this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
-18 points (20.0% liked)

Conservative

385 readers
58 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-18
Hickok45 on gun control. (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A little different post this time, not a news article or anything. Just some excellent points made here.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Hickok45 on gun control: "It is my belief, and it is for a lot of other gun owners, that the purpose of the second amendment is that we have the same firearms that the military has"

You see, AR rifles might look scary, but really they're just semi-automatic rifles that function the same as other less scary looking rifles. The real scary weapons are actual military assault rifles, and I think anyone should be allowed to own those too! Obviously, these will only be used for good and will never be used to make mass shootings even worse. Of course, some people might perhapse use them for bad, so police will now need to be equipped to handle literal military weapons, and I see nothing wrong with cops walking the beat looking like they're patrolling Kandahar. This is the vision the founding fathers had for America!

I'm being sarcastic of course, but honestly how could anyone justify allowing literally anyone to purchase actual military assault rifles without any sort of licencing or training requirements?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We don’t allow people to automatic weapons without a background check and even then it’s old stock.

An AR-15 is similar to the M-16. The only real difference is depending on the model, the m-16 will be fully automatic or have a three round burst.

The round fired is a 5.56 NATO round which is the same round used for varmint hunting. There is nothing unique about the round or deadly about it. It’s an intermediate round.

My 30-06 is much deadlier on a round per round basis.

The point being is people freak over an AR-15 when it’s used in under 1% of murders.

Handguns are the primary killer and its inner city youth killing each other.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Handguns are the primary killer and its inner city youth killing each other.

How would you solve this state of affairs?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In all fairness I don’t have an answer. It’s a tough problem to solve that’s tied to culture.

My gut reaction is to increase the number of police on the streets as they did in the 90’s when we had a rapid decrease in murders. Studies are mixed is that really helped. That was part of Joe Biden plan to decrease crime the 90’s.

Joe also worked to increase prison time but once again studies are mixed is that worked.

What we do know is the in the 90’s we had a sharp decline and I do think that should be studied. We need to really learned what did and didn’t help.

I am not a fan of Joe Biden. I think he’s a racist but he did push tough on crime measures in the 90’s. The question is did that really cause the decline or was it something else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe we should look to what other developed countries have done to reduce gun crime? Like you, I am at a loss, but others seem to have managed it, so in lieu of a homegrown solution, perhaps someone else has a solution to the problem.

I am also no fan of Joe Biden, he pushed for that awful racist crime bill in 1994. I mean crime was already decreasing due to a variety of measures and here he come with this truly awful bill and sets us back so far due to its unequal policing and persecution of racial minorities.

Then again, there are a great many people today who are still pushing for those provably damaging policies to be continued or even expanded. I truly hope those people begin to learn that it is helping people rather than persecuting minorities which will improve things for all of us!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Other countries disarmed their population and took away their rights. That doesn't interest me.

We should do what has worked in the past. If that is more police and longer jail sentences, as Biden claims then let's do it. I have no issue keeping criminals in prison.

The 1994 crime bill wasn't racist. That is an odd thing to say. Can you point to where the law was racist?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes no worries, happy to inform you! Here is a link:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/17/joe-biden-race-crime-bill-1994-policing

I realise its the smelly Guardian but maybe you can hold your nose and give it a little read.

We should do what has worked in the past.

If it worked in the past, then why is there a problem now?

[–] MomoTimeToDie -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe we should look to what other developed countries have done to reduce gun crime

Why should I give a fuck about gun crime, a category solely defined by the use of guns, rather than violence as a whole, which gun control has repeatedly proven to have no statistical impact on?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why should I give a fuck about gun crime, a category solely defined by the use of guns, rather than violence as a whole

It's the leading cause of death for children.

gun control has repeatedly proven to have no statistical impact on?

The U.S. has 120 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate or 6 per 100,000.

Finland has 32 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000

Germany has 20 guns for every 100 people, and a homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000.

The U.S. has the most lax gun law, followed by Finland. Germany is by far the most strict of these three.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

If gun control doesn't work why is gun control tied to lower deaths, and gun quantity tied to higher deaths?

[–] MomoTimeToDie -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Back on your favorite lie, eh

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not a lie. Feel free to look the stats up yourself if you don't believe them.

[–] MomoTimeToDie -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I believe the stats. Just not your warped conclusions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

So how have my conclusions been warped?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We don’t allow people to automatic weapons without a background check and even then it’s old stock.

This isn't true if you're at a gun show or have a friend with one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thats straight up not true. NFA items always require a tax stamp, which means a background check.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

TIL. I retract my previous statement.

[–] MomoTimeToDie -1 points 11 months ago

but honestly how could anyone justify allowing literally anyone to purchase actual military assault rifles without any sort of licencing or training requirements?

Because fuck off, neither you nor the government has a place in telling me what I can and can't buy.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Easy. Because the actual problem is murder. "Precrime" should not be a crime.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Murder is made way easier with guns, as a result gun prevalence increases murder rates. Nobody is suggesting "precrime" is a crime.

Do you think civilians should be allowed to own nuclear bombs? Would it be a problem for civilians to own such arms, or would murder the be problem?

[–] No1RivenFucker -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Murder is made way easier with guns, as a result guns increase murder rates

You really love just peddling the same lies nonstop, huh

[–] spacecowboy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You and a couple other fellas in here never actually add anything of substance or value to any conversation. It’s always a one liner with you clowns.

[–] No1RivenFucker -1 points 1 year ago

Better than your two lines of crap

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So as long as mass murders go to jail it's fine? A classroom of kids get slaughtered, the guy who did it gets life in jail. That's an even trade? That's justice? The government has done its job?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, pretty much. Throw them in with the unabomber in 23/7 solitary. Maybe put out an awareness campaign or something.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Awareness always works. Do you have any crack cocaine?

(This is a jab at awareness campaigns, not about the gun debate.)

...