(08-04-2019 05:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (08-04-2019 05:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.
On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.
I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.
The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.
The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.
We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.
OO... is this your original question to which you referred?
One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.
Actually not so. Ordinary citizens can (and did) own far worse guns in the 1920's.
That was a reason why the 'Tommy Gun' was the weapon of choice for the gangsters back then. Or, the BAR (essentially an early anti-armored car gun) was as easily available.
Criminy, my grandpa had a Tommy Gun.
The AR-15 has been commercially available since the late 60's, and AKs have been readily available as 'junk weapons' in this country since the 50's.
In the 1980s, (i.e. 40 years ago) the prevalance of the AK and the Chinese SKS amongst the hunters of this nation is kind of astronomical.
The Garand M1 has been a staple in the American rural areas since 1945, when literally almost every American GI in Korea and WW2 brought one home with them, *and* the US Government sold their absolute massive overstock of them.
All of those were 'readily available' to the public as of the dates mentioned. Tommy Guns dried up because of the 1934 National Firearms Act, iirc.
Please dont make facts up.
I said the proliferation of these guns. I find it hard to believe that the number of tommy guns per capita in 1919 is equal to the number of "AK-47 equivalent" (avert your eyes, Tanq) rifles per capita in 2019.
The proliferation on a per capita basis of semi automatic weapons hasnt drastically changed in 50 years. Perhaps even 70 years.
The issue isnt the dreaded AK, or the evil AR; those are functionally the same (exactly so) to every single fking semi automatic ever produced. Ever. Seriously, no **** here.
But you all just seem to get a woodie about AKs, ARs, 'assault rifles', and 'military style weapons'. But in your zeal on those 'evil' things the left simply chooses to ignore the stark functional issue at hand.
Here is the essence of your fixation in an analogy:
Small town has a lot of souped up cars. No issues for years.
Then a bunch of people fixate on drag racing not just souped up cars --- but candy apple red souped up cars.
So the town wants to ban candy apple red cars. It is just an absolute fking stupid distinction.
Semi automatic firearms, going back to the mid 20's were even then exceedingly popular.
Semi automatic firearms have been exceedingly prevalent from the mid 1940s, when just about literally every fking GI brought one home in the form of the M1 Garand.
They continue to be so.
93, you are so absolutely off base with your assertion it is amazing. In essence, when you try to state 'oh no I dont mean those semiautomatic rifles and pistols that were exceedingly prevalent going back 70 years+, I mean *these* 'weapons of war'.
Considering there is *zero* functional difference between the two, now you attempt to justify your position by essentially rewriting by; a) still maintaining some dumb as fk differentiation with no functional difference; and/or b) rewriting the history of the larger group to comport with your political stance. It is just stupid.
Please stop with the crapola AK != semiautomatic crap. It is, for functional purposes, a difference that isnt. And please dont attempt to rewrite the history of semiautomatic weapons to fit *your* political point. Good grief.