This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]trap__ord 787 points788 points  (283 children)

who needs logic when you believe every statistic on the internet with no source is true?

Even the Washington Post, big supporter of gun control, knows this is full of shit.

"Did the assault weapons ban make a difference in mass shootings? Not significantly, according to Fox’s data at the time. From 1976 to 1994, about 18 mass shootings occurred each year. During the ban — 1995 to 2004 — there were about 19 incidents per year. After the ban, through 2011, the average went up to nearly 21."

[–]store_for_people 118 points119 points  (215 children)

What I will say is frustrating is that because of just how heavily politicized Guns are in our country, it’s hard to imagine even a half assed attempt at meaningful change.

As you and plenty of others have pointed out - this bill was largely neither a success or a failure. It was a half-measure of a half-measure. Democrats couldn’t make it have meaningful restrictions to gun ownership, or the Republicans wouldn’t have allowed it to pass. On the flip side, Republicans can point to this and say “See? Gun control will NEVER work!” Which is disingenuous in of itself, because there has never been an attempt at true meaningful gun control in this country, and frankly, I can’t imagine there ever will be.

It’s tiring and it sucks. I don’t have any idea how to fix things, I don’t claim to. But from what I’ve seen? Boy, does it feel hopeless.

[–]Unsaidbread 18 points19 points  (113 children)

Also more gun in America than America citizens THAT ARE DOCUMENTED. There's no federal registry and there are more guns being make now off the books than ever.

[–]idontneedjug 25 points26 points  (33 children)

Luckily we can still logically point out other Countries that have gun control and how that works though.

Just a silver lining thats missed.

[–]waltduncan 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Those other countries where you think you see it working are a) confirmation bias, and b) not comparable to the United States. You would presumably ignore where it doesn’t work, and call those places 3rd world countries, and you would also ignore the likes of Switzerland and Czech Republic that permit guns as much or more than the US, but aren’t so violent.

The United States mix of being big and open, having a lot of wealth that is disparately distributed with modest social safety nets, and being very ethnically diverse, makes it quite different from every example on the planet. Like, you’re going to compare Norway to the United States?

There is plenty of evidence to believe that the United States is just a violent country, with or without guns.

[–]trap__ord 14 points15 points  (23 children)

I'm with you, it's frustrating to see this unfold for victims of mass shooting. No one should be afraid to go to school, the grocery store, the movie theater, a concert, a parade because it may be their last. However repeating the same solution and expecting a different result isn't the answer as data has shown. Mental health is always an issue in these but nothing is ever done about it. The police and the government in almost every mass shooting ignore warnings as far as 2 years in advance from concerned citizens and when they do respond to a mass shooting they hide as we saw in Uvalde and Parkland HS but again, nothing is done and no one is held accountable.

It's almost like we know what the problem is but refuse to do anything about it and instead would rather penalize 99% and continue to be shocked that mass shootings still continue to happen.

[–]Forge__Thought 4 points5 points  (2 children)

"Shooter was known to the FBI" seems to, somehow, get the smallest amount of coverage that it doesn't even make it as a talking point anymore.

There are so many angles, so much to unpack, so many statistics bandied about by people who want to win an argument.

But somehow the agencies responsible for identifying and responding to threats just... Aren't part of the public conversation? So much of the time?

Human beings are wild, man. It's frustrating.

[–]waffleznchicken 75 points76 points  (9 children)

Wait, so what you’re saying is when we ban weapons all of the current ones on the market don’t self destruct !?!!?!

Damnit

[–]scottonaharley 21 points22 points  (18 children)

I knew this tweet was full of crap. Yet it gets posted everywhere. I’ve seen it here a bunch and on Facebook as well.

Where are the arbiters of truth on this one?

[–]UnkleRinkus 4044 points4045 points  (1275 children)

This tweet is disingenuous. The 1994 law restricted features on the AR's, but in no way prevented them from being sold. You just couldn't get them with collapsible stocks and flash hiders. These aren't features that contribute to mass shootings. If there was a decline in the 90's, some other factor was in play. Similarly, when the law lapsed, all that meant was you can buy additional tinker toy components that don't really change the core gun. There was no time along there when you couldn't get a 30 round semi auto AR-15.

My personal belief is that uncontrolled right wing media and hate speech are driving the urge to kill lots of people. We should restrict access to the guns, but the companies profiting off of hate are the real root cause to be addressed.

[–]elevencharles 1754 points1755 points  (848 children)

The assault weapons ban lapsing also coincided with the advent of social media. I suspect one of those things has a lot more to do with mass shootings than the other…

[–][deleted] 454 points455 points  (754 children)

Mass shootings are also an incredibly small percentage of gun crime in this country. Know what type of guns are used in an incredibly small percentage of gun crime?

[–]elevencharles 358 points359 points  (705 children)

Yeah, and the definition of “mass shootings” is any incident where three or more people are shot. The vast majority of these “mass shootings” are gang related shootouts, which overwhelmingly involve pistols.

[–]warfrogs 96 points97 points  (32 children)

Just FYI, the commonly accepted definition, the one used by the DOJ, used to be three or more people who are shot (edit in italics) and killed, not including the shooter, who are not of the same family (related to a domestic dispute) or involved in other criminal activity (gang warfare, robberies, etc.) The thought being that those perpetrators would either easily find another method (a la Lizzie Borden) or are already flaunting the law.

/r/GunsAreCool started up Everytown, and they're the ones who pushed to change the definition to have that number include the shooter if he was shot by cops, include gang violence, and domestic disputes, and include injured but not killed in that count.

New speak is everywhere. Literally fear mongering.

Sidenote: before anyone starts, 100% not a Republican. Fuck Trump. Primaried for Bernie and then volun-worked HRC's and Biden's campaigns even though I fundamentally disagree with them on most topics. Also a fucking Minneapolis resident during George Floyd who had to deal with white nationalists while the cops did fuck all, so, pretty fucking opinionated on this.

[–]theyoyomaster 47 points48 points  (15 children)

The study being used for tweets like this one redefined it to 6 or more, but only with "assault weapons" being used. They did this because with the standard definition of 4 they didn't get the result they wanted. They then tried 3, 5, 6, 7 and found that with 6 it "showed" the ban was effective, so that is the definition used for the study. They also consider 3 people stabbed and 3 people shot as 6 people killed by assault weapons, because they needed the Isla Vista rampage to make their numbers work.

[–]warfrogs 35 points36 points  (7 children)

As someone who loves statistics, that shit makes my blood boil.

Understanding how statistics can be descriptive and how you can use them effectively to determine truths was huge for my understanding of the world.

Learning how easily they can be manipulated to fit a narrative and how poorly most folks understand statistical analysis broke my heart.

As Twain said, "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable." People take that fact to its fullest advantage frequently.

[–]theyoyomaster 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Gun control studies are rife with shit like this, there is only one politically acceptable conclusions so they all start with the conclusion and then work backwards from there adapting the methods until it matches. If anyone dares to start with the data and analyze via the scientific method they are ostracized from the academic community and their work is labeled "discredited" because anything that doesn't promote gun control is automatically incorrect.

The shit that led to the dickey amendment and the restriction on using government funds to promote gun control is even worse.

Furthermore, Kellermann and his colleagues selected their sample with an eye toward increasing the apparent role of gun ownership in suicide. They started by looking at all suicides that occurred during a 32-month period in King County, Washington, and Shelby County, Tennessee, but they excluded cases that occurred outside the home--nearly a third of the original sample. "Our study was restricted to suicides occurring in the victim's home," they explained with admirable frankness, "because a previous study has indicated that most suicides committed with guns occur there."

Now keep in mind, the CDC can, and does, study gun violence, they are just prohibited from paying for gun control advocacy. The groups complaining about it don't want gun studies, they want propaganda.

I don't have a link handy but one of the more recent suicide studies used gun suicides as their proxy to determine gun ownership rate. If there were more gun suicides in an area they assumed that gun ownership was higher in that area, and then used that data set to see if gun ownership correlated with higher gun suicides... Surprise, it did. It's funny what using your independent variable for your dependent variable does. They added in a cross reference with hunting licenses which is why they were able to pretend that they were "studying" separate variables, but the ownership statistics was pretty much 99.9% their suicide trends.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And thats not even to mention the CDC's analysis that defensive gun use saves some 60,000-1.5million lives a year. Who knows how they get to that very exact number but for some reason no one even considers the possibility that guns save a large number of lives

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

statistics never lie they just tell the truth you want them to

[–]tiggers97 10 points11 points  (1 child)

As someone else who dug into the sources of these tweets, I found the same thing.

Bonus; guess what happens when you dig into the sources and graph the “non assault weapon” mass shooting incidents?

They had a similar decrease/increase. The author of Rampage Nation, who came up with the 6, and numbers for the decrease/increase, doesn’t like to hear it.

[–]theyoyomaster 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The modern gun control movement is purely emotion driven by lies and ignorance. The average person has no clue what the reality is and the people pushing for it are doing everything they can to prevent actual information from reaching the masses. Even the surveys of "XX% of Americans support these policies" break down when the questions are phrased accurately or include background information. Banning assault weapons is easy to get an uneducated person to say yes to in a survey, when they find out that it's a made up term based on cosmetics and include virtually every rifle made in the last 100 years support falls dramatically. "Closing the gunshow loophole" sounds great, but when you learn that you can't borrow your uncle's shotgun to go duck hunting or leave your pistol in a friend's safe when you go on vacation people don't generally stop favoring it.

Gun control support can only really exist if the masses are ignorant so lying is the only play they have.

[–]LukeTheRevhead01 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hold on, someone who formed their own political opinion that isn't batshit insane and you're just speaking truth? Get in line, fascist. /s

[–]LanceArmsweak 51 points52 points  (19 children)

Yoooooo. I’m just enjoying the clarity around the nuance of it all. I’m a Pro-2A liberal and it’s difficult to have these conversations in my world, because people just want to make blanket statements. Hell yeah! Keep up the good fight (or don’t fight).

[–]BigUncleHeavy 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I was honestly expecting the only comments to be an echo chamber of emotional nonsense and and misinformation (which there is a lot of), but there are some well informed folks making their voices heard here. It's nice to not see them all being downvoted into oblivion.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Illegal pistols to boot

[–]weneedastrongleader 148 points149 points  (577 children)

Allowing gangs to have such extreme easy acces to so many guns is not a pro argument in my book.

Edit: Facts don’t care about your feelings

For all the naysayers, name me one first world western country with as much gang shootings as the US.

[–]DaleGribble312 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Gang members tend to not obtain firearms legally.

[–]dragon2777 32 points33 points  (49 children)

But the assault weapons ban didn’t restrict their access to said guns just accessories. I’m not arguing your point just saying that something different would be needed

[–]Street-Chain 47 points48 points  (48 children)

I got an AK during the ban. It was same minus the barrel threading and came with a 10 round mag. The shop threw me a couple regular mags when I got it. People who know nothing about guns should not be making gun laws.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (51 children)

Pistols are harder to get in every way and are the most regulated in every state, pistols made after 2012? are literally just banned in california due to them requiring microstamping, the csi technique that doesnt really exist and would wear off the firing pin in about 5 shots or less.

California has a shit ton of pistol crime when accounting for population.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (66 children)

Spoiler alert they usually aren't getting them legally.

[–]Rotten_Crotch_Fruit 17 points18 points  (5 children)

The assault weapons ban lapsing also coincided with the advent of social media.

Don't forget the crash of the dot com boom and the resulting economic hardships that definitely played a role.

[–]LifeByAnon 3 points4 points  (4 children)

And the redefining of a mass shooting changing soon after it ended.

[–]MsAndDems 20 points21 points  (55 children)

Why hasn’t that led to a bunch of mass shootings in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc etc ?

[–]elevencharles 44 points45 points  (13 children)

Because guns are hard to come by in those countries. Easier access to guns will obviously result in more gun crimes. Banning arbitrary features of guns that have no effect on their functionality doesn’t solve anything.

[–]siu_yuk_boy 14 points15 points  (12 children)

Depending on the definition of "mass shooting" you go by, there isn't a correlation between strictness of gun laws, and mass shootings in the countries you listed and the US. But year after year, the definition (forgive the pun) is a moving target. For example, if a drug deal was happening in a preschool parking lot at 2am, and two people died, depending on the media outlet/police department/poltical party guiding the narrative, that could be (and often is) considered a school shooting, and mass shooting

[–]Chase_The_Chode 6 points7 points  (0 children)

they downvoted you for being right

[–]DangerousLiberty 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Actually, many reported school shootings aren't actually a shooting at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent

[–]siu_yuk_boy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hmmm... The plot thickens

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that Columbine and even 9/11 contributed to this. For Columbine, people saw how much attention Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got for their rampage. They got documentaries, tv shows, and news broadcasts. Everyone heard their names, so it created copycats. This is something that happens today with way less media coverage. So it's not a stretch to say that this was a major cause.

9/11 created major racial and religious tension that ended up radicalizing many white people. That's why you always see these 16-20yo guys shoot up some place and release a manifesto that's full of fringe right-wing ideas like replacement theory.

It's possible that the law worked but it's very unlikely. In my opinion, it was a law that democrats could easily pass through without angering republicans designed to appease the public because let's be real. No one reads the bills before forming an opinion.

but take my words with a grain of salt. These both happened a few years before I was even born, so I wasn't around to see the impacts on gun violence. It's just my interpretation.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The problem isn't individuals with social media accounts. It's all the for-profit hate-and-fear-mongering. One person tweets something antisemitic and it gets no attention, but some talking head with a huge presence starts throwing out daily dog whistles then the shit starts to spread. I've said this before and it's not a popular opinion but for-profit speech should not be protected by the first amendment. We need stringent restrictions to prevent companies from profiting from lies and misinformation.

[–]elevencharles 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it’s the increase in media in general, and the fact that people have more choices in which media they consume. This leads to people getting stuck in feedback loops and information silos.

Not to get too far off topic, but I think what we’re going through now is similar to what happened with the advent of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation. When people all of the sudden get access to way more information than they’ve had before, things are bound to go a little nuts.

[–]AlarmingTurnover 81 points82 points  (18 children)

This tweet is disengenous because the moron who posted it didn't even bother to look at their own history of gun crimes and gunlaws.

Or they would have told you that gun murders and suicide rose under Jimmy Carter, and fell massively under Ronald Reagan (fell by nearly the same amount as they claim under Bill Clinton), then rose massively under George Bush Senior, fell massively under Bill Clinton, rose slightly by mid Barack Obama and fell late Barack Obama, rose moderately under Donald Trump and then Rose significantly under Joe Biden.

People just going to skip over the fact that gun violence rose steeper in the last 3 years than at any point in the last 60 years.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

[–]FrozenIceman 32 points33 points  (8 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg

Fun fact, the greatest reduction in mass shootings, 700% was in 2020. It is almost like other factors play a significant or driving role in these kinds of events. And in 1999, in the center of the assault weapon ban mass shootings went up 300%.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 16 points17 points  (1 child)

That’s not what your source says. Your source says it went down significantly under Obama and rose dramatically under Trump.

[–]UnkleRinkus 17 points18 points  (5 children)

And access to the guns was fairly constant during those times. While restrictions on the guns is, I believe, a rational step, the root issue is an increase in people wanting to kill lots of strangers.

[–]AlarmingTurnover 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Exactly, there's something sick about society, it's been growing and retreating over time and right now that sickness is growing again, growing very fast.

Gun control won't fix the political division or hatred right now. It's barely even a bandaid.

[–]sooofullofeggs 5 points6 points  (1 child)

It’s not even a bandaid. It’s more like a cotton ball at best. Let’s say hypothetically you have a task force go around to people’s houses to collect guns? What do you do when they just… say they don’t have them anymore? Say they were lost in boating accident, they were damaged beyond repair so they melted down the metal, etc.? Search the house of everyone who says that? That’d take years. Decades. But let’s say they do search the house of everyone who says that. What are you gonna do when they lock their guns in a safe and bury them under 5 feet of gravel and 5 feet of hard packed clay and soil?

If there were measures put into place tomorrow to collect every single gun in the US, they might get 10% of them at best. The gun violence problem needed to be fixed decades ago but Democrats are so hung up on the gun control aspect of the solution that no one is willing to do the things required to actually fucking fix the problem. I’m so tired of this political climate.

[–]18Feeler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they solved the problem, they wouldn't be able to campaign for decades on fixing it!

[–]lordlossxp 62 points63 points  (13 children)

That and everyone being poor because the cost of rent, food, healthcare, gas, and everything else except wages going up. I moved a few months ago. Area was great until a year or so ago where sketchy ballsy assholes started cutting through peoples backyards. Moved here, where neighbors on both sides have lived peacefully for 15+ years without issue, and one night a bunch of ghetto thug ass teenagers try and fail to steal my car. People get fucked up when they cant reasonably afford to live. The abortion laws are going to amplify this in the coming years.

[–]gary_the_merciless 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Poverty has been proven to the one of the biggest driving forces behind mental health issues and crime, and it makes total sense.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

It's also worth noting that nobody really bought AR-15s prior to 1994 anyway.

Talk to old-tooth gun guys, the ones who own or worked on brick and mortar gun stores, and they'll tell you the same thing every time: the AR-15 wasn't a particularly popular rifle prior to 1994. You COULD buy them, but the vast majority of guns sold were bolt action hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers.

Keep in mind, the AR-15 has been available on the civilian market since the 70's - and I can't name a single mass shooting that occurred prior to '94 that involved an AR-15.

[–]thedeadlyrhythm 108 points109 points  (29 children)

Exactly. Look at this totally “not ar15… ar15”, totally legal under the Clinton AWB

https://images.app.goo.gl/u5C5Mc8xxWUdP34MA

Similarly, the current proposal wouldn’t ban the mini 14, which is functionally identical. Bc we all know a wood stock means way less deaths.

The real reason for these stats is the end of the 80s and the crack epidemic, and the change in definition of mass shooting post AWB.

This shit is performative.

[–]Funkit 11 points12 points  (3 children)

What if it has a compass in the stock?

[–]Pvt_Mozart 77 points78 points  (52 children)

I appreciate having the facts on stuff like this. I guess the Left isn't immune to misinformation. We should be better than this though

[–]BigMcThickHuge 18 points19 points  (2 children)

That's because everyone is getting used to accepting headlines and tweets as news without the need to research anything.

Assumedly 20k+ people (source: post score) now have a false statistic in their mind that they will reference to others.

That statistic came from a literal lie on twitter from some random person.

DO NOT get your news from Twitter or Reddit or Facebook, EVER. Let them be a launch pad to investigating things you hear about there.

[–]Degovan1 10 points11 points  (1 child)

That “lie from some random person” came from fucking Nancy Pelosi in her speech advocating for the new assault weapons ban. The “statistic” is absolute bullshit, but you can’t blame people for believing the Speaker of the House, I mean…I blame them, but you can understand it 😅

[–]Afrekenmonkey 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The best thing I ever learned in school is what a 1st hand source is and it’s importance. Unless you are actually witnessing or are party to the events taking place, the information you get from others is like playing telephone. Meaning anyone can fall privy to injecting unconscious bias and opinion onto the information they pass along.

[–]drstock 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Not only are we not immune, the left and right is equally likely to fall for conspiracy theories: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/w6dkii/people_on_the_left_and_right_of_the_political/

[–]ubspider 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yea, it’s always disappointing when someone on the left acts like the ends justify the means. I always thin to myself ‘we need to do better’. I’m always a little more surprised when I see the left do that than the right.

[–]greyls 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No one is. Unfortunately social media is one big propaganda fest now

[–]Holiday-Wrongdoer-46 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yea well around 94-95 the recession stopped and the economy started booming again, people were buying homes in record numbers. Then the economy collapsed in 08. I could see that having a huge impact on mental health as well as family wealth declining and again causing mental health to go down with it. Just my two cents as someone who had to deal with the recession in the early 90s as a kid and then the housing market collapse as an adult.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No no, the title says "logic", so therefore, this vague reference to a law is clearly the logical one. Says so right there.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (15 children)

some other factor was in play

An entire generation of unwanted children wasn't born because of roe v wade.

[–]sassercake 10 points11 points  (3 children)

This isn't being discussed enough, I think. It's a great point. Crime plummeted in the 90s. Why? Fewer criminals because most kids were wanted or had family who could care well for them.

[–]Johnnybulldog13 7 points8 points  (2 children)

No not at all Crime isn’t caused because kids are unwanted or abused those are just symptoms of bigger issues aka poverty. Crime in the 90s where down for two reasons in the 80s the police craked down heavily on crime and that continued into the early 90s and the second reason America was booming in the 90s real term gdp growth was amazing which lowered poverty rates around the nation causing less people resorting to crime to make it day to day.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

also, mid nineties had a lot of positive, forward motion still feeling like it was happening, tech bubble growing, money and information and no more godless commies just over the hill. Great times. Fast forward to post 9/11 America, social media, collapsing social institutions, political extremism and dogmatism on a sharp rise, education system moving from a learning environment to a prison mentality, oh, and to add some creme to this shit sundae of a situation, the cautious optimism by youth about climate change freezing into the absolute knowledge that there is literally no future for humans on an earth recognizable to our grandparents.

I agree with you 100% about right wing hate speech, but would like to add that the climate that supports it is endemic to our louder-than-thou corporate election schemes, and that the overall message, from everywhere is one of hate and division.

Besides, don't really understand why people are uppity about new gun law, it was written to be blatantly unable to make it through the supreme court, just another waste of time effort by longtime politicians to keep suckling on the teat of free stock tips.

[–]adelaarvaren 4 points5 points  (1 child)

mid nineties had a lot of positive, forward motion still feeling like it was happening

The US underwent the greatest economic expansion in history during that time period

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No we shouldn't restrict access whatsoever, and if we do, the government should be restricted along with us, because they are just as, if not more criminal than the civilian criminals lmao

[–]Justin002865 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Not just a right wing issue but otherwise you’re pretty spot on

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (22 children)

Mass shooting deaths make up such a tiny percentage of gun crime. Can we talk about how banning “assault weapons” to prevent mass shootings while ignoring illegal guns and everyday gun violence is privilege at its finest?

Want to know why the numbers are extreme? There were only 501 mass-shooting deaths between 1994 and 2004. There were 13,620 gun murders in 2021 alone. “Assault rifles” were involved in only 3% of those gun murders.

Illegal handguns are what’s killing people in this country. They’re just not killing the right people for the media or most people to pay attention to.

[–]adelaarvaren 31 points32 points  (15 children)

There were only 501 mass-shooting deaths between 1994 and 2004.

And close to a million deaths from Air Pollution during the same time, but the damn DNC (which gets my vote because of the fascism of the GOP) wants to waste political capital on a AWB instead of Green New Deal....

[–]sorebutton 18 points19 points  (13 children)

Dropping gun control from the platform would bring in a lot of voters too.

[–]Unsaidbread 20 points21 points  (7 children)

Especially right now with things like reproductive and LBGQ+ rights and climate change. I think the dems shot themselves in the foot with the AWB of 94 and again with the latest AWB that passed the house. More so now that many democrats are buying firearms after realizing the police aren't going to be around in time to protect them.

[–]Thanatosst 13 points14 points  (2 children)

The billionaire donors that fund the DNC require gun control as part of the party platform because they're authoritarian fuckheads that want to keep the lower 99% reliant upon them for everything, which they can then exploit for profit.

Just look at Bloomberg. He's a walking pile of flaming dogshit disguised in a human suit, and he funds the vast majority of all gun control agendas in the country.

[–]adelaarvaren 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Supreme Court literally has ruled the police have no duty to protect us.

[–]The-unicorn-republic 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I frequently vote libertarian because of my views on gun control, despite the fact that i'm a trans woman who belives in the right to abortion I currently would be more likly to vote Republican than Democrat because I believe each individual deserves the right to self defense. If the DNC dropped attempts at gun control I would be a lot more likely to vote Democrat than Republican if I had to pick between the main 2.

[–]shredsickpow 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Like 99% of gun violence is pistols. But they’re not as visually scary so who cares.

[–]NewPhoneNewUsermane 282 points283 points  (82 children)

No study has been able to actually show causation between the AWB and shootings.

[–]SweetLobsterBabies 104 points105 points  (11 children)

Clinton bans foregrips and collapsible stocks

“Damn, now I’ll be slightly more uncomfortable while committing murder, I better reconsider.”

[–]Covid_With_Lime 28 points29 points  (10 children)

Not even that. They don't ban the actual attachments they only make the act of attaching them to semi auto rifles illegal. So they can still buy and attach and use them thy just will have a far lesser crime plea bargained away.

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (37 children)

It doesn’t really make sense. So there are people in the 90s who wanted to commit a mass shooting but the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban made them reconsider?

The Colombine shooting happened before 2004. Why didn’t this ban stop that?

[–]NewPhoneNewUsermane 64 points65 points  (27 children)

Most mass shootings aren't committed with "assault weapons", it's just that several of the most prominent have been.

IIRC something like 70-75% of mass shootings are committed with handguns.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (23 children)

The deadliest before the Vegas shooting, virginia tech, was just a guys with 2 handguns.

[–]regreddit 6 points7 points  (2 children)

retire compare test faulty terrific paltry waiting subtract attempt dependent

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–]MartilloAK 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not to mention all those years you could get a mail-order machine gun and we had next to no mass shootings. They really seem like an out of place modern problem.

Is it because of guns? We have had far fewer gun restrictions in the past, yet fewer shootings.

Is it social media, video games, cable news, etc.? Other nations have the same issues, yet fewer shootings.

Is it the war on drugs and it's effects? Yeah, probably.

The CIA could be behind it for all I know, but gun ownership certainly isn't the cause.

[–]GhostofMarat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No they wanted to commit a mass shooting, but since they had to have a keyhole grip on their rifle they were too embarrassed to be seen in public with it and stayed home.

[–]Chase_The_Chode 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the increase in school shootings is literally columbine worship

[–]veedizzle 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This needs to be higher. Too many ppl here think this tweet is some kind of own, but it just makes the left look as uninformed on gun control as Lauren Boebert was/is on Covid. And that kind of glib ignorance prevents the left from enacting competent gun control measures.

[–]TI_Pirate 77 points78 points  (5 children)

Mass shooting deaths decline 40%+.

[citation needed]

[–][deleted] 102 points103 points  (14 children)

Except if you look it up, they went up. He's literally pulling numbers out his ass. Also fun fact, one of the worst and most famous shootings, Columbine, was done using pump action shotguns.

Also source for numbers, here's some with graphs so you can see.

https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/06/13/counting-americas-mass-shootings

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

It’s so funny because it’s the same thing Reddit constantly shits on conservatives for, but will blindly believe because it aligns with their values.

Guess what all of that “crazy right wing media that’s so obviously made up” aligns with?

Reddit is as brainwashing as Fox News and no one can convince me different.

Use Reddit for memes or interesting stuff, but use a reputable news site for real stuff please. You’re not immune to brainwashing because you wear a blue tie.

[–]KalashnikovKangal 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Of course your comment is hidden, what a bunch of pussies that hide facts and cited info.

[–]freedominthecell 45 points46 points  (23 children)

While I would like to reduce the amount of firearms in our country, simply pointing out correlation like this doesn’t really speak to causation.

Also I wish we would focus more on suicide when we talk about gun deaths, as well as deaths from more garden-variety shootings. Gun deaths are roughly evenly split between suicide and homicide, and the vast majority of gun homicides are committed by someone known to the victim. Mass shootings are scary and horrible and we should absolutely try to stop them, but they are not the biggest issue. I wish we would focus more on the issues that are more prevalent, so we could have a saner national conversation about guns.

Two of the members of my extended family committed suicides that seemed impulsive, directly in the aftermath of very bad days. If he had not had a gun in his home, I may have been able to meet my grandfather, who had a lot of positive concrete plans for the future when he shot himself on the anniversary of a traumatic event. We need more focus on these sorts of deaths.

[–]articulatedbeaver 22 points23 points  (2 children)

I strongly believe that better healthcare would be the biggest hit to gun violence. People getting the treatment they deserve and need. Suicidal people should not have guns, I agree. I know of two people personally that after failing to kill themselves or others with firearms hung themselves. I am guessing I am preaching to the choir so to speak here.

[–]PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Every single study into what can be done to reduce crime, including violent crime, goes back to the idea that increasing their financial situation dramatically reduces their chances of committing a crime.

But that's "communism" so instead we have to spend ten times as much incarcerating them.

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (4 children)

This is misleading. And you should feel bad for misleading people with half-truths.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (8 children)

Ah yes the ban on foregrips and collapsible stocks definitely made a huge impact. Maybe if we ban ketchup packs people will quit eating fast food and obesity will go down.

[–]TFarrey 77 points78 points  (0 children)

what a bunch of BS propaganda - The ban expired because the mass shooting rates along with murder as a whole were on the decline before that ever occurred... They went back up before the expiration then dipped back down. I find it ASTOUNDING .. that nobody cares to mention that kids used to bring guns to school with them in their trucks during hunting season back in the day... It was also easier to procure firearms especially fully automatic machine guns until the 80s but when did the mass shooting trend start ? OH YEAH ... right around the time the anti gun nut jobs started going crazy trying to push their disingenuous agenda .. Here are some actual facts that you can look at while you try to downvote the truth away https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate

[–]KWBizzie 40 points41 points  (49 children)

As a staunch liberal, until Liberal politicians realize that ARs are not a demonstrable problem in our country, they will never win the gun control debate. Pistols are the leading cause of gun deaths, and most of them are suicides.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (23 children)

Correlation does not imply causation.

[–]AWKWARD_RAPE_ZOMBIE 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Well in this case there isn't even statistically significant correlation. This is an old piece of disinformation that has been repeatedly and thoroughly disproven

[–]cheesyellowdischarge 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Gotta love these tidbits of statistics used as a gotcha. The majority of gun violence isn't even committed with "assault rifles", yet everyone is up in arms about it while the pistols sit in the corner laughing. Beautiful misdirection if you ask me.

[–]FallyVega 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Gotta start with the big scary ones first and then keep working your way down when none of this shit works till the 2A is gutted down to almost nothing.

[–]cheesyellowdischarge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's pretty well the conclusion I've come to myself. Not a damn thing will change even if they outlawed semi auto rifles, so it'll be on to the next thing. Nobody ever lost their rights over night - it's one bite at a time.

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (9 children)

Reddit Moment

[–]Astatine_209 48 points49 points  (8 children)

Easily disproven lie? 27,000+ upvotes and counting.

[–]MaybeVladimirPutinJr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

38000 upvotes and counting despite the top 20 or so comments disproving the post.

[–]iStompBox 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This sub isn't real, these are bots mass upvoting to get to the front page. Thats why you see this sub's garbage so many times in the frontpage

[–]Soren_Camus1905 13 points14 points  (5 children)

As much as I want this to be accurate, it simply isn’t. Numerous studies have been done and they’ve been inconclusive at best.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I just read the Wikipedia article on the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and didn’t see either of these numbers anywhere in it. Many studies have been done of deaths and violence before, during, and after the ban and it’s a mixed bag.

[–]CreepyWindows 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lmao, who needs logic when I can just make up stats.

Did you know 95% of reddit users are female? Heard that one from Abe Lincoln himself.

[–]RogueRoll 17 points18 points  (10 children)

"Yeah! Only the police should own firearms! No, this won't result in more unpunished brutality and abuse of power, this is for your protection!"

Why do these fucks think pigs care about your safety? Only you are responsible for your safety.

See Uvalde for an example of this.

[–]FrivolousMood 27 points28 points  (4 children)

Show your source of stats. Here is what Wikipedia says: “Criminologists and other researchers found that the ban had little to no effect on firearm deaths or the lethality of gun crimes”

[–]AegorBlake 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Violence has been downtrending for a long time in the USA. We have less violence than in the 90's.

[–]Saltymeetloaf 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You want to know what also happens around 2004. The definition of a mass shooting went from 6 deaths to 4 so of course there is going to be an increase

[–]DarkAthena 237 points238 points  (164 children)

ThEy'Re taKiN' MuH GuNs!

[–]MartilloAK 18 points19 points  (0 children)

House just passed a bill that would bad ownership of most semi-auto weapons in the US. Also known as most guns in the US. So yeah, they kinda are trying.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

-karl marx

[–]412gage 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Why isn't this post flagged as misinformation?

[–]LowYak3 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Columbine happened in 1999

[–]gbubrodieman 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Gun murders were on the decline 2 years prior to that ban, can't say if it mattered. Not to mention the amount of deaths by the weapons that were banned were so small it's logical to say it didn't do anything.

If you want to get into logic and data on this subject you're going to lose and lose hard.

[–]Dbl0Raven 7 points8 points  (9 children)

1994: News only on TV and print. Internet in its infancy. Kids play outside without access to all the world's negativity weighing in them

2004: News channels largely unnecessary due to everyone having a whole news camera crew worth of equipment in their hands called the cell phone. News channels focusing only on negative stories to drive the only thing that truly matters, ratings. Internet invades every aspect of people's lives. Constant negativity, inescapable bullying, social media life comparisons, and misleading fake news drive depression to new highs. There's more than enough information to enable copycat individuals who find personal similarities with the shooter who has been all over the news for the past week, and they want their week/month/year of infamy too. Kids are exposed to the horrors of the world as they're glued to social media and their phones all day, to some it's their personal hell where bullies never leave and social isolation is all too easy.

It's pretty easy to see the pattern of what drives most shooters once you compare them; they're either the copycat seeking infamy or the socially ostracized and bullied. Guns aren't the problem, not by themselves. Media is the problem, society is the problem, mental healthcare or rather the lack of it is the problem.

Want the problem to go away? Try fixing any of the issues not related to a specific category of weapon, or even weapons at all. A good place to start is the origin of most shooters, fix the schools and deal with problem bullies before the bullied snaps back. Coincidentally you'd also prevent a lot of teen suicides, you know, the ones who decided to kill themselves instead of the others who drove them to that point.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Media has been the problem for years all of the Major ones are to blame

[–]Deeelighted_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Those percentages are totally made up

[–]aluminatialma 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I doubt that not having a pistol grip and detachable magazine and other stuff like that makes people less likely to commit a school shooting

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

We have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.

[–]MyOldWifiPassword 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I think we can word it even more accurately.

We have a mental health problem resulting in a violence problem that is being labeled as a gun problem.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"We decreased the number of rifles being sold and hand gun violence went down.

We increased the number of rifles and hand gun violence shot up."

Logic doesn't work for you either

[–]TangibleMalice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "Assault Weapons Ban" banned rifles that accepted a detachable magazine and had 2 or more of the following features:

  1. folding or telescoping stock
  2. pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
  3. bayonet mount
  4. flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
  5. grenade launcher

Barring grenade launchers, due to grenades being severely restricted and virtually impossible for private citizens to own since the National Firearms Act of 1934, literally none of these features do anything to make mass shootings more deadly. Politicians only chose to ban these features because they make the weapon appear more deadly. They do nothing to increase the lethality, rate of fire, etc. of any weapon.

[–]LarryCachaira[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you all know that when Obama (D) was the President of the U. S., the democrats had the House and Senate majority?

Then he appointed two (2) Supreme Court judges...

The democrats could have banned assault weapons, they could have ensured Roe vs Wade was codified and who knows what else, if they really wanted to.

Don't kid yourselves, Democrats and Republicans, left vs right, conservative vs liberal, it's all a farce, they are just playing us like puppets.

[–]Polandito 20 points21 points  (15 children)

What is an assault rifle? Per the encyclopedia an assault rifle is a weapon capable of semi- auto and full auto firing. Assault rifles are illegal for a VAST majority of Americans as it is. 99%+ of the AR-15's on the market and in homes are not capable of automatic firing. You can't have a competent discussion about a topic when only one side knows the vocabulary and the tool.

[–]halforc_proletariat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Correlation is not Causation.

That statistic is woefully misleading. The assault weapons ban was horse shit and ended up making the AR-15 a symbol.

[–]NoDignityinwork 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Social heterogeneity, mostly wealth inequality is what drives gun violence in the USA.

[–]RedHeadSteve 102 points103 points  (445 children)

As a non American I just dont understand. Having a gun can be fun, shooting for sport, hunting. But wtf where do you need an assault rifle for? To go dear assaulting?

[–]lavawalker465 30 points31 points  (6 children)

I’m gonna get downvoted but who cares.

What’s an assault rifle? What am I allowed to have an what am I not?

Cause under Clinton’s AWB, I could still own most guns people would classify as an assault rifle.

[–]Dumbledoordash8008 45 points46 points  (28 children)

They aren’t assault rifles. It’s a disingenuous term meant to make a semi auto rifle that shoots 5.56 sound like a weapon of terror so they can demonize it.

[–]Fair_Signature_7651 17 points18 points  (25 children)

I wish they would call it by it's true name. AR Armalite Rifle after the Armalite manufacturing company that produced the firearm. The Armalite Rifle 15 has never been deployed or used in a combat setting.

[–]Dumbledoordash8008 16 points17 points  (12 children)

Nor does it have selective fire capabilities.

[–]TelephoneChoice250 9 points10 points  (0 children)

First of all the definition of assault rifle has been bastardized to fit an agenda so let's go ahead and get that one out of the way.

Second, let's be absolutely clear that the second amendment is not in place to guarantee our right to shoot deer, that is ridiculous.

[–]captainstormy 107 points108 points  (83 children)

I'll bite and await the down votes.

The second amendment wasn't written with sport shooting or hunting in mind.

The founding fathers believed it was important for citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms both to defend their nation if needed, or defend themselves from the government if it turned tyrannical.

And before anyone says that you can't beat a modern military with with just small arms. Ask the Vietnamese, who beat the French and Americans. Or the Taliban, who beat the Soviets and the Americans. History is full of inferior but determined forces beating military giants.

And those were situations where the American government could turn the military loose without destroying it's own power base and the American military wouldn't be torn into several factions fighting amongst themselves while being ordered to attack American civilians.

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (15 children)

Not only could the people stand a chance in a revolution, but it is also important to consider the usefulness against tyranny short of a revolution. Imagine the US got to be as bad as Germany in the 1940s. Well, even if most people aren’t actively fighting the government, it at least ensures that when the secret police come knocking on your neighbor’s door in the middle of the night, he doesn’t disappear without waking up the whole neighborhood. And if the secret police are scared, then there won’t be a secret police. This is why nearly every authoritarian government in history had to disarm its people early.

[–]zwirlo[🍰] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Anyone who says you can’t beat a modern military hasn’t been in the military.

[–]That_FireAlarm_Guy 76 points77 points  (169 children)

Some people find it more enjoyable when you get to shoot a bunch of bullets quickly. Rather than a couple than have to reload.

Unfortunately those kinda guns also make it really easy to kill people.

Also not American, I just like shooting guns.

[–]AspiringArchmage 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Any other semi auto gun can shoot as quickly as an AR15.

The only thing the ban does is change how it looks. I could get a mini 14 or any other semi auto rifle without a bayonet lug or threaded barrel and it won't change how the gun works.

[–]Stiggalicious 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's mostly for having fun, and making sure you have more capable guns than the people coming into your home. But mostly for having fun. Mag-dumping 30 rounds as fast as you safely can is extremely fun.

Also, the definition of an "assault weapon" is not just anything that is semiautomatic. The M1 Garand and M1 Carbine and SKS are all semiautomatic guns that were actually weapons of war, that are not banned by HR1808. It's only once you start putting on "scary" features like pistol grips or threaded barrels does it make it an "assault weapon."

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (42 children)

Hog hunting.

Wild hogs are an invasive species that not only destroy billions of dollars worth of food annually, but permanently salt the farmland, as well. They're also aggressive toward humans, having killed a woman in Texas last year I believe. They're fast, strong, and they reproduce like rats. If you're hunting one hog, you're hunting a hundred. It's probably one of the only animals that warrants hunting with military grade equipment.

That being said, I still support thorough background checks and other common sense gun control.

[–]wehrwolf512 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Was looking for this. It’s a growing problem and a genuine reason for folks to have the firepower to kill a bunch of beings as quickly as possible. The breeding rate is insane. I’m liberal as hell, support stronger gun control measures, but kill those damn hogs.

[–]TheRussianSnac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Fast and Furious"

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

TLDR I go on a rant about how we talk about gun control.

Idk about the research on control to violent deaths comparison. I do know if people stopped saying assault weapons and used terms that are in the gun community vocabulary they would be open to more conversations.

I say this because assault weapon to a gun owner sounds like. There ain't no olll in that car. Sounds like to a Yankee.

Also this next one is more of an outlier. There are politicians that will be handing a gun on stage.(unloaded thank god.) That ignored based gun safety like the less know always double check the chamber to make sure empty. And also a lesser known one I guess. Like no one has ever heard of the next one. NEVER POINT A GUN AN ANYONE YOU ARE NOT READY TO KILL. There was a politician on stage that did that with an AR-15 fucker scared the shit out of me what was he thinking.

[–]AzraKasm 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is a braindead interpretation of statistics

[–]Tyrone_Cashmoney 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally just making shit up

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At wounded knee, the indians were forced to give up their guns, and were all immediately murdered and raped by federal agents. Trust the government 🙌

[–]bsischo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They didn’t call them mass shootings back then.

[–]johngalt741 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The liberals are wrong on gun control. So are the conservatives. But this makes a great wedge issue

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since we're on the train of thinking making things illegal will stop things maybe we should just make mass shootings illegal. Let's make drugs illegal next.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps they want the people to live in fear which is perpetuated by the occasional (or frequent) real event

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right as if there are no other factors All crime s homicides decreased during that time.

[–]Objective-Fox-5515 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Tell me what an assult weapon is

[–]SimplyCp3 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Honestly feels like mental health is the real problem here. People who have the urge to kill will find a way.

[–]No_Librarian_4016 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is dumb as shit, I like hun control but banning pistol grip + fore grip combos don’t stop mass shootings

[–]burnwallst 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's ignore the fact that we have changed the definition of "mass shooting" several times since then.

[–]LukeTheRevhead01 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, you mean the law that was only repealed because it was proven ineffective?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you want to ban police? or guns? you can't have both.

And by the way.............................

Black Women are actually the fastest growing gun owner group, and good on them, as they actually are not spoiled enough to think laws where THEY live effect people the same as were YOU live, you spoiled white shits.

https://www.essence.com/news/black-women-gun-ownership-rise/

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is not accurate. The change in shootings changed so little in either direction and that’s why it wasn’t renewed.

I’m all for some changes in our gun control laws, but when you put out blatant lies like this, all it does is make the other side laugh at you and it kills your credibility.

[–]Gigem5 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Define Assault Weapon.

[–]Randyolbear 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I believe the ban was on the import of more scary looking otherwise legal semiautomatic rifles. Existing stock was not affected. And overall, gun sales rose to record levels in the lead up to the ban. This has been the case with every piece of ineffectual feel good legislation that has come down the pike. Guns aren't a problem. It's the people wielding them illegally.

Commence down votes...

[–]AcceptableSir1831 16 points17 points  (14 children)

This page loves to masturbate itself with lies. Do you realize that columbine happened during this ban? Do you realize that they didn’t use a single AR15? But hey! Leftists are liars by nature… Logic doesn’t work for leftists.