Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt

How many Republicans don't care about guns?

The ones that are republicans for tax purposes.
- Is that enough to matter? And is this issue enough for them to change their vote, given the tax stuff? All the other shit Trump does certainly doesn’t matter.
  
  The richest places in America are pretty solidly blue. A lot of rich people like good public schools and colleges, clean water, the arts, etc. and understand that taxes and charity are how those things are paid for.
  
  Other rich people like gated communities and stopped reading books¹ when someone stopped assigning them. They’re the Republican rich people.
  
  ¹ Some will read a book about war or some shitty airport bookstore thing that’s 80% out-of-context quotes about how to be a leader.
  
  Rich people don't give a fuck about public schools, lmao, they send their kids to private ones.
  
  Private schools often suck. Rich people aren’t smarter. They just have more money. There’s plenty of districts where the best public high school is way better than whatever private schools exist. Half the private schools are for weird religious groups or kids who got expelled.
  
  There’s almost always good public schools in cities. That’s why there’s always loopholes that allow rich people’s kids to go to them.
  
  And in colleges, Harvard isn’t better than UC-Berkeley or the honors programs at most state flagship institutions. It’s just older. (There have been studies that compared students who got into an Ivy League school and ultimately chose a public flagship and the Ivy grads only did better in the first few years after graduation. But then the public flagship attendees caught up.)
  
  I wonder how many of those hedge fund billionaires down on Wall Street are Democrats. I doubt that it’s many of them. Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.
  
  They all like tax cuts and deregulation. Trump is the one who’s promising that, whereas Biden promised and already delivered more of both to them all.
  
  I don’t have any desire to defend hedge fund or VC billionaires so I’ll concede the point. There’s a reason San Francisco has NIMBY policies and New York City can’t elect mayors for shit.
  
  Yeah, because the people who own all of the businesses and real estate constantly battle those who work at the businesses and live in all that real estate, which just goes to show what a fucked up and unbalanced role money plays in our so-called democracy.
  
  Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.
  
  Now you're just making things up. You can't just say "nah, not likely" and prove anything. It's a lack of effort that shows you don't have evidence.
  
  NYC is a "blue city" (whatever that means) because of these professionals. The actual working class people in NYC make up a lot of the conservatives. That's why cities are more liberal: because they have more educated people. Those people work in banking or media; they're not all artists or plumbers or something.
  
  Hilarious. OK, where’s your evidence, then?
  
  EVERY group is big enough to matter. Reminder that the last two elections were determined by around 10,000 votes.
- Those republicans already know he's fucking crazy and they don't give a fuck what his stance is on guns.
  
  At this point Donald Trump could build a shrine to and start worshipping Obama as a God.... It won't affect anything.
- And the ones that are Republicans to fuck over everyone but the rich. They'd definitely prefer "poor folk" didn't have guns at all.
- And who don't give a shit either way about guns to make any effect
Lots of them. Do you know any Republicans? None of them care about issues that don't affect them and their families. Even other "conservative" issues. They are not driven by policy.

Only Republicans with guns care about guns. And only 50% of Republicans have guns.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

They don't care about each other. Liberals care about what other liberals think. Stop thinking like someone who cares about policy.
- I've had to explain this to a lot of people who naturally assume that any organization of people will be organized around some kind of shared values. Most of the time that's true, but not for Republicans.
  
  Republicans are just a mish mash of obsessive single-issue voters, and by in large they just don't care about the other single issues that their fellow party members are going on about.
  
  At the head of the Republican party it's people who want to minimize their tax burden, eliminate regulations on corporations, and cannibalize as much of the US government as they can into for-profit institutions. You could say that's three issues instead of one, but the overarching theme is to cater to personal greed, no matter the harm to society. These are the ones who are primarily pulling the strings in the party, at least historically.
  
  Just below them is the military industrial complex and gun manufacturers who just want to sell guns no matter the harm to society. They like to rile up 2A fanatics with conspiracy theories that the government is out to steal all their guns so they'll be defenseless, paving the way for King Biden to ascend to his throne. The industry only cares about selling guns and the fanatics only care about having guns, and neither care about any kind of harm to society.
  
  Then there's the radical Christians whose obsessions cover an eclectic mix of social reactionary positions and literal death cult worship (e.g. Christians who give absolute support to genocide in Palestine because they think Israel's conquest is a crucial step towards the rapture, which they believe is imminent). Broadly speaking the people in this group just want to hoist their religious doctrines onto everyone they can by any means available and no matter the harm it causes to society. They literally only care about "God's Kingdom" in the afterlife.
  
  Then there's people who just lack any capacity for adaptation or learning. Their obsession is to feel like things are staying the same, or even reverting back to a past that they only know how to view through rose tinted glasses. They can't be bothered to comprehend the problems we're facing as a society or how the past was not the idyllic utopia that they mistakenly remember, nor can the old way of doing things sustain a growing and transforming society. These people just want to exist in comforting ignorance by feeling like they get to remain in familiar surroundings, no matter the harm to society.
  
  There's really only one thing that truly unites them: Each one wants one specific thing no matter the harm to society, and that one specific thing that they each want IS HARMFUL to society. But they work well together because none of them care about the harm being caused by any of the others, and as long as they all tow the same line, each one gets what they want.
- I've never met any Republicans that were pro-gun-bans. I really don't believe you'll be able to find a single one either.
  
  This is dumb as fuck timing by Biden, but I'm sure he can't help himself because he's been super anti-gun for decades so it's probably just like a reflex at this point for him to to off about banning guns after a shooting.
Trump, for one
How many of them will stay home or change their vote because the head of the party they're still a part of despite all the gun nuts continues acting like a gun nut?

If Biden is trying to use guns as a wedge issue for Republicans, he's the person we saw at the debate all the time.
Not a lot but every wedge is probably worth it
The ones that are antiabortion or evangelicals who don't own guns. GOP has the most gun owners but its not even like half their voters. Vocal minorities is all it is.

The only issue the GOP is actually united on right now is how they don't like democrats.

Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.

utilitarian platform

What does that mean?
- Presumably, “good” in most situations, with extensibility for specialized configurations that are both common and accessible.
- The AR platform is highly customizable for different chamberings, sizes, attachments etc.
  
  People who are "into guns" usually have at least one pistol or rifle that is built on the AR platform. ARs are great for everything from target shooting as well as hunting. Very practical.
- Narrator: its a made up phrase
  
  Aren’t all phrases made up?
  
  Made up words? Who ulis up to these shenanigans ?
  
  No, it's like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don't need 5 guns.
  
  Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
  
  There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
  
  My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as "why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don't get me started on seatbelts!" It isn't even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with "tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr". I could make a case for it in home protection ...but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine....like driving a car.
  
  /WastingBreath
  
  Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
  
  Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn't the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I'm sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
  
  I'm willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I'll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
  
  I'm very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
  
  Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
  
  Yup, we both agree on requiring training and other checks to be allowed to carry a gun.
  
  Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I’m sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
  
  Never said it was a slam dunk, I said it has merit. It is something that happened and as someone that has a lot training and been in confrontations, tazers are not reliable (most are pain compliance tools and that is NOT viable) and good ones are bulkier than a small pistol, pepper spray is tricky and conditional (I carry it so I have an option outside my pistol or to handle aggressive animals without having to kill someone's pet), and small physical weapons (especially knives) are truly absurd to even suggest outside VERY well trained and practiced hands. She has a knife...we went to my buddy's gym and grabbed a training knife, painted the edge with pink paint, and squared off. In a well-lit room, with a count down, from the front, and alone, I took the knife and pinned her 5 out of 5 times in a row with her getting a mark on my elbow in one and the back of my arm in another (before she was so gassed out she called it). This was against me, a person whose top priority was her safety during the demonstration. I didn't throw rocks or sand at her face using the approach, I didn't punch her in the mouth shattering her teeth, I didn't stomp her kneecap, I didn't grab her knife hand and break her wrist. I suppose she could hope an attacker is slower, weaker, and never fought before so she has a chance to get some stabs in before getting killed...
  
  I’m willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I’ll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
  
  Again, we agree
  
  I’m very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
  
  I don't think there is any call for "exceptionally dangerous guns". I am very pro-pistol as a self-defense tool (with training and licensing). Shotguns and M4 style weapons even have an arguable use case in home defense(open carry of any weapon, especially shotguns and "ar"s is just dumb no matter the situation)...but insane"Imma gonna fight the gubment!" weapons are a bit absurd.
  
  ANYWAY, I think we have said our peace and we all know this topic goes nowhere every time. Hopefully the ones calling the shots can actually find a happy middle ground that we can all look at together, sigh, and say "ok, I think that should work well enough".
  
  Can I ask as an aside, why there is this intense fear that well trained people are going to physically attack you. Mentioning throwing sand and rocks, breaking knee caps, breaking wrists.
  
  I can understand the vague risk of a random person near you being in some state that causes violence, but what situations are so likely that you need to prepare and train like this?
  
  I can think of some relatively outlandish scenarios where someone might be surrounded by physically superior people who occasionally not only want to hurt you but want to kill you, but in all of those I'd have to argue the best thing would be not to be around such people in the first place.
  
  Second best would likely be that noone in that situation has a gun. Did you run drills with your friend on trying to draw the gun while within reach of the attacker? How did those turn out compared to your knife test? What happens when the attackers kill you and take your guns. Or just steal them when you are sleeping or on vacation.
  
  We can argue the merits of guns all day, they are ultimately tools that have the potential to be used safely, but I just haven't heard any solid arguments behind the "gun ownership increases safety" group, especially when its applied to society rather than an individual.
  
  Can I ask as an aside, why there is this intense fear that well trained people are going to physically attack you. Mentioning throwing sand and rocks, breaking knee caps, breaking wrists.
  
  None of that violent stuff takes training. It represents that someone looking to, in the case stated, kidnap/assault/whatever my friend would not have held back as I did. In controlled conditions where her safety was paramount to the attacker (me) AND she knew I was coming in a planned confrontation, AND she had the knife in hand...she could not use the knife to defend herself. The single most dangerous non-gun defensive option. As for the thing you mischaracterize as "intense fear", it isn't. You get in physical conflict as a spur of the moment event (drunks, arguments, etc) or as an ambush(mugging, kidnapping, murder for murder sake). In both cases, especially the second one, the one attacking you has taken your measure and chooses to agress. One can safely assume that someone ambushing you will have determined they will be in the advantage (stronger, armed, surprise). You don't live in fear of everyone being trained combatants out to get you. You prepare as best you can for the ONE time you may well lose your life because you were taken at a disadvantage. Preparing for an unarmed 8yo kid to attack you would be silly, not only because they are not a threat, but they also just wouldn't attack you.
  
  I can understand the vague risk of a random person near you being in some state that causes violence, but what situations are so likely that you need to prepare and train like this?
  
  She thought like that too. Had she clung to that, I would likely be missing her very much right now. As for me training like this...The Army had some bug up its ass about soldiers being able to defend themselves in combat. Bureaucracy... More seriously though, I prepare because it doesn't take much effort to just have to the tools on hand. Why do you buckle a seatbelt, ever crashed your car (is it out of that "intense fear" you asked about?)? I train with what tools I carry because they are exceedingly dangerous and it would be irresponsible not to (an added side note would be that if you are ever forced to rely on them, you will NOT be in a good stable mindset. You absolutely will fall back on your training. Non-practiced people have pepper sprayed themselves in panic moments...)
  
  I can think of some relatively outlandish scenarios where someone might be surrounded by physically superior people who occasionally not only want to hurt you but want to kill you, but in all of those I’d have to argue the best thing would be not to be around such people in the first place.
  
  You sounds like you live a very safe life, I am happy to hear it. Those people can come to you. This isn't about hanging around gangs. There is not flaw in your logic of avoiding bad situations, but the argument comes back to paralleling the seatbelt comment I made earlier. "Just drive safe so you don't crash" doesn't solve the need for a seatbelt, there are other people acting in ways you can't predict.
  
  Second best would likely be that noone in that situation has a gun. Did you run drills with your friend on trying to draw the gun while within reach of the attacker? How did those turn out compared to your knife test? What happens when the attackers kill you and take your guns. Or just steal them when you are sleeping or on vacation.
  
  I disagree. Her not having a gun means the person she had to shoot had his way with her. I, and I assume she, can't speak to the conditions around the shooting (ie. Was the wind low enough and going in the right direction to use pepper spray). She is trained in using a handgun. She understands retention draws. Kill me and take the gun? Then they have my gun, but I am dead. What if me having a gun stops my death and they can't steal it, or ever commit a crime again? What happens if they kill me take my ar keys and drive down a crowded sidewalk at 60mph? I get your question, but it is not as relevant as you think(it also sounds like a "why don't you just die so the off chance they grab your gun doesn't happen"... I'd rather stop the gun theft AND not die). As for the last bit, you dismiss potential aggressors, but break-ins are a concern? As you may correctly assume, I don't leave guns laying around in an insecure house. What if someone breaks in, takes my keys, and drives my car down a sidewalk at 60mph?
  
  We can argue the merits of guns all day, they are ultimately tools that have the potential to be used safely, but I just haven’t heard any solid arguments behind the “gun ownership increases safety” group, especially when its applied to society rather than an individual.
  
  This gets into a pro-2a debate that I actually don't like. I hear the "an armed society is a polite society" thing all the time...but I have seen the numbers and while the logic works from one angle, it doesn't from another, and the numbers bear that out. The logic is that if anyone could be carrying a gun, people would be less likely to commit crimes. That is logically sound. However, what seems to happen is more like what I mentioned earlier...the plan changes. "Hey we are going to rob a gas station...but people might be armed...so instead of scaring people with a pistol and getting the money and running, let's drive through the front door with AR15s, spray everyone, grab what we can and run!" This is why I am very much in favor of regulated gun ownership for trained individuals. I am in favor of more regulation for more ridiculous guns too (licence to drive vs Hazmat CDL to drive a tanker truck full of hydrochloric acid). I don't think I could ever get to the point of "ban all guns" though. That truly does cause more problems (prohibition era nonsense, black markets, ratio of good/bad actors that have guns shifting dramatically towards bad).
  
  I hope we can get to a point where there is balance between "YEEHAW ROCKETLAUNCHERS FOR ALL" and "only criminals have guns". I hate seeing every reasonable attempt at gun regulation get shot down by "it's a slippery slope", and the whole time people are losing their lives to 'badguys with guns'.
  
  Anyway, I hope that helped clarify stuff a bit. I'm not expecting you to change sides at all, and honestly we need even more push from your side to get ANYTHING done with gun regulation.
  
  Take care.
  
  That's just dumb, bud.
Is it now? What else is it good for?
- It's good for shooting small, very fast bullets. May that be hunting, target shooting or self-defense.
  
  If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous. The would-be assassin could have done the same thing with a whole assortment of mostly equivalently performing rifles. Some just as "scary looking" black rifles, some with wooden parts.
  
  If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous.
  
  And if they ban all those guns they should finish the job while they're at it and just ban guns, glad we agree.
  
  Indeed, they would have to go down the route Australia went. But I don't see this happening in America any time soon.
  
  If piles of murdered kids didn't do much to move the needle, shooting an inflammatory politician isn't going to do it. We'll see how the MAGA respond to this event or hopefully when they lose the elections. Maybe (but hopefully not) they'll act violently enough to force facing America's relationship with guns.

Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.

and that is what's gonna get him. because up until now, he looked soooo presidential 😂

Any of those options will work fine for Trump. He doesn’t need to have policies, strategies, or responses to anything. His voters can’t remember it anyway. You think they remember that he banned bump stocks in the first place? He could promise to ban AR-15s one day, then criticize his own proposal the next day, and he’ll just get cheered by both sides. Voters are fucking stupid.

All that matters is that he keeps the steady supply of hateful buzzwords flowing. You can’t win chess against an opponent who’s playing hungry hungry hippos.

All of that wastes trump's time and makes him look unprofessional to swing voters. He can't win with just his fans. That's why he lost big time in 2020. The swing voters saw him failing to respond to an actual issue.
- Correction: He lost big time because of mail-in votes. Trump in 2020 got the record high for votes for a Republican candidate at something like 67.2 million, which was just about a million votes less than what Obama got during his first election (which was a record-breaking turnout). Biden got around 80 million votes in 2020, breaking every voter turnout record ever.
  
  Swing voters are still crucial because that's how Hillary lost despite having only 100,000 less votes than Obama did in his second election, but I feel like swing voters have probably more or less already made up their minds. If you don't see Trump for what he is already, the odds of his reaction here being the final straw seems unlikely. I think if people had better access to voting, we'd easily see a repeat of 2020 even if we were to vote right this minute.

Trump already said he'd take away everyones guns, no questions asked, years ago. No one that supported him even blinked. This means nothing to them.

I'm pretty sure the NRA had a heart attack when they heard that 🤣
That's just bullshit, he did not. He said the one stupid thing about ignoring due process for red flag law situations. This is pretty far and away from "everyone's guns"
- You made me curious, thank you. The actual quote is "take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump will go with number 5: "Did you know socialist immigrant windmills causing cancers kill more Americans than guns?"

He will do #2, and his base will cheer. Not a single person from that camp will think he's crazy.

This is the kind of Democrat logic that makes me cringe...

He can just say nothing. His position is already clear and he just selected a VP candidate who was pictured in social media with an AR15 recently, and openly suggested the ATF doesn't need to exist.

Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don’t care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It’s really smart.

Or... he just doesn't want to get shot himself. Just saying. not wanting to get shot is a powerful motivator...

Not that it's perhaps prudent. or you know, god forbid, actually a good fucking idea.

I guarantee that he will say that the attack wouldn't have happened if more of his followers had ar 15s there

Option 4: trump and the GOP in general still views his assassination attempt as the danger you have to live with to live in a “free nation”. It’s the cost of freedom. Something something “just because i got shot doesn’t mean taking everyone’s rights away is a good idea”

Growing up in texas, this is a very common view.

Admittedly, knowing the coward Trump is (He literally doesn't order his own food because he's afraid of poisoning) There's a very slim chance Trump will declare the AR-15 is evil and act afraid of it.
- Actually that’s a pretty distinct possibility

2 and 3 only matter if reality matters to you. Most people being trump don't care how insane things look, or if trump "looks presidential".

What you're arguing would make sense with logical voters. So of course it doesn't apply here. When have Republican voters marked 'D' or stayed home instead of voting for a pro-gun candidate!? It just doesn't happen.

And "wedge" issue?? Come on, Republican voters are either all-in on Trump or they reluctantly mark the 'R'...

It'll be 2 because the Republicans who don't like guns are a minority. It's a cult, there's nothing Trump can do to lose support. You can't trick him into doing something stupid, he's always doing something stupid, people clap for it anyway.

It's just dumb. The sniper that killed the guy wasn't using an ar-15. Stopping ar-15's wouldn't have done anything to change something like this.

What do you mean, it was an AR-15. I don't support a ban, just clarifying facts.
- Sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. When I said "the sniper that killed the guy" I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn't referring to Crooks.
  
  Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn't using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
  
  Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn't downvote your comment.
  
  Guns are tools. And what's more, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
You sure about that?

FBI special agent in charge Kevin Rojek said Crooks used an AR-style rifle chambered in 5.56mm, a common caliber for such weapons. Authorities said the weapon was identified and traced using records from a gun dealership that is no longer operating.

If that source doesnt work for you, here's the president of the United states:

“An AR-15 was used in the shooting of Donald Trump, just as other assault weapons were used to kill so many others, including children."

That's from the linked article.
- Sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. When I said "the sniper that killed the guy" I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn't referring to Crooks.
  
  Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn't using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
  
  So youre saying that since the wannabe assassin missed, that ARs are not effective weapons?
  
  Even if you gloss over the all the heavily published mass murder events committed with AR that the president alluded to in the quote above, are you aware that Trump turned his head a split second before the bullet hit his ear? That this likely is the only reason he's alive?
  
  I'm saying that AR's aren't a requirement or a need for a shooter and that stopping sales of AR's just means that something else will be used. You don't need an AR.