violent mental health issues from owning guns? Why do we keep letting violent offenders out of jail?

I dont support red flag laws without a conviction.

That right there tells it ALL. Look at the places run by the people who want to ban guns? They arrest and release the same people with guns over and over again. Then pretend the real fix is to take the guns of people who do not commit crime. Sure that will fix it as they let the scum out of jail over and over again.

 

[American123]

Unless you count who can own them and where they can be carried.

I'm not familiar with a whole lot of firearm restrictions during the time the constitution and bill of rights were written compared to today.

Slavery and the associated arguments of human/less-than-human to legitimize the act compared to what the Bible and the constitution says about men being equal, represent a civil rights issue that can be separated from a firearm rights issue for the sake of argument.

The laws governing the ownership and use of firearms are significantly more restrictive and numerous today than they were in the past. Period.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I'm just waiting for people to start pointing out how the Gov is investing in 6.8 and moving away from 5.56.

 

[gmerkt]

when the Clinton "assault weapon" ban ended in 2004, there were something like 25 companies making AR15-type weapons. By 2021, there were something like 500 plus firms making them. This was in answer to the explosion in demand for the guns after a 20 year famine and it fed on itself. More people wanted them, more companies stepped in to supply them.

Quoting my own post.

Ergo, to some extent, the Clinton Ban accelerated the proliferation of AR's. Two dynamics: (1) forbidden fruit concept, and (2) monkey-see, monkey do.

The 20 year sunset was a mistake, but at the time was likely a compromise to get it passed. The sunset caused the demand dam to burst, plus probably many people were afraid that another ban would be put in place to deny them further.

 

[gmerkt]

Plus, handguns are entrenched in law by concealed carry.

Maybe. But my take is that further state or federal restrictions on handguns wouldn't be held back by carry laws. Get rid of handguns (or make them very difficult to own or obtain) and the proliferation of concealed carry goes away.

 

[RX-79G]

I'm not familiar with a whole lot of firearm restrictions during the time the constitution and bill of rights were written compared to today.

Slavery and the associated arguments of human/less-than-human to legitimize the act compared to what the Bible and the constitution says about men being equal, represent a civil rights issue that can be separated from a firearm rights issue for the sake of argument.

The laws governing the ownership and use of firearms are significantly more restrictive and numerous today than they were in the past. Period.

Municipal laws against any sort of carrying were apparently relatively common and weren't challenged in the courts. You'll see that sort of thing depicted in some cowboy films, but the practice went back much earlier.

Free non-whites had no redress if no one allowed them to buy a gun or vote. The difference between now and then was that many people had no ability to challenge legal disparities. Now even a very poor person can find the backing to challenge an unjust law.

Many of the restrictions we have now are on things that didn't exist in 1776. But I agree that there are more Federal and state level gun laws than there were 200 years ago.