A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- - - Updated - - -
That could be true. But I didn't go to school for years for a degree in mathematics for some red-skinned avatar to tell me i'm wrong about statistics. His google-fu didn't work.
"well regulated militia"
like the patriot front, obviously.
I guess that's the real problem here, huh? we don't want no government telling our brave, red bloodied men and women who wear white hoods and have meetings in the woods on the weekend to have to suffer from the indignity of not having a small army's worth of guns lying around.
Last edited by uuuhname; 2022-06-14 at 09:53 PM.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ngs-by-country
There's a reason the USA's bright orange color pops so much on that map. And it isn't population. The highest any other country had in that decade was Mexico, with 8 school shootings. And they've got more than a third of the USA's population; ~130m to ~330m. So triple that to 24 to be generous, and it's still 10x less than the USA.
School shootings are vanishingly rare, outside the USA. In the USA? Basically a weekly occurrence in that decade. This is a uniquely American issue.
- - - Updated - - -
Because literally nothing I've said is "nation bashing". Criticism isn't "bashing". Especially not when I "bash" specific individuals for their specific actions, choices, and rhetoric, which isn't about the nation at all. For instance, if I call Thomas Jefferson a hypocritical slave-raping abusive shitbrain who's arguably one of history's greater monsters, that's not "nation-bashing". That's "Jefferson-bashing", or it would be, if I weren't explicitly correct on those accusations and fully able to back them up with receipts.
In which I remind you that Constitutional Amendments can be changed.
See the 18th Amendment, followed by the 21st Amendment.
You act like just the text of the Second Amendment is some kind of self-contained argument which...champ, it's not.
- - - Updated - - -
It's not. It's a reflection of the current discourse on how to resolve the uniquely American problem of mass shootings.
On one side you have proposals that are backed by data that would reduce overall gun violence and mass shootings.
On the other side you have proposals arguing for more guns, which is contradicted by data showing that more guns doesn't mean safety, and talking about training teachers to be armed security guards and building "man traps" while turning schools into functional prison buildings.
I guess it's not beyond the pale to connect the same argument for "more guns" being the same as "more lanes on the freeway" thinking that will solve traffic congestion.
While we're making shit up, I should mention I have 15 doctorates in advanced mega-calculus.
It's super easy to make empty claims that won't be backed up on the Internet, dude. Maybe try being correct rather than relying on some accreditation you claim that no one has any capacity to verify and wouldn't make you magically correct even if they could.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52247318302164
Even just a glance at Table 1 should be plenty.
Are some of you guys like, actually incapable of imagining a country where you don't have to be scared to live in? A country where buying a gun for self-defense is completely unnecessary? That shouldn't be a high bar to reach for the richest country on the planet, when others have done so with ease, but here we go. That's what these arguments of needing a gun for self-defense sounds like to me. You are afraid.
To put a point on this: https://www.salon.com/2022/06/14/tex...od-has-a-plan/
This is the attorney general of Texas.
"If I lost one of my children I'd be pretty devastated, especially in a way that is so senseless and seemingly has no purpose," he continued. "I think ... I would just have to say, if I had the opportunity to talk to the people I'd have to say, look, there's always a plan. I believe God always has a plan. Life is short no matter what it is. And certainly, we're not going to make sense of, you know, a young child being shot and killed way before their life expectancy."
I'm not moving the goalposts. The banned guy mentioned bolt action rifles.
The Uvalde shooter had 90 minutes and killed 19 and wounded 17. How different do you think the outcome would be with a bolt action? Very likely some of those wounded might be dead with a higher caliber.
But let's just say it's half at 9. That's still on the higher end. Hell Consider virginia tech was 33 dead and that was done with two pistols. But are you willing to accept 9?
It's also funny that people think that "not semi-automatic" means "bolt-action".
IIRC, there was someone in the UK who developed a manual action AR platform in which the trigger alternated between firing a round and loading the next round. Because the round was not automatically loaded and a manual operation was required, the firearm could not be considered semi-automatic, despite the fact that there was hardly a decrease in capable firing speed.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
I mean, it doesn't and I don't think there are many people who think the only options are "semi-automatic, fully automatic, or bolt-action".
It's also a fairly pedantic point to be arguing.
Interesting factoid, but does this have any bearing on the current discussion? Are these weapons in circulation in the US? Are they being used regularly in mass shootings, or even non-mass shootings?
I'm not knocking the interesting factoid/being sarcastic despite my other questions, that's actually neat and I'm currently trying to find out more about it so if you remember more then please share (my google-fu on this is weak).
Hardly.
But I forgot; you and many others, when faced with something you don't understand (or simply don't want to address) are quick to attempt to call it a "pedantic point" as a deflection technique.
Why would they be when semi-automatics aren't banned and a semi-automatic action is more convenient? If semi-automatics as a whole were banned in the US, however, I have absolutely zero doubt that you'd see any number of such or similar inventions being developed and sold. And then the difference would mean next to nothing when it comes to mass shooting casualties.
I can't find it either; I'd read about it years ago but there aren't a lot of unique-enough search terms to narrow down the results effectively.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
I mean, who specifically appeared to think that the only options for non-automatic weapons were "bolt action and semi automatic"? Y'all act like because people can't list every single part on every weapon that they can't have any opinion on guns or something. That's a ludicrous and unreasonable measure.
So...similar to bump stocks in terms of their ultimate effect?
Because last I checked those are largely illegal as of a few years back (IIRC following the Las Vegas massacre where they were used to achieve near fully-automatic rates of fire), though there are legal challenges in place. I'd hope and imagine that the laws wouldn't be so narrowly written as to be so extremely easily circumvented, otherwise that's a failure of the writing of the law.
Damn, genuinely interested to see the mechanics in action, it sounds like a neat little bit of engineering.