Since this is a topic we've probably all thought about at some point, I'll ask everyone - what is the minimum set of inputs to a country that produce these results?
“It begs the damn question, what the hell’s going on in the United States of America? What the hell’s wrong with us, and when are we going to come to grips with this? When are we going to put down our arms literally and figuratively?”
Since this is a topic we've probably all thought about at some point, I'll ask everyone - what is the minimum set of inputs to a country that produce these results?
There are a number of things required, but the main differentiator is easy access to firearms. That's what is different about the USA. There are a lot of other things that are required as well,...
There are a number of things required, but the main differentiator is easy access to firearms. That's what is different about the USA. There are a lot of other things that are required as well, but other countries have the same issues:
inequality and unfairness
disinformation
mental health issues
fetishizing personal freedoms instead of personal responsibilities
lack of education
lack of critical reasoning
lack of understanding of consequences
"if it bleeds it leads" media
And more - those are all just off the top of my head. But each of these things happen in other places. But in the US when it happens, you may just happen to have a bunch of guns and can go killing.
What I struggle with is the people who are still holding out that guns are important to their life. Many have the idea that with access to a gun, they'd be able to stop these shootings. If this...
What I struggle with is the people who are still holding out that guns are important to their life. Many have the idea that with access to a gun, they'd be able to stop these shootings. If this were true, how come we still have so many shootings? Many people own guns in this country, and yet this happens all the time. I have no idea how to reach these people.
Does anyone on Tildes have a gun? Can you help me understand?
I have a single barrel shotgun, a pair of .22 hunting rifles, a .22 and .177 air rifle. The reason is simple. I have bears on my front porch at least once every three weeks. There's also a pack of...
I have a single barrel shotgun, a pair of .22 hunting rifles, a .22 and .177 air rifle.
The reason is simple. I have bears on my front porch at least once every three weeks. There's also a pack of wild dogs, and the occasional rattlesnake (which is fatal if bitten and not treated within the hour). There are foxes that enjoy eating my cats and other critters, as well. If an ornery or rabid animal from this group shows up, it's getting put down. That's literally the only reason I'd reach for the shotgun. The rest are for hunting small game, just varmint rifles. I don't own a handgun, though I've fired a few before.
Response time here for police and ambulance is around 20 minutes. I'm not under the impression that they are here to protect and serve - more like clean up the mess afterwards. I'm not counting on them for self-defense from a bear.
When I lived in the city/suburbs for a bit over twenty years, I didn't own a gun there and never felt the need, since I didn't have this level of animal hostility in my backyard. I suspect you'll find the divide on gun ownership goes right along these lines. People in rural areas have plenty of legitimate use cases for firearms that have jack shit to do with shooting people. Most of those uses disappear in or near a city.
That's actually pretty wild. Must have been quiet the change moving from the relatively safe city to a rural area where you literally have to protect yourself from dangerous animals.
That's actually pretty wild. Must have been quiet the change moving from the relatively safe city to a rural area where you literally have to protect yourself from dangerous animals.
Since I grew up here I don't mind it, the city was the change for me ;). The animals are rarely a problem - it's more about being prepared for that odd Tuesday afternoon where problematic ones...
Since I grew up here I don't mind it, the city was the change for me ;). The animals are rarely a problem - it's more about being prepared for that odd Tuesday afternoon where problematic ones make an appearance. Rabies, disease, molting season for the rattlers, it's about knowing your critters and if one looks fucked up, you should be worried. If it's diseased, put it down and call animal control, they need to know.
Normally animals get lost as soon as they hear a human. The bears are curious, don't intimidate easily, enjoy raiding trash containers and making a mess out of bird feeders at night when everyone's asleep. A good shout will usually send one packing, they aren't confrontational. A lean hungry bear, or one sporting three cubs, is another matter. The cubs think you're the neatest thing they've ever seen and will immediately come running to say hello. Mom's obligated to fuck you up at that point.
If I was out in the forest nearby after dark, I'd definitely spend the night sleeping in a tree. There are still a few things around here that aren't afraid of humans. If you want to be as safe in the country as you are in the city, you need that rifle on your back.
I can't think of anything I'd need an AR-12 for, though. Perhaps if we had the midwest's wild pig problems. An automatic shotgun should be enough to cut down an entire pack. Welcome to America. :P
No matter your personal opinion on the matter of gun control, you have to admit that when someone uses their personal firearm to save lives, the level of coverage in the news does not compare to...
Many have the idea that with access to a gun, they'd be able to stop these shootings. If this were true, how come we still have so many shootings?
No matter your personal opinion on the matter of gun control, you have to admit that when someone uses their personal firearm to save lives, the level of coverage in the news does not compare to that of a mass shooting. There are examples such as https://apnews.com/article/de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9
Does anyone on Tildes have a gun? Can you help me understand?
It is not impossible to save lives with your personal firearm, therefore some rather have a fighting chance. Especially those who have families to protect. Even if you don't agree with that sentiment I don't think it's difficult to understand why many people have it.
Gun owner here. @Neuroflux has a very good point that failed mass shootings generate way less headlines than successful ones. Looking at it statistically, mass shootings are not that common, they...
Gun owner here.
@Neuroflux has a very good point that failed mass shootings generate way less headlines than successful ones.
Looking at it statistically, mass shootings are not that common, they fall into the “high-impact, low-probability” category of events (like aircraft accidents). If I remember correctly, around 10% of American adults are concealed carriers, so you have a small pool to choose from. Location can also determine CCW density; a school for example will almost certainly have nobody carrying. Finally, a good CCW instructor will not have you be Rambo, while many states have stand-your-ground laws (i.e., do not have duty to retreat outside the home), it is dangerous to actively pursue a shooter alone in many environments (e.g., grocery store where you have numerous aisles obstructing your vision). A firearm does allow you to cover yourself as you are trying to escape from the scene, or to defend yourself if you are cornered by the shooter.
Not that common by American standards, which are arguably insane compared to other country's. I have trouble understanding how one can believe anything more than zero mass shootings is acceptable....
Looking at it statistically, mass shootings are not that common
Not that common by American standards, which are arguably insane compared to other country's. I have trouble understanding how one can believe anything more than zero mass shootings is acceptable.
In the UK we have had two mass shootings in my lifetime, and each one (plus the one before I was born) have prompted changes in our firearms laws. There has been one school shooting in the 40+ years I've been alive and almost immediately after it, handguns were banned. There hasn't been one since. It's not that hard a problem to solve.
I don't need a gun to protect myself or my family because we're just not in that sort of danger.
Why do you own guns? I'm not entirely without experience, I've fired various guns and I get that it's fun. Big bang make feel good. Powerful. Also, hunting is fun. But when my fun comes at the risk of other people's lives, I'm prepared to forego that fun for something else. Video games are fun too. Shops will sell me meat.
I’m not denying they aren’t more frequent than they should be, on that point I was giving a possible answer as to why more concealed carriers haven’t intervened. As for why I have guns, I...
I’m not denying they aren’t more frequent than they should be, on that point I was giving a possible answer as to why more concealed carriers haven’t intervened.
As for why I have guns, I inherited four pistols from my grandparents. I’m planning on picking up more modern firearms for defense and target shooting.
You know as an outsider these kind of comment riddles my mind and make me think that maybe the US is just meant to be this way. This is the price of their society take it or leave it. If 232 mass...
You know as an outsider these kind of comment riddles my mind and make me think that maybe the US is just meant to be this way. This is the price of their society take it or leave it. If 232 mass shootings so far in 2021 and around 10% of adults carries concealed weapons is acceptable well then that's OK. Maybe it's people like me that just don't understand how the US works and I need to get it.
I don’t accept that we have these mass shootings. It horrifies me. I don’t think there has to be this trade off of CCW = more mass shootings. Czechia allows concealed carry, and doesn’t have this...
I don’t accept that we have these mass shootings. It horrifies me. I don’t think there has to be this trade off of CCW = more mass shootings. Czechia allows concealed carry, and doesn’t have this same issue. They also have a licensing system (and a better safety net). I’m supportive of licensure, but it will be costly in terms of political capital, and likely would require repeal of certain existing gun control (e.g., import restrictions, state-level assault weapons bans, etc).
You're not the only one. I think if you're in the US you NEED to rationalize all this somehow, otherwise you end up going nuts. I know i would. The article linked above is deeply shocking and...
You're not the only one. I think if you're in the US you NEED to rationalize all this somehow, otherwise you end up going nuts. I know i would.
The article linked above is deeply shocking and troubling to outsiders, probably not for the reasons some think.
Honestly, who thinks that? I own several guns, have a concealed carry permit, and carry a gun most of the time. My actions if I found myself in the middle of a mass shooting would be highly...
If this were true, how come we still have so many shootings?
Honestly, who thinks that? I own several guns, have a concealed carry permit, and carry a gun most of the time. My actions if I found myself in the middle of a mass shooting would be highly situationaly dependent. I think there's a very high probability that I would not be in a position where I felt I could safely engage the shooter.
I own and carry guns for 3 basic reasons.
I'm former active duty military. I'm trained and qualified to carry and feel completely comfortable doing so. I carry a pocket knife and a Leatherman pretty much all the time too. I don't think of a gun as any different. All three are potentially deadly weapons in some circumstances, and useful tools in others.
Target shooting is a fun hobby.
I live in a rural part of a rural county, where large wildlife is common and the Sheriff won't show up for hours, if at all, when called.
Guns are important to my life in the same way that a chainsaw, a computer, woodworking tools, kitchen knives and so forth are "important to my life". Guns are fundamentally nothing more than chunks of metal and plastic and I really don't understand why they are assigned so much agency independent of the people that use them.
Probably more people than you think. See: This PBS article on it. And the NRA, up until a few months ago, was even sellings t-shirts with that now infamous LaPierre slogan on it. As for people...
As for people assigning agency to guns independent of their owners, I'll throw it back... who is really doing that? Because most of the arguments for gun control that I have heard do the opposite, and instead focus heavily on people, since it's people who won't be responsible with them having easy access to them, and their potential to use them to cause others grievous bodily harm, that is the problem.
And as for comparing them to other "tools", that is a pretty weak argument, IMO. Nobody can realistically kill 61 people and injure 864, from a quarter mile away (as happened in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting), using "a chainsaw, a computer, woodworking tools, kitchen knives and so forth".
p.s. Also, for the record, I think guns are pretty cool (see my comment/topic history), and am all for responsible gun ownership. I just personally think the regulations we have up here in Canada, especially those heavily restricting "assault" rifles, large capacity mags, and hand-guns, are much more sane than those in the US. Since for the vast majority of legitimate situations where a gun might be necessary for civilians to use, a shotgun, bolt-action rifle, or even a small capacity semi-auto rifle, is perfectly adequate, IMO.
I mean, that's basically the dominant form of gun control in the US. Take my former state of residence for example, which has a hard on for banning scary looking guns. I had a completely...
As for people assigning agency to guns independent of their owners, I'll throw it back... who is really doing that?
I mean, that's basically the dominant form of gun control in the US. Take my former state of residence for example, which has a hard on for banning scary looking guns. I had a completely California legal AR-15 that was probably about 80% as capable of mass murder as my military issued M4 was. When I moved to Oregon, I removed the magazine lock, making it probably about 95% as capable. Removing the mag lock was a 10 minute job that benefits from but doesn't really require any specialized tools. This is pure theater that focuses on the tool and not the person behind it. There is virtually no functional difference between an "assault rifle" and a "small capacity semi-auto rifle" in the hands of an experienced shooter.
The only reasonable stance on gun control IMO is either ban all firearms or to focus entirely on targeting the human aspect of gun violence. I'm all for universal background checks and restricting firearms ownership for people who have demonstrated a danger to others. Banning scary looking guns is the kind of measure that is worse than useless because it lets people feel like they're doing something without actually doing anything more than annoying law abiding hobbyists.
I don't have the energy or mental fortitude required to get into a huge, prolonged debate over this. And I have very little desire to make any concerted efforts to convince anyone as passionate as...
I don't have the energy or mental fortitude required to get into a huge, prolonged debate over this. And I have very little desire to make any concerted efforts to convince anyone as passionate as you are about guns, the shooting sports, and your right to own them, in the merits of of gun control legislation. However, just as a matter of principle, and in an effort to at least hopefully give you some perspective on my own stance regarding gun control, and why I think the Canadian approach is the saner one... here are a few things I would ask you to seriously consider.
Even an 80% or 95% as capable a weapon could have potentially still saved some lives and prevented many injuries in Las Vegas. Restrictions on mag capacity potentially even moreso, since reloads still take time even for the pros, and even with training the vast majority of people struggle to do them efficiently under pressure. Every time they occur they can also give others more time and an opportunity to either stop the attacker or escape.
I get the quibble over the "assault" rifle terminology and why it's annoying, however even though they are fundamentally mechanically similar (or even virtually identical) to the less "scary" looking rifles that aren't restricted, by restricting "assault-weapon" classified rifles (like the AR-15), you're also effectively restricting access to all the associated aftermarket parts and upgrades that go along with them... many of which actually can increase their effectiveness (e.g. match grade triggers and fire-control groups, high capacity mags, bump stocks, optics, etc). The development time that has gone into those particular military-grade "assault" rifles is also a huge factor as well, since that has significantly increased their reliability and effectiveness as platforms over other semi-automatic "hunting" rifles.
I even get how annoying and counterproductive the inconsistent regulations are in the US, and how much of a bureaucratic nightmare dealing with all the various conflicting State laws and the ATF seems to be. However, unlike in the US, AFAIK Canada doesn't allow individual provinces/territories to have different gun laws (which is what undermines a lot of the effectiveness of gun control efforts in the US), and AFAIK dealing with the RCMP's Chief Firearms Officers here is trivial by comparison.
And ultimately, in my eyes, the only legitimate uses of firearms by civilians can be adequately accomplished using ones with far less mass-shooting potential than a fully kitted-out AR-15 or the like. A bolt-action or shotgun can still take down or dissuade a bear, or home invader, and I don't need a handgun or "assault" rifle with a 30 round magazine to accomplish that. Are those guns still cool and fun to shoot? Heck yeah. But is easy access to them, and the ability to legally carry them in public, really worth all the societal issues that go along with that? Not in my opinion.
Anyways, even if we ultimately disagree, I hope my comment has at least given you some food for thought, and made you consider why I (and many other people) don't believe these regulations to be entirely pointless, ineffective "theater".
p.s. Feel free to reply if you want, since I am not trying to steal the last word from you, but I will end it here regardless of if you do.
For a more quantitative definition of results, from later in the article: This country is losing its collective mind. But unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. Good time to remember that...
For a more quantitative definition of results, from later in the article:
How many mass shootings have occurred this year?
According to the Gun Violence Archive, at least 232 mass shootings have occurred so far in 2021, putting America on pace to have the highest number of mass shootings since 2014.
This country is losing its collective mind. But unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. Good time to remember that the country is only almost 250 years old. Very young in comparison to some countries. Perhaps this era of tumult will give way to wisdom, or perhaps it will only get worse. I'm hoping for the former, and begrudgingly preparing for the latter.
I’ve mentioned this before on this site, but depending on how you define a country the USA is one of the older countries. 250 years backed by a single constitution.
I’ve mentioned this before on this site, but depending on how you define a country the USA is one of the older countries. 250 years backed by a single constitution.
Since this is a topic we've probably all thought about at some point, I'll ask everyone - what is the minimum set of inputs to a country that produce these results?
There are a number of things required, but the main differentiator is easy access to firearms. That's what is different about the USA. There are a lot of other things that are required as well, but other countries have the same issues:
And more - those are all just off the top of my head. But each of these things happen in other places. But in the US when it happens, you may just happen to have a bunch of guns and can go killing.
What I struggle with is the people who are still holding out that guns are important to their life. Many have the idea that with access to a gun, they'd be able to stop these shootings. If this were true, how come we still have so many shootings? Many people own guns in this country, and yet this happens all the time. I have no idea how to reach these people.
Does anyone on Tildes have a gun? Can you help me understand?
I have a single barrel shotgun, a pair of .22 hunting rifles, a .22 and .177 air rifle.
The reason is simple. I have bears on my front porch at least once every three weeks. There's also a pack of wild dogs, and the occasional rattlesnake (which is fatal if bitten and not treated within the hour). There are foxes that enjoy eating my cats and other critters, as well. If an ornery or rabid animal from this group shows up, it's getting put down. That's literally the only reason I'd reach for the shotgun. The rest are for hunting small game, just varmint rifles. I don't own a handgun, though I've fired a few before.
Response time here for police and ambulance is around 20 minutes. I'm not under the impression that they are here to protect and serve - more like clean up the mess afterwards. I'm not counting on them for self-defense from a bear.
When I lived in the city/suburbs for a bit over twenty years, I didn't own a gun there and never felt the need, since I didn't have this level of animal hostility in my backyard. I suspect you'll find the divide on gun ownership goes right along these lines. People in rural areas have plenty of legitimate use cases for firearms that have jack shit to do with shooting people. Most of those uses disappear in or near a city.
That's actually pretty wild. Must have been quiet the change moving from the relatively safe city to a rural area where you literally have to protect yourself from dangerous animals.
Since I grew up here I don't mind it, the city was the change for me ;). The animals are rarely a problem - it's more about being prepared for that odd Tuesday afternoon where problematic ones make an appearance. Rabies, disease, molting season for the rattlers, it's about knowing your critters and if one looks fucked up, you should be worried. If it's diseased, put it down and call animal control, they need to know.
Normally animals get lost as soon as they hear a human. The bears are curious, don't intimidate easily, enjoy raiding trash containers and making a mess out of bird feeders at night when everyone's asleep. A good shout will usually send one packing, they aren't confrontational. A lean hungry bear, or one sporting three cubs, is another matter. The cubs think you're the neatest thing they've ever seen and will immediately come running to say hello. Mom's obligated to fuck you up at that point.
If I was out in the forest nearby after dark, I'd definitely spend the night sleeping in a tree. There are still a few things around here that aren't afraid of humans. If you want to be as safe in the country as you are in the city, you need that rifle on your back.
I can't think of anything I'd need an AR-12 for, though. Perhaps if we had the midwest's wild pig problems. An automatic shotgun should be enough to cut down an entire pack. Welcome to America. :P
No matter your personal opinion on the matter of gun control, you have to admit that when someone uses their personal firearm to save lives, the level of coverage in the news does not compare to that of a mass shooting. There are examples such as https://apnews.com/article/de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9
It is not impossible to save lives with your personal firearm, therefore some rather have a fighting chance. Especially those who have families to protect. Even if you don't agree with that sentiment I don't think it's difficult to understand why many people have it.
Gun owner here.
@Neuroflux has a very good point that failed mass shootings generate way less headlines than successful ones.
Looking at it statistically, mass shootings are not that common, they fall into the “high-impact, low-probability” category of events (like aircraft accidents). If I remember correctly, around 10% of American adults are concealed carriers, so you have a small pool to choose from. Location can also determine CCW density; a school for example will almost certainly have nobody carrying. Finally, a good CCW instructor will not have you be Rambo, while many states have stand-your-ground laws (i.e., do not have duty to retreat outside the home), it is dangerous to actively pursue a shooter alone in many environments (e.g., grocery store where you have numerous aisles obstructing your vision). A firearm does allow you to cover yourself as you are trying to escape from the scene, or to defend yourself if you are cornered by the shooter.
Not that common by American standards, which are arguably insane compared to other country's. I have trouble understanding how one can believe anything more than zero mass shootings is acceptable.
In the UK we have had two mass shootings in my lifetime, and each one (plus the one before I was born) have prompted changes in our firearms laws. There has been one school shooting in the 40+ years I've been alive and almost immediately after it, handguns were banned. There hasn't been one since. It's not that hard a problem to solve.
I don't need a gun to protect myself or my family because we're just not in that sort of danger.
Why do you own guns? I'm not entirely without experience, I've fired various guns and I get that it's fun. Big bang make feel good. Powerful. Also, hunting is fun. But when my fun comes at the risk of other people's lives, I'm prepared to forego that fun for something else. Video games are fun too. Shops will sell me meat.
I’m not denying they aren’t more frequent than they should be, on that point I was giving a possible answer as to why more concealed carriers haven’t intervened.
As for why I have guns, I inherited four pistols from my grandparents. I’m planning on picking up more modern firearms for defense and target shooting.
You know as an outsider these kind of comment riddles my mind and make me think that maybe the US is just meant to be this way. This is the price of their society take it or leave it. If 232 mass shootings so far in 2021 and around 10% of adults carries concealed weapons is acceptable well then that's OK. Maybe it's people like me that just don't understand how the US works and I need to get it.
I don’t accept that we have these mass shootings. It horrifies me. I don’t think there has to be this trade off of CCW = more mass shootings. Czechia allows concealed carry, and doesn’t have this same issue. They also have a licensing system (and a better safety net). I’m supportive of licensure, but it will be costly in terms of political capital, and likely would require repeal of certain existing gun control (e.g., import restrictions, state-level assault weapons bans, etc).
You're not the only one. I think if you're in the US you NEED to rationalize all this somehow, otherwise you end up going nuts. I know i would.
The article linked above is deeply shocking and troubling to outsiders, probably not for the reasons some think.
Honestly, who thinks that? I own several guns, have a concealed carry permit, and carry a gun most of the time. My actions if I found myself in the middle of a mass shooting would be highly situationaly dependent. I think there's a very high probability that I would not be in a position where I felt I could safely engage the shooter.
I own and carry guns for 3 basic reasons.
I'm former active duty military. I'm trained and qualified to carry and feel completely comfortable doing so. I carry a pocket knife and a Leatherman pretty much all the time too. I don't think of a gun as any different. All three are potentially deadly weapons in some circumstances, and useful tools in others.
Target shooting is a fun hobby.
I live in a rural part of a rural county, where large wildlife is common and the Sheriff won't show up for hours, if at all, when called.
Guns are important to my life in the same way that a chainsaw, a computer, woodworking tools, kitchen knives and so forth are "important to my life". Guns are fundamentally nothing more than chunks of metal and plastic and I really don't understand why they are assigned so much agency independent of the people that use them.
Probably more people than you think. See: This PBS article on it. And the NRA, up until a few months ago, was even sellings t-shirts with that now infamous LaPierre slogan on it.
As for people assigning agency to guns independent of their owners, I'll throw it back... who is really doing that? Because most of the arguments for gun control that I have heard do the opposite, and instead focus heavily on people, since it's people who won't be responsible with them having easy access to them, and their potential to use them to cause others grievous bodily harm, that is the problem.
And as for comparing them to other "tools", that is a pretty weak argument, IMO. Nobody can realistically kill 61 people and injure 864, from a quarter mile away (as happened in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting), using "a chainsaw, a computer, woodworking tools, kitchen knives and so forth".
p.s. Also, for the record, I think guns are pretty cool (see my comment/topic history), and am all for responsible gun ownership. I just personally think the regulations we have up here in Canada, especially those heavily restricting "assault" rifles, large capacity mags, and hand-guns, are much more sane than those in the US. Since for the vast majority of legitimate situations where a gun might be necessary for civilians to use, a shotgun, bolt-action rifle, or even a small capacity semi-auto rifle, is perfectly adequate, IMO.
I mean, that's basically the dominant form of gun control in the US. Take my former state of residence for example, which has a hard on for banning scary looking guns. I had a completely California legal AR-15 that was probably about 80% as capable of mass murder as my military issued M4 was. When I moved to Oregon, I removed the magazine lock, making it probably about 95% as capable. Removing the mag lock was a 10 minute job that benefits from but doesn't really require any specialized tools. This is pure theater that focuses on the tool and not the person behind it. There is virtually no functional difference between an "assault rifle" and a "small capacity semi-auto rifle" in the hands of an experienced shooter.
The only reasonable stance on gun control IMO is either ban all firearms or to focus entirely on targeting the human aspect of gun violence. I'm all for universal background checks and restricting firearms ownership for people who have demonstrated a danger to others. Banning scary looking guns is the kind of measure that is worse than useless because it lets people feel like they're doing something without actually doing anything more than annoying law abiding hobbyists.
I don't have the energy or mental fortitude required to get into a huge, prolonged debate over this. And I have very little desire to make any concerted efforts to convince anyone as passionate as you are about guns, the shooting sports, and your right to own them, in the merits of of gun control legislation. However, just as a matter of principle, and in an effort to at least hopefully give you some perspective on my own stance regarding gun control, and why I think the Canadian approach is the saner one... here are a few things I would ask you to seriously consider.
Even an 80% or 95% as capable a weapon could have potentially still saved some lives and prevented many injuries in Las Vegas. Restrictions on mag capacity potentially even moreso, since reloads still take time even for the pros, and even with training the vast majority of people struggle to do them efficiently under pressure. Every time they occur they can also give others more time and an opportunity to either stop the attacker or escape.
I get the quibble over the "assault" rifle terminology and why it's annoying, however even though they are fundamentally mechanically similar (or even virtually identical) to the less "scary" looking rifles that aren't restricted, by restricting "assault-weapon" classified rifles (like the AR-15), you're also effectively restricting access to all the associated aftermarket parts and upgrades that go along with them... many of which actually can increase their effectiveness (e.g. match grade triggers and fire-control groups, high capacity mags, bump stocks, optics, etc). The development time that has gone into those particular military-grade "assault" rifles is also a huge factor as well, since that has significantly increased their reliability and effectiveness as platforms over other semi-automatic "hunting" rifles.
I even get how annoying and counterproductive the inconsistent regulations are in the US, and how much of a bureaucratic nightmare dealing with all the various conflicting State laws and the ATF seems to be. However, unlike in the US, AFAIK Canada doesn't allow individual provinces/territories to have different gun laws (which is what undermines a lot of the effectiveness of gun control efforts in the US), and AFAIK dealing with the RCMP's Chief Firearms Officers here is trivial by comparison.
And ultimately, in my eyes, the only legitimate uses of firearms by civilians can be adequately accomplished using ones with far less mass-shooting potential than a fully kitted-out AR-15 or the like. A bolt-action or shotgun can still take down or dissuade a bear, or home invader, and I don't need a handgun or "assault" rifle with a 30 round magazine to accomplish that. Are those guns still cool and fun to shoot? Heck yeah. But is easy access to them, and the ability to legally carry them in public, really worth all the societal issues that go along with that? Not in my opinion.
Anyways, even if we ultimately disagree, I hope my comment has at least given you some food for thought, and made you consider why I (and many other people) don't believe these regulations to be entirely pointless, ineffective "theater".
p.s. Feel free to reply if you want, since I am not trying to steal the last word from you, but I will end it here regardless of if you do.
That much we can agree on.
For a more quantitative definition of results, from later in the article:
This country is losing its collective mind. But unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. Good time to remember that the country is only almost 250 years old. Very young in comparison to some countries. Perhaps this era of tumult will give way to wisdom, or perhaps it will only get worse. I'm hoping for the former, and begrudgingly preparing for the latter.
I’ve mentioned this before on this site, but depending on how you define a country the USA is one of the older countries. 250 years backed by a single constitution.