Mass Murder Is a Choice. The Gun Industry Made It

I can't actually tell if that's meant to be satire, but I doubt the people upvoting you can either. So just to be safe..
Congratulations, you've fallen for the same idiot hero fantasies as the right-wing gun cultists have. The gun lobby wrote a version of them just for you and you swallowed it without a single critical thought.
Do you know who is going to win when you and the MAGA morons face off with your cool guns?
Whoever is the biggest piece of shit, just like always.
- You're right, the multiple white supremacist militia groups that have been charged with seditious conspiracy for their attempt to overthrow the government at the behest of the previous president trying to desperately cling to power is just a boogeyman created by the gun lobby
  If you think it's the gun lobbyists who're making the right wing extremists look like violent, dangerous fascists, you really really have not been paying attention
- Is anyone who becomes law enforcement falling for hero fantasies?
As a progressive Democrat, that's my #1 reason for being a gun owner.
I don't want these assholes being the only people armed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Prayer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Percenters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers
- Which is sad, because the only winners are the gun manufacturers. They want you to fear your neighbors
- You forgot
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#:%7E:text=The%20Washington%20Post%20reported%20the,Justice%20to%20pursue%20Trump%20adversaries
  Which once activated will only be stopped by bullets.

When there are 24 million guns of that type sold and only a handful used illegally each year, is that really a problem on the manufacturer though?

Seems like the vast, vast, majority of them are used legally or simply not used at all.

When your product's only use is to commit mass murder and you advertise it as making you an invincible badass then yes.
Your point is irrelevant. "Only a tiny fraction of the land mines I placed outside a school killed any children."
- That's the thing, that's NOT the only use for the platform. If it were, it wouldn't be the best selling rifle in the US.
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171
  The primary reason for choosing one is weight.
  My grandfathers Remington 721 weighs 8.4 pounds (3.8kg), carries 4 rounds, and in .30-06 is arguably a stronger caliber than the .223 in an AR platform.
  My Henry .45-70, the caliber rated for all big game in North America (and jokingly rated by Marlin for T-Rex), weighs 8.1 pounds (3.67kg) and carries 4+1 rounds.
  Something like the Ruger AR556 weighs a relatively svelte 6.5 pounds (2.95kg) and comes stock with a 30 round capacity, making it easier to carry.
  I know, I know, 1.9 pounds (0.86kg) doesn't SOUND like a lot, but it FEELS a lot heavier when you're marching around the woods with a rifle strap digging into your shoulder.
  And being able to pick up something fast and use it in a home defense situation makes all the difference in the world.
  And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense.
  (2008)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
  "Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
  (2010)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
  "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
  (2016)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
  “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
  (2022)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
  the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.
But honest question, why do you buy a gun like that if you're never ever going to use it? For what purpose do people buy these things anyway?
- If police and proud boys have them...
  I do use mine for target practice though. I shot competitively when I was younger and really appreciate the skill aspect. I have fond memories of my grandpa teaching me how to shoot, but hunting has never been on my radar.
  January sixth, probably played a pretty big role in me actually "pulling the trigger" tbh. That and a PB demonstration down the street from me.
  If I was honest, it's basically a super dangerous bowling ball to me.
- Sorry I'm seeing your reply after writing a veritable essay to someone else above you. :)
  But the primary reasons are weight and self defense.
  A traditional hunting rifle has a stronger caliber, but is around 2 pounds heavier and has a lower capacity.
  In terms of self defense, you want a lighter weight and a higher capacity. Makes it easier to carry, easier to control, and easier to defend yourself against multiple intruders, something which, unfortunately, has happened multiple times:
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026
  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
  https://www.news4jax.com/news/2018/04/17/deputies-30-rounds-fired-from-ar-15-in-deadly-florida-home-invasion/

The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for "assault weapons" other than killing people.

each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

Is this article trying to tell me I'm using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don't involve killing people.

- They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.
- Target shooting? Pretty sure more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone. So yea...common use says, target practice.
I use a butter-knife to open paint cans with, but that's not what it's for.
- Hey, you're right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it's useful for a lot more than just butter. It's almost as if it's a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you're on to something.
Are you telling me this hammer is built for pounding lots of nails? I only use mine for pulling nails and securing staples that have come loose.

As soon as I see the term "assault weapon" all credibility goes right out the window.

As soon as I see the pedant arguing semantics, their credibility goes right out the window.
- It's not tho. Use specific terms and u don't look like an incompetent fool.
What else is it? Definitely not a defense weapon lol
- Semi automatic rifle? You know...what it actually ..is
Would an attacher be any less credible if they murdered people with a handgun rather than a rifle ? what is the point you're trying to make ? don't people still die ? is the ammo type really relevant here ?
- People who don't like the term "assault rifle" think it basically means "scary-looking rifle" rather than "particularly deadly rifle". In New York state law, for example,
  Assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) a thumbhole stock; (4) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (5) a bayonet mount; (6) a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator; or (7) a grenade launcher.”
  So a semiauto rifle in .223 Remington with a wooden stock is a "varmit hunting rifle", but simply giving it a black folding stock makes it an "assault rifle".
  Honestly, things like NYS's limits on magazine size makes more sense to me than banning telescoping stocks or a second pistol grip.
- I didn't say anything about ammo type. See this is the problem. You have no clue what you're actually talking about here.
Well that was easy.
Don't forget the fearsome "deadlier-than-military-weaponry, AR-15 style assault shotguns"
I spent about two minutes trying to come up with a good joke about this one, but honestly I think it speaks for itself
- What's really funny is that the 12g built off the AR frame doesn't actually qualify for the "assault weapon" description, so said AR-15 style assault shotgun is a greenlight.

It's a social issue not a gun issue. Shitty parents, shitty economics, shitty education and a shitty social structure are what makes America a higher crime nation in general and a higher gun crime nation specifically.

- Sure, just not with the same access and instead other crimes are more prolific and arguably more heinous. How many cases of acid attacks happen in the us every year adjusted to population? Now how many for say India or for instance England.

With all the guns around in US I am genuenly surprised that most of these shooters just go on random killing sprees instead of political assasinations. In japan a DYI gun was enough to kill former prime minister Shinzo Abe so would think country so divided as United states would have far more of these cases.

Guess the people on top truly are untouchable at least for most of the time.

Most people like their politician. When they are polled about Congress and rate it unsatisfactory, it's because they want all of Congress to be like their rep (or exactly their rep's opposite, if they're a minority voter in the area).
It's a lot easier to assassinate your local rep than it is to shoot a senator from West Virginia or whatever, so the impulse to kill them is lower. Add in their significantly greater security and you can see how this lessons the odds of attempted assassinations.
- They may like their politician but that still leaves out a lot of the congress who they may dislike and target with their radicalized outrage.
  But yeah the fact that these people are protected by greater (armed) security the chance for failure is far greater.
  But still quite surprised how little actions or lack of have backfired on people in power.
  Guess things will need to get way worse for more shit to start piling on their backyards.

We license drivers and require training and insurance.
- Don't bother. Check their comment history and just move on. What hurts them most is being ignored like they are in the rest of their life.
- Cool...to use the car on public roads...you can also transport them across state lines with no issue.
  I can buy a car with cash, from private hands, across state lines, have it shipped directly to me, and I don't have to insure it nor do I need a license for it...also can buy one at any age.
  So trying to compare gun ownership with owning a car is naive.
A car's design intent isn't to kill. A rifle's is
- Tell that to the 40k+ people who are killed every year in the USA from basically negligent people driving (large portion of that being alcohol related). My guns have never taken anyone's life, and the odds of them doing so is so damn small, that I'd probably win the lottery before they're used against another human.

Making Americans suffer the consequences of their sowing FUD for profit is good business.

Their children don't get mutilated beyond recognition at school, because their children's schools are very, very expensive.
- Why don't their children get killed? Why would an expensive school not have shootings?

That American liberals focus on rifles in regards to gun violence more than 1/20 as much as they do handguns or 1.75x as much as the president's recommended shotgun, nevermind the fervor for AWBs, betray the lack of concern and understanding of the issues truly driving America's culture of violence beyond "big ones are scarier".

All compounded by their laws' universal exemptions for police current and former, on-and-off-the-clock demonstrating no fear of arming the most violent among us as long as they swear fealty to minority oppression and dissident suppression in the name of maintaining capital's status quo, sleeping sound assuming those barrels won't turn inwards towards them. Hell, that the fight against gun violence now includes banning armor to protect oneself from it shows how important it is that we be obliged to let them indulge.

The body armor regulations are the real WTF for me. It's just a bold faced admission that they (i.e. the police and government) don't like the notion that maybe the police can't just roll up and kill you whenever they want.
The other reiteration I'll add to your point about police exemptions is (in case anyone missed the "former") that most of these bans and gun regulations not only exempt the police, they also exempt retired policemen. So if these guys are off the force, why do they need machine guns, switchblades, big magazines, > .50 caliber, etc., etc., etc., exactly?
It's the same reason the FAA has such stringent safety regulations for aircraft, while tens of thousands of people die in traffic accidents every year: Mass shootings are huge amounts of death and also rare, compared to crimes of passion or suicides by gun.
The problem is that to solve any of these problems will involve two things that Republicans hate: Providing social services and confiscating guns from people who shouldn't have them. Both of those are far less likely to pass than a simple ban on a small subset of guns.
So until Republicans put up or shut up about "it's mental health" nothing will get done.

I seem to recall a whole bunch of armed people at Uvalde and it didn't do much good.
Let's play a game of guess the active shooter and their accomplices in a crowd of armed citizens.
- Please do

Let me start by saying I may be more liberal but I grew up in WV so I’ve been around guns all my life. I like shooting them, but not necessarily hunting because I can buy all the food I need. But I could do it in a heartbeat if I was hungry.
To me the best way to address stuff like this is to educate people. I’m sure you know but not everyone does is that the AR is AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle. Most people just assume the AR means assault rifle or automatic rifle. Now the AR-15 does use the 7.62×51mm NATO round which was and still is primarily used for war, i.e. killing things. This round is verify similar to a .308 Winchester, and its slight longer cousin, the .30-06, or as any deer hunter would call it a 30 ought 6. Now I guarantee you’d never hear of a .30-06 being described as an assault rifle. But guess what, the .30-06 was designed specifically as a military round.
So as my debate couch told me in high school, it all comes back to definitions. How do you define assault rifle? And I ain’t touching that one 😀

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The industry’s alpha-male sales pitches promise buyers the power to “control your destiny.” According to law-enforcement records, Card had been haunted by phantom voices — including taunts that he had a “small dick.” The Ruger SFAR, with its thick barrel, is marketed without subtlety as “Bigger and Stronger Where It Needs to Be.”

Wilson Combat sells the “Urban Super Sniper.” Franklin Armory markets assault rifles in its “Militia Series.” An ad from Patriot Ordnance Factory-USA features a hooded man with an AR-15 standing in the ruins of a city, with the tagline “When corrupt politics fail, our guns won’t.”

But it doesn’t take many people to execute a military mission, to shatter families and communities, and create national panic and anxiety.” In the case of Card, Koskoff adds, “He’s one person, one weapon — and the entire state of Maine was frozen.”

(The AR prefix stands for “Armalite Rifle.”) The Pentagon sought an infantry weapon that was light, lethal, and versatile — that could match the “killing power” of the bulky, World War II-era M1 in close combat, but still be capable of “penetrating a steel helmet or standard body armor at 500 yards.”

But in a quest to make the rifle lighter and more maneuverable, it developed the AR-15, with smaller rounds — fired at extraordinary velocity to create “maximum wound effect.” Though marketed today with a cachet of manhood, the military prized the AR platform because its feather weight and minimal recoil were well-suited for the “small stature of the Vietnamese” allies whose “average soldier,” one document stated, “stands five feet tall and weighs 90 pounds.”

The department then sent regional law-enforcement agencies a warning that Card “made threats to shoot up the National Guard armory in Saco” and was “committed over the summer … due to his altered mental health state.” It advised that he should be approached with “extreme caution.”

The original article contains 4,150 words, the summary contains 314 words. Saved 92%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

It’s simple, gun companies in America want to be as rich as they can be. If they have to do things like take time to evaluate who should be allowed to buy weapons or how long it should take before an individual receives them, they make less money than they would have. So instead, they make sure the time from wanting a gun and getting a gun is as little as possible.

The claim is further that going through someone’s mental history, or being disclosed details of treatment would be violative of HIPPA laws. I say, when you’re about to give someone a weapon that is basically designed for nothing else but killing humans, maybe you look into past treatment if someone saw a doctor because he was having dreams of killing every school child. Ask the question of the health professional first, and if it meets the criteria when you get more details.

~~gun~~ companies ~~in America~~ want to be as rich as they can be
That's the cause of most problems in this world
- That's what is even taught in business school in germany at least. First goal of every company is maximizing profits and to attach your whole thinking around it.

I don't offer pole-lease a lot of operating room emotionally in the US.

But I do think that pole-leasing in the US must feel different to lots of other places.

Just so many freaking guns with all types of people. And it makes even a traffic stop just as dangerous as going to a domestic dispute or an armed robbery. Fucking guns.

That is not at all true. Being a cop in the US rarely crosses the line into the top ten most dangerous professions. The top ten most dangerous professions include being a fisherman, being a garbage colllector, being a professional driver, things like that. And just for some more fun, the danger levels of these jobs are radically skewed.
Here’s a report on job related fatalities in the US. I’m not sure why fishermen aren’t included in this particular one as they normally top these lists, but it says they selected from about 250 professions so they might have just been excluded.
In any case, the list starts with loggers at over 100 per 100k and airline pilots at over 50 per 100k. Scroll down past farmers, delivery drivers, construction workers, landscapers, and mechanics, and eventually you’ll find police at position 22, with 14 per 100k. These numbers remain pretty constant year to year, with the exception of Covid related fatalities.
The problem is that there is a specific school of training for police that amps up their perception of danger far above what reality actually shows. They escalate encounters which increases both the chance of themselves bringing injured and very much the chance that the person they encounter will be injured or killed.
- It doesn't matter that being a cop is less dangerous than other jobs, it matters that being a cop is more dangerous than in other countries.

I wholeheartedly reject the Maine mass shooting is a product of gun manufacturers. Maine literally already has yellow flag laws where this guy should have been separated from his firearms when he was admitted to the psych hospital. The Maine mass shooting was a failure of the state and people do not want to accept that. The Sheriff that should have stepped in did not do so and THAT is unacceptable. I'm so over people using tragedies to prove their unrelated points. If gun manufacturers were really the problem we'd see millions of domestic murders based on the fact that there's like 100 million more guns in circulation than there are citizens of the US.

red flag laws cut suicides and murders. I feel like I read 10% reduction once. That’s… not a lot. Also, Maine’s yellow flag law is weak
- At this point I'll take 10% reduction over 0%. And I think I highlighted the weak point of Maine's yellow flag law. There was literally a person who could have created distance between the person and his guns, and they didn't. What would you like to have happen?