politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
America's relationship with guns is darkly fascinating for those of us in other 'western' countries. The cliche of the right-wing gun-nut is seemingly way off the mark. You guys have absolutely normalised gun ownership. It's deeply entrenched in your culture and is married to civil liberty in a way that is alien to most other developed nations.
It seems that the state tempering gun ownership is widely viewed as an intrusive and sinister overreach, whereas for us allowing everyday people to own assault rifles etc would be viewed as a dangerous dereliction of duty by the government.
I totally get the appeal of firearms. We go "clay pigeon shooting" where I lived in the UK. It's fun. But the idea that the average citizen could legally own a gun is wild to us.
The US doesn't do that either. Very few people own assault rifles, you need a very expensive and difficult to obtain license and have since 1986. You're falling for gun grabber propaganda.
Anyone who could pass the FBI background check and the rest of the NFA process can own pre-86 transferable machine guns. Assuming they could afford the 5 figure or more prices they tend to fetch.
An SOT (special occupational taxpayer) license would allow you to handle or build them depending on which you had, along with an FFL (federal firearms license [dealer license]).
This isn't entirely true. Our gun laws are weird as fuck, and half of them seem designed to get around some sort of loophole or another.
To any reasonable person, a 10.5" AR-15 that looks like this:
collapsed inline media
In dozens of states including my own, you can freely purchase and own one without any sort of permit whatsoever, you just buy it.
The ar-15 is not an assault rifle. Regardless of how much cosmetic crap you throw on it, it's semi auto. Not burst fire or full auto. It's no more deadly than any number of wood stock semi auto hunting rifles.
It does most of what an assault rifle does and the part it doesn't do is rarely used in combat because it burns through ammo too fast. So an ar-15 is for all practical purposes pretty much the same thing that soldiers use in combat and whether or not it can do full-auto is nearly irrelevant. A wood stock semi auto hunting rifle typically won't be as efficient as an ar-15 in either handling or ammo capacity for a shooter to very easily kill lots of people.
I say this in a neutral manner, not claiming that these weapons should be banned or not, which is a philosophical question. Yes, "assault rifle" is used loosely by anti-gun people to scare but it's also a term used narrowly by pro-gun people to defend their right to own weapons that are clearly capable of military combat and killing large numbers of people fast.
Completely agree with your points. I own several AR-15s (that I refer to as assault rifles in long form and AR in short form) and even battle rifles and if you even walk into any gun store they would call them AR. Which they’d say means armalite rifle, except that it’s a brand name… so it would certainly seem they’re either saying Kleenex, or it’s referring to something with a more common name… just gun people think anyone saying “assault rifle” isn’t in the know or is looking to take their guns. Which is stupid.
Common parlance is changing and it’s very simple.
The ar-15 isn't a military rifle. The m-16 is. The m-16 supports burst fire and full auto, the ar-15 does not. That's what makes it an assault rifle. You're probably confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon", which was defined as a semi auto rifle that looks scary. This was on purpose so the Democrats could say "see? We're doing something"
This is apparently the only significant difference between the two, and at least full auto is rarely used by regular soldiers from what I found from multiple sources. I'm not sure about burst fire, but I imagine that it's also used in a minority of cases. I looked all of this up except burst fire before making my previous reply. I'm not confusing them, I'm making the specific point that ar-15 are for the most part the same as m-16.
Burst fire/full auto is what makes it an assault rifle. Whether we should ban the ar-15 is a separate conversation. My point is if you have strong opinions about something you should know what you're talking about about and use proper terminology. You're wrong when you call the ar-15 an assault rifle. That's not good for your argument. It makes you easy to ignore.
I may not have been very clear. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't an "assault rifle". I don't care what it's named. My point is that an AR15 is at its most essential function (high-capacity semi-auto rifle) the same as a military weapon. Like I said, I'm not making a judgement on whether everyone should be allowed to own military weapons or not. I'm just pointing out that that's what it is.
It's not a military weapon. It's a civilian weapon that is shaped like a military weapon. Nobody in the military is carrying an ar-15.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/1e3gquq/anyone_have_a_reliable_source_of_information_that/
https://old.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/q7ezat/how_is_full_auto_fire_used_in_modern_american/
Nice reddit threads. Now check out the US Army's official definition of "assault rifle"
The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be capable of selective fire. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5] It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges. Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
I had already said I don't care if it's called an "assault rifle" or not, so your last reply is beside the point. I've already explained that the point is that they are essentially military weapons that are sold to civilians. The two reddit threads were to reinforce my points. They explain that a) the AR15 was designed for military use and b) regular US military is generally trained not to use full-auto.
I don't think the license itself is the expensive part, the guns are (because they have to be old enough to be a collector's item to be legal for civilian ownership even with the right paperwork)
It's our second right. Number 2. Before a ton of way more important shit. It's not going away anytime soon.
I still think it's weird as well but I be totin'
I mean, it’s terrifying. I work with someone who was recently shot through her floor (at home). She lived, but she’s been in the hospital for weeks. So she’ll be bankrupt and disabled.
As an American, I'm curious why you think civilians owning modern rifles made for war is wrong.
And before you respond, I want to make clear that I am intentionally loading the question to try to dissect the topic openly, without bias. Think of me as a free thinker, somebody who is open minded, possibly naive.
I want to know truly what your reasoning is, and if it can stand up to my values and understanding, and vice versa.
Guns are the number one cause of death for American children, after automobiles, and America already has a higher automobile death rate than virtually all it's comparable peers.
Since 1999, 400,000 American children have died needlessly.
If you remove all guns, there will still be a thing that is number one.
Same with automobiles. "Needlessly" is extremely undefined. Lots of things occur that are needless or claimed to be needless.
Also what's with that seemingly arbitrary year? Why 1999? Is that the year that the Columbine shooting happened? Guns were around before then. Why did school shootings suddenly become popular then? DID school shootings become more popular then? Can we reverse that change?
The children who are not gunned down will not be killed by something else. It just lowers the overall death rate.
No it's not. It's defined in relation to the child death rates of peer countries.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2820614
Finally.
Okay, so, statistically, gun deaths in the US are strongly correlated to a distinct increase in premature death in kids.
And that statistic makes owning assault rifles wrong, because, if you remove the rifles from the populace, those deaths would go away. Yeah?
I'm so for those deaths no longer happening, but I also like having an armed population to fight off, at this point, fascism, if it ever comes to that. Is there another way, where we can have our guns and our children, too?
Is there correlation that having an armed population with assault rifles always causes school shootings? Is there evidence of it not? Switzerland seems good. Really good gun control for a militia system. I'd be really happy with moving to that. Though, I think the issue Americans would take is that it's a government militia system and we're supposed to defend against our own government.
But, why? Oh god... Don't tell me this is further southern bullshit "states rights" stuff. I mean, at this point, yeah, we literally have a fascist occupation and right now is not the time to disarm.
But maybe that's the reason. The long-standing conflict between North and South in the USA may be THE reason nobody trusts the government and everybody wants to be armed; there's a low key cold war going on between the north and south that has never been resolved, and a side effect is that when the population is deeply stressed and unhappy, shit like school shootings happen.
The guns are a sign of non-unity.
So, fix the conflict, the guns may go away on their own over time.
But asking people to disarm is like getting the world to de-nuke. And asking people to do it during conflict is.... Well, good luck. Because even if the guns don't provide protection in all instances, it definitely helps people feel more powerful. Though, in my experience it seems to have a calming effect since the people I've known don't want to kill somebody, so they deescalate or leave a situation. I'm going to assume that's the norm, but it doesn't change the statistical fact that school shootings are prevalent.
The issue with removing the ARs from the equation is, multifaceted, obviously. It's a right that you don't get back, good luck getting everybody to disarm, compensation, it's really engrained in culture for a lot of people and you have to convince them to basically change huge aspects of their lives, their hobbies, their heritage, their values, and worldview.
Do you see any of this differently?
Yes, I see it differently. Notice how literally every single other country in the entire world doesn't do what the US does?
No it is not. That number was an outlier during covid. It's back to car accidents. On top of that, the stats in the child deaths include 15-19 year olds, most of which are from gang shootings, not random 5 year olds being shot.
The way the anti-gun groups do numbers is specifically designed to make people think that toddlers are being killed every 2 seconds. More children drown every year in pools than by gun deaths, yet no one is screaming to outlaw pools. At the end of the day, most don't care that kids are dying. They care how they die.
Yeah. So?
I do not understand why gun nuts cannot fathom the difference between something that has utility and can result in death, and something that serves no function other than being a point and click murder machine.
And there it is, the same disingenuous that the right uses for thier bullshit causes.
A pool has no use, you cannot use it for defense or putting food on the table. A firearm is a utility that has purpose. Fascist are literally snatching people up off the streets and you're still arguing why no one should have firearms.
It's not disingenuous in any way shape or form.
You have basically said that children killed in gang shootings don't matter. Try not to throw right wing shade around when you're parroting their racist talking points about which people do and don't matter.
Lmao, bruh, it's this niche little exercise called swimming, you might have heard of it. Try and pull your head out of your ass before pointing us to all the examples you have where ICE has been stopped by people with guns.
It absolutely is.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/24/health/drowning-water-safety-swimming-children-wellness
Gang violence is not a gun issue. It's a educational, safety nets, and jobs issue. Aka social issue that doesn't magically get corrected because you banned guns.
Also GTFO with the racist shit. I'm a minority and it's a dog whistle for you to say "the facts don't matter, cause it's racist". Shit doesn't get better when you deflect like that. Tough conversations are required to solve tough issues.
We're not at the start mill ICE phase yet. We still have judges blocking shit. You don't start a civil war just because shit is getting bad.
Omg, so the US is the only country that ever experienced a lack of jobs?
Oh no! How I could be so stupid and forget that the US is a unique special snowflake child that doesn't experience any of the same pressures of literally any other country on earth!
Grow the fuck up amerocentric child.
Way to ignore the other parts... I can see reading comprehension is not a strong point of yours.
Considering that we lack most of what the other western countries provide for their citizens...yea we are unique.
Assuming you're not even American at this point...stay in your own lane, our issues are not magically yours.
I'm Canadian, where 90% of illegal guns are smuggled up from the US.
Your mess is fully in our lane.
You have very few guns being snuggled into CA. It's probably less than 2k a year considering the number caught at the boarder is under 1k. You're issues of gun crime which is hilariously low and on par with euro states is not a major issue. Our mess is not in your lane at all.
Swimming is literally the best excersize out there. A pool is useful for staying in good enough shape to actually fight.
You can do other exercises that don't have the ability to kill children though, that's the point.
No kids are gonna drown in my pool. It's tiny and has a locked cover.
Ok cool, no kids will die because of my firearms. What's your point?
Your pool comment is simply untrue. Drownings are way down the list https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10042524/
Yes which shows 1 to 19. A 19 year old is not a child. More kids that are actual kids, drown than from firearm deaths.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/drowning-data-and-facts#%3A%7E%3Atext=In+the+United+States%2C+drowning%2Cthe+ages+of+5-14.&text=There+are+over+4%2C000+fatal%2Cnear-drownings+that+are+nonfatal.
They lump all gun deaths 1 to 19 into that bucket, which skews the numbers heavily. It's literally the same shit right wing groups do to fuck with the numbers and make them look bad. Anti-gun groups do this specifically to make it seem like toddlers are being killed in droves. When in reality it's gang violence from the top end of that age range. Which is an issue, but it's not a gun issue, it's a education, safety nets, jobs issue.
Americas relationship with guns is loony as fuck.
It is purely about selling more guns, everything else is just a convenient excuse.
I mean you're the country that made us this way. Shouldn't be that big of a mystery
How so?