Democrat Proposes 1,000% tax On AR-15s that would raise price by up to $20,000

[DatBoiHawk]

"grade A military automatic rifles"

This is the problem that always arises with this discussion. The most vocal people don't even know what they're talking about. Everything they know about guns comes from Liberal media that purposefully parrots misinformation about firearms.

Media like MSNBC actually has people believing you can buy fully-auto assault rifles from Wal-Mart like you're buying a screwdriver.

Exactly bruh. The people with the most opinions don’t know shyt about guns

 

[dangerranger]

Explain to me how enacting a law banning an AR-15 will curb mass shootings?

I'll hang up and listen.

For instance, the kid in Uvalde. He bought his AR-15 two weeks ago and 2 days after the Uvalde shooting occurred. You can always make the argument that he could have gotten another gun and done the same thing. But the fact of the matter is that he bought an AR-15 (because it's not banned) and committed a mass shooting. There is what could happen and what did happen.

If most mass shootings occur with an AR-15, then the AR-15 is the common denominator right? We can go all day talking about what other guns people could possibly use, but I'm saying why don't we focus on the behavior that is in front of us, which is that AR-15s SEEM to be the weapon of choice of these mass shooters.

 

[Dipsey Doo]

For instance, the kid in Uvalde. He bought his AR-15 two weeks ago and 2 days after the Uvalde shooting occurred. You can always make the argument that he could have gotten another gun and done the same thing. But the fact of the matter is that he bought an AR-15 (because it's not banned) and committed a mass shooting. There is what could happen and what did happen.

If most mass shootings occur with an AR-15, then the AR-15 is the common denominator right? We can go all day talking about what other guns people could possibly use, but I'm saying why don't we focus on the behavior that is in front of us, which is that AR-15s SEEM to be the weapon of choice of these mass shooters.

So using your logic, if AR-15's were banned this wouldn't have happened?

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

I’m genuinely asking this. For everyone that is saying people will just do x or they will just do y. Why hasn’t this been done yet? There is this constant discussion about what people will do if we try something at all but what has been speculated has not happened yet? Am I wrong in stating that AR-15s have been used the most in these mass shootings? So we have something concrete that we can point to because we have evidence. Why is there such a strong discussion on what people might do in response when there is smaller evidence to support that at the moment?

You have fair questions but they are one sided. First it would be political suicide for any Republican to do anything regarding assault rifles. For Democrats they act like they'll do something then come up with an excuse. The truth is gun lobbying has politicans by balls. Yes ARs are used in mass shootings. However, one can easily make a case hand guns make of the most shootings in this country. Also, were are cases of mass deaths with people using bombs. Last people stating people will do xyz if there is a ban is true. For everything that's illegal, a black market is created. Ban guns won't do anything if social issues are not addressed.

 

[dangerranger]

You have fair questions but they are one sided. First it would be political suicide for any Republican to do anything regarding assault rifles. For Democrats they act like they'll do something then come up with an excuse. The truth is gun lobbying has politicans by balls. Yes ARs are used in mass shootings. However, one can easily make a case hand guns make of the most shootings in this country. Also, were are cases of mass deaths with people using bombs. Last people stating people will do xyz if there is a ban is true. For everything that's illegal, a black market is created. Ban guns won't do anything if social issues are not addressed.

I understand that. But isn’t trying something worth the risk. Right now we are at the point where another Buffalo or Uvalde could happen for the next 7 days straight and the only thing being said here is a ban won’t do anything. I don’t believe in any context this would be acceptable. I think that’s what myself and other posters are saying. We can make mistakes. We can be wrong about banning assault rifles. Hell if we are wrong, then we can change it back. But to do nothing because we believe nothing will change. It’s irresponsible because that’s why these mass shootings have continued to happen. We throw our hands up and say banning AR-15s won’t do curb mass shootings but we haven’t banned them and they keep occurring.

I don’t have an issue arguing that hand guns make up the majority of violent crimes. That argument has merit but that’s brought into the argument to distract from how we are trying to address these mass shootings. Every time we try to address the guns used in mass shootings and how to curb this problem, people will bring up Chicago. They are two different issues. It’s like saying there are kids starving in America and someone saying there are kids starving in Africa. And? So we should do nothing about kids starving in America?

These are my concerns when having these discussions.

 

[Reality]

In other words, only the rich and their security teams would own means of protecting themselves.

Better arm yourself before it's too late.

Word. Nothing makes me feel safer pumping gas late at night than the AR15 in my backseat and the AR15 i'm appendix carrying down to my Jordans.

 

[dangerranger]

So using your logic, if AR-15's were banned this wouldn't have happened?

It’s possible. My point is If AR-15s aren’t available to be kill people, then people realistically should not be killed by AR15s.

You can bring up other guns but that’s not what’s happening in these mass shootings. The AR-15s are at the center of these discussions. That’s what I’m trying to communicate.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

I understand that. But isn’t trying something worth the risk. Right now we are at the point where another Buffalo or Uvalde could happen for the next 7 days straight and the only thing being said here is a ban won’t do anything. I don’t believe in any context this would be acceptable. I think that’s what myself and other posters are saying. We can make mistakes. We can be wrong about banning assault rifles. Hell if we are wrong, then we can change it back. But to do nothing because we believe nothing will change. It’s irresponsible because that’s why these mass shootings have continued to happen. We throw our hands up and say banning AR-15s won’t do curb mass shootings but we haven’t banned them and they keep occurring.

I don’t have an issue arguing that hand guns make up the majority of violent crimes. That argument has merit but that’s brought into the argument to distract from how we are trying to address these mass shootings. Every time we try to address the guns used in mass shootings and how to curb this problem, people will bring up Chicago. They are two different issues. It’s like saying there are kids starving in America and someone saying there are kids starving in Africa. And? So we should do nothing about kids starving in America?

These are my concerns when having these discussions.

I see your point but disagree with it. Banning assult rifles will not solve the issue. America has a social problem and in this case rifles are the means for those people. New York has some of the toughest gun laws and it hadn't curbed gun violence. My issue is people look for knee jerk reactions and politicans will give them that without addressing any issues. Now I rarely mention Chicago in these cases but again I disagree. There are similarities. Areas like Chicago have multiple issues like poverty, currupt local government, cultural issues. For mass shooters their issues are mainly social like racism. Still banning the guns won't solve the social issues that lead to violence. That's why people are against banning them.

 

[dangerranger]

I see your point but disagree with it. Banning assult rifles will not solve the issue. America has a social problem and in this case rifles are the means for those people. New York has some of the toughest gun laws and it hadn't curbed gun violence. My issue is people look for knee jerk reactions and politicans will give them that without addressing any issues. Now I rarely mention Chicago in these cases but again I disagree. There are similarities. Areas like Chicago have multiple issues like poverty, currupt local government, cultural issues. For mass shooters their issues are mainly social like racism. Still banning the guns won't solve the social issues that lead to violence. That's why people are against banning them.

See that’s what I’m saying. To a degree I feel we are comparing apples to oranges. I’m not knocking the lack of effectiveness in terms of gun control laws in certain cities. My issue is using lack of effectiveness for gun control in domestic crimes or street crimes to justify and say it won’t be effective for mass shootings. We have some evidence to justify peoples lack of confidence in gun laws in those cities because we have seen the aftermath of those measures. We have not seen the aftermath of a ban on AR-15s. We are using the evidence of one topic to suggest it won’t work on this topic, which is fundamentally wrong because the variables aren’t the same. This is the basis of any comparison. As you said there is a big social factor to these mass shootings as well but if we remove the main variable off the board, we will at least learn what we are doing wrong or how to make amends.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

See that’s what I’m saying. To a degree I feel we are comparing apples to oranges. I’m not knocking the lack of effectiveness in terms of gun control laws in certain cities. My issue is using lack of effectiveness for gun control in domestic crimes or street crimes to justify and say it won’t be effective for mass shootings. We have some evidence to justify peoples lack of confidence in gun laws in those cities because we have seen the aftermath of those measures. We have not seen the aftermath of a ban on AR-15s. We are using the evidence of one topic to suggest it won’t work on this topic, which is fundamentally wrong because the variables aren’t the same. This is the basis of any comparison. As you said there is a big social factor to these mass shootings as well but if we remove the main variable off the board, we will at least learn what we are doing wrong or how to make amends.

I see where we disagree. Guns are not the main variable. If assult rifles are banned, they same people would use bombs, hand guns, or any other means. It's like saying take away guns and people will think twice about killing people which is not true.

 

[50CentStan]

If you dont own an ar15. Idgaf about your opinion

 

[dangerranger]

I see where we disagree. Guns are not the main variable. If assult rifles are banned, they same people would use bombs, hand guns, or any other means. It's like saying take away guns and people will think twice about killing people which is not true.

My thing is we don't know that. Simply because it hasn't happened yet. Fair enough.

 

[50CentStan]

Word. Nothing makes me feel safer pumping gas late at night than the AR15 in my backseat and the AR15 i'm appendix carrying down to my Jordans.

Word. If all hell breaks lose like during a hurricane or other natural disaster you can protect your house with a 6 shot vs a group of 10 with illegal ar15s.

 

[Mowgli]

Won't be funny when Rich cacs and hillbillies are the only ones with guns

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

sidenote: this thread is unintentionally exposing 6 figure, 6 certs 6 set tbh