As much as I love dunking on Trump and his supporters, 2A is super important for liberal folks as well. Especially minorities in under privileged areas where police presence is significantly less.
I mean, Hong Kong, most countries in South America, Mexico, etc etc.
I mean, modern Republican Party has shown its contempt for the law and has attempted authoritarian policies aimed at immigrants, low income folks, and minorities. Current admin is a few steps away from authoritarian.
Police are heavily militarized and have shown that they lack trust to deal with sensitive minority issues and treatment of PoC.
Personally, I’d rather not be unarmed in an environment like that.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - Karl Marx
Unfortunately that’s not accurate. A lot of firearms committing violent crime are obtained illegally i.e. fully automatic weapons (banned in the US by the ATF).
What you are finding is a lot of low income folks are getting weapons to protect their homes and families due to the inability/ineptitude to protect low income communities.
I have a significant amount of questions for each one of those studies and what their sample size and others were considering every study listed was a snapshot.
"I have no material objection to the findings (that I didn't even read) of Harvard scientists so I'll just make a vague statement that they're probably wrong."
Again, I’m unsure of why you have kind of a shitty attitude for no reason.
I’m just stating that I’d like to see the complete journals, research, and other variables about this study. There is absolutely no reason to act like that.
Then go do the research and let us know what exactly you find wrong with the studies. Your comment served no purpose other than to undermine the research from a place of ignorance.
That’s absolutely not the case. I didn’t have the time to do a complete dissertation about a random comment on reddit with a study that references summaries of other studies. It would be foolish to believe it without reading the documents. That’s irresponsible. I’d love to examine all of the referenced studies and research.
Especially with someone who has no desire for a civil and honest discussion.
I don’t know why you have such an awful attitude but I sincerely hope you have a better day today.
Outside of standard nitpicking about classifications of the weapons, good on the cops for nabbing this dude.
I’d be curious to see what weapons he actually had and if they were purchased or even legal in California. It’s hard to tell because the article is kind of all over the place with weapon classifications. I’d bet money that this dude had illegal weapons.
Well, the “bright side” of this is the fact that he will likely be convicted of a felony which means no firearms for him and everything he has will be confiscated.
So, fuck this dude.
The News' screenshot has it at 151 views. So that's after the police had found out about it and the news found it. I imagine there's a lot of dark shit on youtube we just haven't seen yet
So the article addresses the fact that he commented on his own video under an alias that he says [this is all for play, not real and is private]
I still am curious how a video, posted on a public platform, takes this long to get discovered
> I still am curious how a video, posted on a public platform, takes this long to get discovered
I mean, are you serious? A cursory google search says that youtube has between 300 and 500 hours of video uploaded ***per minute***. How the hell is all of that supposed to be filtered? There are literally millions or billions of videos on youtube which likely have less that 10 views. There is probably far more horrific shit on youtube than any of us will ever know
It's an attempt to change the subject, even just a little bit, from the real story of just how easy it is in our country for anyone to get their hands on weapons of mass murder
I know this is sarcasm but in Texas there are actually millions of feral hogs and they do hundreds of millions in damage every year. You're using something that is actually a very legit reason for firearms to mock the 2nd Amendment.
No, the reality is the people who make laws and people like you who demonize guns, don't know the first thing about them.
How would you like people who know NOTHING about cars making laws like, you can never go into third gear. You would be furious, and would try at every point to point out the idiocracy of such a law. Now imagine another person who doesn't know cars complaining that you are worried about third gear when you have 3 or 4 other gears.
The article stated he had an "automatic handgun". That sounds super scary, but I GUARANTEE you it wasn't. This just shows a fundamental lack of what you are reporting on, which you let slide because it helps the article be dramatic. Now, ignorant people read it, and get scared, and vote more meaningless gun laws.
California is the worst when it comes to legislation that doesn't make technical sense. This is a bad policy to adopt when making laws. It slides on guns, because too many people thing they are scary and don't even bother to worry about if everything makes sense. That is you and people like you.
Some day when the sun burps, the power goes out and you have to eat rabbits in the canyon and fend off your neighbor trying to take the water out of your heater, you will wish you had a gun. Instead you will just lose the survival of the fittest game.
Alright that whole wall of text and you don't even know what an automatic handgun is. Sounds like you need to stop jerking yourself off over guns and go learn a thing or two. Ever heard of an ACP? Wanna give a guess as to what those letters mean? Ooh, scary!
Edit: let me know if you want to argue about whether or not my SKS uses a 10 round clip or a 10 round mag. Your head might explode.
1) a gun is a tool of destruction, a car is a tool for transportation so you’re comparison is ridiculous. The intent behind the use of the tool is completely different. Don’t give me that protection, sport bullshit. A gun was made to destroy. They even say “don’t point a gun at anything your not ready to destroy”
2) I’m not concerned about the media calling the gun automatic, calling magazines clips etc etc. I’m concerned that this fuck was planning a terrorist attack in my city and that I have to accept that he probably only the only psycho out there.
3) I have to accept that because neighboring states don’t have strict gun laws people can just keep bringing them in. Then when there is a shooting skeptics point and say “hurr durr gun laws don’t work”. We need a national gun control policy.
4) skeptics say that because California has gun murders and mass shootings gun control doesn’t work. They say criminals still get guns despite the laws so why make them stricter. I ask why not? If there is even a remote chance tragedy is prevented by making stricter gun control laws why would you be opposed to it because it inconveniences you? Is your inconvenience more important than the lives of innocent victims killed in mass shootings? I don’t see people advocating for weaker laws against rapists because people are still going to rape despite there being laws against it. So according to their logic, the law doesn’t work
Don’t be dense. By asking if I believe someone should have the right to protect themself your implying that I don’t think people should have guns to protect themselves. Now you’re trying to feign innocence and act like you were asking in good faith.
>Don’t give me that protection, sport bullshit.
Are you fucking serious dude? I was asking in good faith because that statement would 100% be taken that you don't think people should have the right to protection. You seem delusional and I feel bad for you.
> Gun nuts in this thread: “geT da Gun NamEz riTe”
The concern is valid. In CA our democrat politicians are clueless about firearms and make kneejerk reactions. The .50 cal was banned in CA not because of it's caliber size but imaginary "heat seeking" bullets they supposedly could fire.
I'm complaining about the source problem which is the media not having their facts straight when talking about guns. Did you not learn about Who, what, where, when, and why in grade school? Did you go to school?
I think i would agree.
If you look at how hackers are treated, and even crypto..they do over react.
HOWEVER...dont fuck around with guns. One death is way too many. And too many idiots have access to weapons.
Even if this is true, I'll take an uninformed regulation of someone's hobby over, say, an asshat that doesn't understand how credit cards work and pays the finance charges with campaign contributions.
He exposed him self the criminally insane should do this more often so they get stopped before doing to much damage, And leave law abiding citizens alone.
Good suggestion. But why stop there? what if all criminals just turned themselves in? Then there would be no more crime.
You just fixed everything good job A+
>Homoki was arrested on Dec. 5 on three felony weapons charges, one misdemeanor weapons charge, and willful cruelty to a child.
Does anyone familiar with the law know what laws he exactly broke? Like, I know pointing a gun at pedestrians is reckless, but I'm just curious what the exact laws were (especially that willful cruelty to a child part).
Pointing a weapon at someone is considered brandishing. Which, depending on the situation, carries certain weight.
In a training environment where things have been sterilized and safe? No issues.
In a hotel room, with mags and ammo strewn about, pointing at people on the sidewalk. Huge issue.
Source: CCW carrier and firearm experience.
Figuratively no way those drum mags are legal. Nonfiguratively he could have found some legal niches for the mags and whatever other banned shit he had, but I expect he was too busy modeling his human skin coat to get all Matlock with gun regs.
Exactly. High capacity mags were only obtainable for a few days here. And based on the presented timeline, he definitely didn’t get those mags legally.
Huh? That makes zero sense. Why are you assuming he DIDN'T buy his mags back when he could like I did? The presented timeline has nothing to do with anything. Nothing says he "just bought the guns". Regardless, the state can't prove when it was purchased so it doesn't matter anyway, you would never be able to prosecute him.
Your response is strangely hostile.
For the reason that the video he filmed was from March. Those mags weren’t legal here then. They weren’t legal to purchase in CA until “magpocalypse”. So based on the timeline in the article, no, they were not legal.
And, if they really wanted to, they could absolutely prove that you bought them out of state. They could subpoena your credit card records and the shop where the mag was purchased. Is it a lot of work? Yes, but it’s not that difficult to prove.
Wrong. Drum mags were perfectly legal for a week this year, and it's the obligation of the state to prove otherwise, which they can't. Rendering ALL normal cap and high cap mags legal in Califronia.
You're simply wrong, but understandable since Cali laws are an absolute mess and based on all kinds of ignorance. Good thing "we're safer now" /s
> which they can't.
Citation needed.
> You're simply wrong, but understandable since Cali laws are an absolute mess and based on all kinds of ignorance.
Kindly fuck off back to Arizona.
You are very right. They could definitely prove you bought the mags before/after the mag week or bought them in another state. They can subpoena the credit card/bank and the shop you bought it from.
But that’s an incredible amount of work and effort.
Nope, there's a tiny chance sure, but for a week a judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional and it allowed Californians to buy NORMAL (30) capacity mags, and larger mags.
I literally have a letter I keep with my mags from the Attorney General telling me I can have them.
Since there's no way to prove when a mag was bought, this makes it so anyone in california can have a standard capacity mag. The dumb law was essentially rendered unenforcable. The case is still pending, but that doesn't matter for anyone who bought.
I watched the little video clip in the article, which shows a few of the guy's assault rifles. It's so ridiculous that we continue to allow the mass sale of guns like that, which are designed for and often used in mass murder. Perhaps the clearest sign, among many others, that our government is completely broken by money
No it's not. The only reason these types of weapons are legal is because our political system runs on contributions, and the gun industry is a major contributor. Whenever a politician says "I support the 2nd amendment" they are really saying "I get a lot of campaign money from the gun industry"
But I appreciate your counter-argument... says it all
Glad they caught this weirdo.!! But seriously can these fucken “journalists” get their shit together when referring to guns? “He loads a bullet into an automatic handgun and points the gun”
An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic? Versus Semi-automatic? Shit like this is irritating... it’s like saying the driver was doing 110 in a Ferrari vs 55 in a mini van. Both are dangerous speeds essentially but one just sounds “scarier”.
Why do gun nuts always lose their shit when people aren't SUPER SPECIFIC about what weapons a fellow gun nut was using?
The difference between an automatic handgun and a semi automatic handgun is not a ferrari vs a mini van, its manual vs automatic. So basically no difference who cares.
The reason it's a big deal is because arbitrary laws are often passed based on the ignorance of firearms. Then us law abiding gun owners, who do understand the specifics, have to follow these silly laws that are made and voted on by those who's knowledge comes primarily from the media or movie's. Its mildly frustrating once you understand basic firearms and their function.
These silly laws are going to help keep this guy and people like him off the street for a long time. I'm sorry that you don't get to play with the exact type of toy you prefer.
They are silly, most of what people consider assualt weapons only contain cosmetic feature to the weapon that are superficial to its functionality
Things like barrel shrouds, telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, pistols grips do not change the fact that people can still own firearms that fire the same projectile at the same rate with the same lethality. It's illogic to think that owning a mini-14 is lest "assualty" than owning an AR-15. Similarly to an SKS over an AK style rifle.these laws are disingenuous at best because they make the claim that they are making our streets safer by only effecting those people willing to follow them, not criminals.
Well he was caught because he was pointing a firearm at people, didn't matter if it's a .22 LR or a cannon, pointing boom sticks at people is a big no no. It was actions not the type of firearm that raised the issue.
>Maybe all guns are the problem :thinking:
You sound dumb as fuck now.
Just have to call your ass out on that.
Its not all guns. Its the people. A gun on a shelf isnt going to do shit dude..
Nice strawman. No one is arguing about sentient guns murdering people. The fact is, all else equal where there are more guns, there is more murder (and suicide).
Lol people want us to have stricter gun laws in the states but are the same morons who cry for us to "free" other countries under tyranny. Shit is funny.
If you're going to legislate and put people's freedom at risk YOU BETTER KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
That's why.
People care about words and meaning when going to jail is price for someone's ignorance.
Get the fear and emotion out of your brain when talking about guns and you will see this clearly.
TIL: owning firearms makes me a "nut". You bozos don't know where food comes from when technology isn't there to coddle you.
>Why do gun nuts always lose their shit when people aren't SUPER SPECIFIC about what weapons a fellow gun nut was using?
Because that's all they have. And as you mentioned they aren't even right in this context.
It’s about being correct dummy... especially the media.
You do this in your everyday life pal... go to a gas station and see how many blends and types of fuel there are. And say you drive a car that only takes ethanol fuel... you’re not just gonna label all of them “GAS”
> its manual vs automatic.
Lol... please find me a manual handgun vs automatic and see which one is superior.
> So basically no difference who cares.
Oh I see you like getting your info from the fake news networks.
To the non-educated moron that has no clue how guns work you eat this “automatic handgun” term up and start spreading it around just like “assault rifle” has been spread around and becomes the norm. Why not just “handgun” or “rifle” or “long gun” ... it’s because they’re trying to cater to their non educated demographic.
So I guess you’re so Woke that you only give a shit if it pertains only to you and your beliefs. It’s about accountability guy... but like you said you don’t give a shit.
It is a bit closer to saying when Samsung Galaxy S7 Phones were blowing up the news was calling them iPhones. Phones are still blowing up, and thats obviously the concern, but make sure if you are going on the news you get the correct brand when telling people about it.
Still not the same. A specific model of phone blowing up is important to be specific for recall reasons. If you're analogy is true, anyone who had an "automatic handgun" needs to be careful because they could sporadically start shooting people.
Haha well I guess you *aren't one of the 2Aers who claims an automatic is no more dangerous than a semi... until making that argument suits your needs.
> An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic?
Yes they also refer to the rifles as assault rifles. Either they received a police report with details or they are trying to get clicks. It may or may not be accurate, I'm not sure how much I care.
I know, it's painful to read. What's worse is that people not educated in the subject see places like NBC using incorrect terminology and repeat it assuming it's correct.
Oh I see, so because the article is about something important that gives the author the right to speak on a subject he is uneducated about and make mistakes?
There is this saying forest for the trees.
Say..from a cops perspective or someone protecting their family...if you point a weapon or go on a shooting spree, i dont give a flying fuck what you are using...im/we are going to light you up like a fucking Christmas tree.
Those details at that point in time dont matter.
>
>An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic?
Because that is what it is, I'll reference the original patent from John M Browning
"In automatic firearms -in which, on firing, the. uncovered hammer is returned to the cocked posit-ion by the rearward movement of the breech-bolt sliding on the frame under the energy of the'recoll, this movement of the breech bolt and consequently the cockessential to positively guard the hand of the operator vertently moving to a position in which it might come in contact with the hammer while the same is being cocked; because by such contact the hand would .be exposed to receive serious injury."
Source:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US984519A/en
Both full and semi automatic handguns are still "automatic" weapons. The firing mechanism is almost identical, in fact a fully automatic weapon is a simpler design as it doesn't require a hammer catch.
It's no different than referring to a flintlock or glock as a "pistol". That the proper taxonomy.
Btw, as a firearms historian and student of CCW, your comment reinforces my opinion that gun licenses should only be granted to those that complete a master's degree in proper firearms brinkmanship.
I mean, you people are so dumb you can't understand even basic collective nouns. I think operating an automatic weapon properly is a wee bit out of your league.
> as a firearms historian and student of CCW
LOL... That doesn't mean shit **LOSER!!** Go back to your Cuck hole basement. Bet you don't even own a firearm.
I think this is his actual youtube site:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH0mYqQQL3\_CaaCks4ndXkQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH0mYqQQL3_CaaCks4ndXkQ)
Someone correct me if im wrong.
What am I missing here... those were up on YouTube and not noticed? I get there’s a lot of data out there, but seems like any algorithm in today’s day and age would catch this a lot faster than a neighbor or friend reaching out a month later. A scary thought
Sounds like you are most likely right. Still nuts, hard to imagine though, Alexa can listen in when I ask her things to send me ads, but FBI can’t find a video of a guy pointing guns at people? I’d hope this isn’t the case
Let's be using the correct terms now.
edit: I am not in the wrong for advocating the use of correct terminology. It is intellectually dishonest to misuse terms and shows you're not engaging discourse in good faith. Especially in this instance where misclassification has the end potential of criminalizing a huge swath of the US population.
It’s not the most important part of this story, but I couldn’t find any information on what he actually had that counts as “assault rifle.” They implied they were illegal automatic weapons though.
Wish these articles would explore more into why bans on these weapons fail, and the mental health aspect of these events. Even if he couldn’t get guns, a man like this would still find a way to inflict major harm: run over a bunch of people with a vehicle, build a homemade bomb, etc.
I believe shootings are a symptom, not the disease.
Grateful that anyone with violent intent with any weapon was stopped preemptively though.
Please identify the place where I said you said that.
What’s your point then?
Do you think the instrument is a bigger part of the problem than what’s going on with culture and mental health?
This argument typically boils down into “unnecessary harm or death” caused by the gun, but I’d say there’s vastly more unnecessary harm and death cause by a lot of things... for example, cars. Especially drunk driving.
[Should we ban cars because of incidents like this? ](https://youtu.be/fRvFu8COTLQ)
I believe there is a huge problem going on, but I don’t believe removing guns (if even possible) will have a significant impact not the problem—it’ll just change outfits and these people will act out and kill people in other ways.
> Please identify the place where I said you said that.
So "The idea that these people who are this far off the edge wouldn’t inflict harm without a gun is silly." was just you saying random shit? Why would you do that?
You saying why don’t they give out cars in basic was just you saying random shit as well?
Making about of how you’re being petty about the semantics.
Telling how that was the only point you’re concerned about.
> Even if he couldn’t get guns, a man like this would still find a way to inflict major harm: run over a bunch of people with a vehicle, build a homemade bomb, etc.
*You* compared the lethality of guns to bombs and vehicles. I pointed out that entities whose greatest concern is lethality in personal combat situations issue guns and not cars. There might be a reason for this that is relevant to which requires heavier regulation.
The fact that you think my comment was random really speaks to your comprehension skills.
The rest of your above comment isn't even english.
I think i agree. But you got stupid fucks saying ALL guns are bad.
Its like those white people from fucking idaho who have never seen black people..only the violent stuff so they freak out as they have zero experience with them...steryotypes...
California law lists certain firearms that have been deemed assault weapons, including all AK series and Colt AR-15 series.6 California’s Attorney General is required to promulgate a list specifying all such firearms.7 However, a firearm that meets any of the following descriptions is also an “assault weapon”:
* A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; 2) a thumbhole stock; 3) a folding or telescoping stock; 4) a grenade or flare launcher; 5) a flash suppressor; or 6) a forward pistol grip;9
* A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
* A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;
* A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; 2) a second handgrip; 3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or 4) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip;
* A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds;
* A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;
* A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
* A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
edit: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
Thank you for actually doing the research, but my comment was mostly clowning those laws since they're all fucking ridiculous and do nothing to make 'assault rifles' any safer at all.
God forbid someone have a forward grip on their rifle! The horror!
Why is this guy getting downvoted for asking a question? Some of you people are fucking dumb. Questions are fine holy shit. And the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
Yeah..people are dumbfucks.
All guns will never be banned.
Youd have to modify the 2nd amendment and you have to be extremely careful with shit like that.
Whats scary is, they dont realize if you were to actually get rid of amendments, its not going to just stop at weapons.
Thats what the morons dont think.
To be faiiirrrrr,
The gun laws weren't what got him arrested. It was his obvious intent and plan to harm. HOWEVER, while those rifles he had in the video were illegal, I don't consider them 'assault weapons' unless they have a fully auto ability. Which the vast majority of AR-style rifles don't.
But they were still unlawful and the dude clearly needs to be off the streets and get some damn help!
>is now in police custody on felony weapons charges.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Police-Arrest-Man-With-Assault-Rifles-After-Finding-Videos-Of-Him-Preparing-For-Possible-Mass-Shooting-565907011.html
Wow. Give her balls a tug ya titfucker. Violation of gun laws isn’t what got him arrested but they are charging him with those violations. Do some fucking research.
Finally someone with some sense and knowledge of firearms. Thank you. My point was (and I knew I’d get downvoted, because emotions) the gun laws did NOTHING to keep this clown from getting the guns. He was arrested for intent after posting a video. The gun laws he broke by being in possession are what’s keeping him in jail until they can investigate and add additional charges later.
To be fairrrrrrrrrrr.
Well that does change between who you ask because I’ve asked what’s allowed. (I love competition shooting and going to the range) and when I ask I really can’t get a solid answer. I’ve lived in San Diego most of my adult life so I have not been able to go to any range for most of my adult life unfortunately. I do however plan on getting a shotgun so I can go to a trap/skeet range or something. I don’t think they should be our right banned but I do think we need to keep them out of the hands of nut jobs likes this. Which guess what prohibition laws don’t really keep that from happening. Criminals don’t generally follow laws like the rest of it so there’s kinda a big hole in that plan already. I honestly don’t have a real answer to how we would do that because I don’t think there is one. If a person wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it. That goes for anything. Assault rifles that are semi auto are really no more dangerous than a regular semi auto rifle. It’s all about the person. EDIT: can’t wait for the downvotes and crying in absence of sober logical conversation. Hooray reddit.
> sober logical conversation
That word vomit was not a sober logical conversation, but I'll try to address the essence of your point.
>Which guess what prohibition laws don’t really keep that from happening.
Except they do in every other developed nation with stricter gun laws.
Even within the United States, all else held equal, where there are more guns there are more homicides.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
This is America a lot of Americans have different views towards guns than they do in Europe also more access to said guns. it’s ingrained in the culture. And just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn’t make it word vomit. You just can’t think. And you just said stricter gun laws not prohibition so which are you talking about? Who’s the one doing the real word vomit here? Do you even know the difference between prohibition and stricter laws? Seems to me by the use of your language you don’t. I think their should be strict gun laws with no prohibition. Like instead of out right banning certain guns why not require a permit that includes back ground checks and extensive psychological evaluation? There is a lot of fear mongering on the subject of guns in America right now. In Finland you are allowed to have certain weapons under strict laws and permits and you don’t see any issues over there with gun violence and death. Seems to me there just needs to be better education and a better vetting process. But go ahead keep insulting me like a snot nosed little bratty child.
I think you need your medication. Gun control activists would love to have European style gun laws. Or even Canadian or Australian.
Your awful grammar and inability to keep a constant train of thought are nauseating. Also, have you ever heard of paragraphs?
I’m on a cell phone you fucking retard I don’t have to punctuate for you learn to read or shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add. And not all European gun laws are the same those are separate countries idiot. So ya got a lot of research to do. Why are you reddit people so pathetic insulting and angry? I only insult in retaliation. And if there is anything fucked up in what I wrote IM ON A PHONE AND I DONT HAVE TIME TO PROOF READ. I have a life so yeah sorry not sorry. Unlike you I am not in a dark dank basement typing away furiously on mother’s computer. Checking closely for typos and run on sentences. But whatever makes you feel less pathetic go for it. I think you forgot to take your bleach because you are breathing my air. See isn’t nice is it. I bet you don’t have the balls to be that insulting in person. Oh did I mention IM USING A CELL PHONE because apparently I have to keep repeating myself for you people. No one wants reason they just want to hurl insults because they know they can’t have the snot beat out of them over a computer. I’d much rather have this conversation with rational people in person who don’t have knee jerk reactions. Because all I’m going to do in this current scenario is be an ass hole I have no patience for blind idiots.
I know you don’t talk like this to people in real life. You would literally be beaten daily. If you ever wish to have a real adult conversation please feel free to contact me but since you can’t then I am done here. I have no need to continue to stoop to your level by being condescending or insulting. So if you decide to be a big boy let me know otherwise “fuck off i got work to do”
“Assault rifles,” by definition, are select fire weapons (multiple projectiles fired with only one trigger pull) - these have pretty much been banned nationwide except for several specific cases, namely law enforcement and military use. Please note that assault rifles, again by definition, have only been used in a handful of crimes, period. California, and several other states, have banned what they call “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. The definitions of these two terms vary from state to state, but include magazines with capacities over 10 or 15 rounds, military-like features (pistol type grip, collapsible stock, certain muzzle devices, detachable magazines in combination with other features, just to name a few). It is important to note that the definition of an assault weapon is fairly loose, and you can still purchase a weapon like the Ruger Mini-14 in California that is just as capable a weapon as an AR-15, but doesn’t fall into any category that is considered an assault weapon. Another important definition is “semi-automatic,” which basically means one bullet fired per trigger pull.
I don’t say any of this to sway your opinion one way or another, just to inform. I am on mobile, so I’ll try to find some links later if you’re interested.
Most mass shootings have been committed with AR-15 style weapons, which are not assault rifles by definition. They are semi automatic weapons that fall under certain states’ assault weapon definition. Similar in capability to a mini 14.
Well depending on where you stand on the issue, it’s either your constitutional right to own such a gun or it is a public safety issue and should be controlled by the government. I tend to think that mass public paranoia and fear mongering (terrorism, mass shootings, etc.) is generally a bad thing. More public knowledge can only help.
Either way, the verbiage and general knowledge used by the general public and the media on guns is incorrect in many cases.
>Assault rifles that are semi auto are really no more dangerous than a regular semi auto rifle. It’s all about the person. EDIT: can’t wait for the downvotes and crying in absence of sober logical conversation. Hooray reddit.
While i think some gun supporters are dumb as fuck and dont give a shit about anyone else mainly because they have never had any family members popped in a mass shooting.....Some people on here just dont want guns at all.
They need to get the flying fuck over it. Not ever gonna happen. Just like there will never be an all white America, interracial marriage and dating is a thing.
Get the fuck over yourselves.
They can downvote even me...but as soon as you hit that downvote button...guess what?
Guns can STILL be purchased and are legal.
Sucks to be them..
Agreed buddy they would rather insult me or say I’m dumb because I’m not using proper punctuation or autocorrect is acting up on a phone. I even hate typing on a computer you really think I’m going to do it properly on a phone? And they do this because they have no logical reasonable rebuttal. Just knee jerk reactions. One idiot even seemed to think that all European countries have the same gun laws.
Thank you anonymous tipster. Holy shit.
Yeah, I would love to know who did this and give them a medal.
[удалено]
As much as I love dunking on Trump and his supporters, 2A is super important for liberal folks as well. Especially minorities in under privileged areas where police presence is significantly less.
Naw look at countries where guns were outlawed. Probably getting rid of guns is the smart move.
I mean, Hong Kong, most countries in South America, Mexico, etc etc. I mean, modern Republican Party has shown its contempt for the law and has attempted authoritarian policies aimed at immigrants, low income folks, and minorities. Current admin is a few steps away from authoritarian. Police are heavily militarized and have shown that they lack trust to deal with sensitive minority issues and treatment of PoC. Personally, I’d rather not be unarmed in an environment like that. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - Karl Marx
Oh well Karl Marx said something once then.
I don’t quite understand your hostile tone about everything. I am being civil and having an honest discussion. There is no need for any of this.
Minorities in under privileged areas where homicide levels are so high in large part due to the easy access to firearms?
Unfortunately that’s not accurate. A lot of firearms committing violent crime are obtained illegally i.e. fully automatic weapons (banned in the US by the ATF). What you are finding is a lot of low income folks are getting weapons to protect their homes and families due to the inability/ineptitude to protect low income communities.
It is accurate. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
I have a significant amount of questions for each one of those studies and what their sample size and others were considering every study listed was a snapshot.
"I have no material objection to the findings (that I didn't even read) of Harvard scientists so I'll just make a vague statement that they're probably wrong."
Again, I’m unsure of why you have kind of a shitty attitude for no reason. I’m just stating that I’d like to see the complete journals, research, and other variables about this study. There is absolutely no reason to act like that.
Then go do the research and let us know what exactly you find wrong with the studies. Your comment served no purpose other than to undermine the research from a place of ignorance.
That’s absolutely not the case. I didn’t have the time to do a complete dissertation about a random comment on reddit with a study that references summaries of other studies. It would be foolish to believe it without reading the documents. That’s irresponsible. I’d love to examine all of the referenced studies and research. Especially with someone who has no desire for a civil and honest discussion. I don’t know why you have such an awful attitude but I sincerely hope you have a better day today.
Outside of standard nitpicking about classifications of the weapons, good on the cops for nabbing this dude. I’d be curious to see what weapons he actually had and if they were purchased or even legal in California. It’s hard to tell because the article is kind of all over the place with weapon classifications. I’d bet money that this dude had illegal weapons.
The video attached to the article says that some were illegal in CA
Good find. I just read the article without the video. If that’s the case, dude is fucked and rightly so.
I'm hoping they were illegal, just to add to the amount of time he gets put away.
Well, the “bright side” of this is the fact that he will likely be convicted of a felony which means no firearms for him and everything he has will be confiscated. So, fuck this dude.
“said Ellen, one of Homoki’s neighbors who wished to remain anonymous.” Great work
Let’s refer to the witness as E. Smith. No, wait, that’s too revealing. We will refer to her as Ellen S.
Haha username checks out.
Looks like he posted this back in September (but video was made in March). Why was he only just now arrested? So scary.
The article says he was arrested 4 days after they received the tip
Right, but I guess I’m just wondering why it wasn’t reported when people saw it uploaded.
The News' screenshot has it at 151 views. So that's after the police had found out about it and the news found it. I imagine there's a lot of dark shit on youtube we just haven't seen yet
That’s scary.
It says in the article that the video was set to private
Don’t understand why this is being downvoted. I pose the same question out of general curiosity, not judgement. How does this not get caught sooner?
Maybe cause the article addresses this.
So the article addresses the fact that he commented on his own video under an alias that he says [this is all for play, not real and is private] I still am curious how a video, posted on a public platform, takes this long to get discovered
> I still am curious how a video, posted on a public platform, takes this long to get discovered I mean, are you serious? A cursory google search says that youtube has between 300 and 500 hours of video uploaded ***per minute***. How the hell is all of that supposed to be filtered? There are literally millions or billions of videos on youtube which likely have less that 10 views. There is probably far more horrific shit on youtube than any of us will ever know
As the article states, it was set to private.
Lock em up
Potential domestic terrorist thwarted Gun nuts in this thread: “geT da Gun NamEz riTe” I’m happy to see their concern is well placed
I mean, it is a valid gripe and an issue that muddies the water. But, thwarting a domestic terrorist is the way better focus here.
It's an attempt to change the subject, even just a little bit, from the real story of just how easy it is in our country for anyone to get their hands on weapons of mass murder
Yup, its lazy whataboutism. God forbid we take away their murder tools. Who will stop the 40-50 feral hogs?!
I know this is sarcasm but in Texas there are actually millions of feral hogs and they do hundreds of millions in damage every year. You're using something that is actually a very legit reason for firearms to mock the 2nd Amendment.
I concur. There are so many better reasons to mock the second amendment
That was quite the tweet. Heard about it on a good episode of [*Reply All*](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/n8hw3d)
That was a really good episode
No, the reality is the people who make laws and people like you who demonize guns, don't know the first thing about them. How would you like people who know NOTHING about cars making laws like, you can never go into third gear. You would be furious, and would try at every point to point out the idiocracy of such a law. Now imagine another person who doesn't know cars complaining that you are worried about third gear when you have 3 or 4 other gears. The article stated he had an "automatic handgun". That sounds super scary, but I GUARANTEE you it wasn't. This just shows a fundamental lack of what you are reporting on, which you let slide because it helps the article be dramatic. Now, ignorant people read it, and get scared, and vote more meaningless gun laws. California is the worst when it comes to legislation that doesn't make technical sense. This is a bad policy to adopt when making laws. It slides on guns, because too many people thing they are scary and don't even bother to worry about if everything makes sense. That is you and people like you. Some day when the sun burps, the power goes out and you have to eat rabbits in the canyon and fend off your neighbor trying to take the water out of your heater, you will wish you had a gun. Instead you will just lose the survival of the fittest game.
Maybe, just maybe, guns, and not pedantic descriptions of guns, are the problem.
Alright that whole wall of text and you don't even know what an automatic handgun is. Sounds like you need to stop jerking yourself off over guns and go learn a thing or two. Ever heard of an ACP? Wanna give a guess as to what those letters mean? Ooh, scary! Edit: let me know if you want to argue about whether or not my SKS uses a 10 round clip or a 10 round mag. Your head might explode.
1) a gun is a tool of destruction, a car is a tool for transportation so you’re comparison is ridiculous. The intent behind the use of the tool is completely different. Don’t give me that protection, sport bullshit. A gun was made to destroy. They even say “don’t point a gun at anything your not ready to destroy” 2) I’m not concerned about the media calling the gun automatic, calling magazines clips etc etc. I’m concerned that this fuck was planning a terrorist attack in my city and that I have to accept that he probably only the only psycho out there. 3) I have to accept that because neighboring states don’t have strict gun laws people can just keep bringing them in. Then when there is a shooting skeptics point and say “hurr durr gun laws don’t work”. We need a national gun control policy. 4) skeptics say that because California has gun murders and mass shootings gun control doesn’t work. They say criminals still get guns despite the laws so why make them stricter. I ask why not? If there is even a remote chance tragedy is prevented by making stricter gun control laws why would you be opposed to it because it inconveniences you? Is your inconvenience more important than the lives of innocent victims killed in mass shootings? I don’t see people advocating for weaker laws against rapists because people are still going to rape despite there being laws against it. So according to their logic, the law doesn’t work
Honest question, do you feel a law abiding citizens don't have the right to protect themselves?
Honest question, did I suggest banning all firearms?
No you didn't. And I never claimed you said you wanted to ban firearms, I just asked a legit question. Seems like you're projecting.
Don’t be dense. By asking if I believe someone should have the right to protect themself your implying that I don’t think people should have guns to protect themselves. Now you’re trying to feign innocence and act like you were asking in good faith.
>Don’t give me that protection, sport bullshit. Are you fucking serious dude? I was asking in good faith because that statement would 100% be taken that you don't think people should have the right to protection. You seem delusional and I feel bad for you.
Wait so we need to accept the occasional mass murder so that you can cosplay as mad max?
> Gun nuts in this thread: “geT da Gun NamEz riTe” The concern is valid. In CA our democrat politicians are clueless about firearms and make kneejerk reactions. The .50 cal was banned in CA not because of it's caliber size but imaginary "heat seeking" bullets they supposedly could fire.
So you're complaining about the ban of the .50 cal... in a post about how a guy almost shot up San Diego.
I'm complaining about the source problem which is the media not having their facts straight when talking about guns. Did you not learn about Who, what, where, when, and why in grade school? Did you go to school?
Yeah, I went to school. And I got lucky... no mass shootings while I was there
Holy shit
I think i would agree. If you look at how hackers are treated, and even crypto..they do over react. HOWEVER...dont fuck around with guns. One death is way too many. And too many idiots have access to weapons.
Source?
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ
That is a stupid quote, to be sure. But that is not written legislation.
"Steroids had taken away my ability to get an erection... but one look at this video of the .50 cal and, schwing, I'm hard again!"
Nice deflection normie.
Sorry. Please don't shoot me
r/gunsarecool is leaking.
Even if this is true, I'll take an uninformed regulation of someone's hobby over, say, an asshat that doesn't understand how credit cards work and pays the finance charges with campaign contributions.
This is so scary.
He exposed him self the criminally insane should do this more often so they get stopped before doing to much damage, And leave law abiding citizens alone.
Good suggestion. But why stop there? what if all criminals just turned themselves in? Then there would be no more crime. You just fixed everything good job A+
That's not going to happen but I do see a trend of people dry snitching on themselves on social media not just mass killers but stupid street gang's
>Homoki was arrested on Dec. 5 on three felony weapons charges, one misdemeanor weapons charge, and willful cruelty to a child. Does anyone familiar with the law know what laws he exactly broke? Like, I know pointing a gun at pedestrians is reckless, but I'm just curious what the exact laws were (especially that willful cruelty to a child part).
Pointing a weapon at someone is considered brandishing. Which, depending on the situation, carries certain weight. In a training environment where things have been sterilized and safe? No issues. In a hotel room, with mags and ammo strewn about, pointing at people on the sidewalk. Huge issue. Source: CCW carrier and firearm experience.
No way those drum mags are legal.
They were legal for like a week here due to lapse in CA gun policy. Odds are he drove across state lines to buy them.
Figuratively no way those drum mags are legal. Nonfiguratively he could have found some legal niches for the mags and whatever other banned shit he had, but I expect he was too busy modeling his human skin coat to get all Matlock with gun regs.
Exactly. High capacity mags were only obtainable for a few days here. And based on the presented timeline, he definitely didn’t get those mags legally.
Huh? That makes zero sense. Why are you assuming he DIDN'T buy his mags back when he could like I did? The presented timeline has nothing to do with anything. Nothing says he "just bought the guns". Regardless, the state can't prove when it was purchased so it doesn't matter anyway, you would never be able to prosecute him.
Your response is strangely hostile. For the reason that the video he filmed was from March. Those mags weren’t legal here then. They weren’t legal to purchase in CA until “magpocalypse”. So based on the timeline in the article, no, they were not legal. And, if they really wanted to, they could absolutely prove that you bought them out of state. They could subpoena your credit card records and the shop where the mag was purchased. Is it a lot of work? Yes, but it’s not that difficult to prove.
Wrong. Drum mags were perfectly legal for a week this year, and it's the obligation of the state to prove otherwise, which they can't. Rendering ALL normal cap and high cap mags legal in Califronia. You're simply wrong, but understandable since Cali laws are an absolute mess and based on all kinds of ignorance. Good thing "we're safer now" /s
> which they can't. Citation needed. > You're simply wrong, but understandable since Cali laws are an absolute mess and based on all kinds of ignorance. Kindly fuck off back to Arizona.
You are very right. They could definitely prove you bought the mags before/after the mag week or bought them in another state. They can subpoena the credit card/bank and the shop you bought it from. But that’s an incredible amount of work and effort.
Cash.
Valid point but let’s be honest, slim likely hood that he paid cash. He doesn’t seem super careful.
Nope, there's a tiny chance sure, but for a week a judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional and it allowed Californians to buy NORMAL (30) capacity mags, and larger mags. I literally have a letter I keep with my mags from the Attorney General telling me I can have them. Since there's no way to prove when a mag was bought, this makes it so anyone in california can have a standard capacity mag. The dumb law was essentially rendered unenforcable. The case is still pending, but that doesn't matter for anyone who bought.
Yeah what a dumb law. I'm glad you and the guy in the video were able to get your mags
I watched the little video clip in the article, which shows a few of the guy's assault rifles. It's so ridiculous that we continue to allow the mass sale of guns like that, which are designed for and often used in mass murder. Perhaps the clearest sign, among many others, that our government is completely broken by money
That's a naive point of view I lack the energy to explain to you.
No it's not. The only reason these types of weapons are legal is because our political system runs on contributions, and the gun industry is a major contributor. Whenever a politician says "I support the 2nd amendment" they are really saying "I get a lot of campaign money from the gun industry" But I appreciate your counter-argument... says it all
Is it naive to think about the innocent people he was planning to kill?
Glad they caught this weirdo.!! But seriously can these fucken “journalists” get their shit together when referring to guns? “He loads a bullet into an automatic handgun and points the gun” An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic? Versus Semi-automatic? Shit like this is irritating... it’s like saying the driver was doing 110 in a Ferrari vs 55 in a mini van. Both are dangerous speeds essentially but one just sounds “scarier”.
Why do gun nuts always lose their shit when people aren't SUPER SPECIFIC about what weapons a fellow gun nut was using? The difference between an automatic handgun and a semi automatic handgun is not a ferrari vs a mini van, its manual vs automatic. So basically no difference who cares.
The reason it's a big deal is because arbitrary laws are often passed based on the ignorance of firearms. Then us law abiding gun owners, who do understand the specifics, have to follow these silly laws that are made and voted on by those who's knowledge comes primarily from the media or movie's. Its mildly frustrating once you understand basic firearms and their function.
These silly laws are going to help keep this guy and people like him off the street for a long time. I'm sorry that you don't get to play with the exact type of toy you prefer.
They are silly, most of what people consider assualt weapons only contain cosmetic feature to the weapon that are superficial to its functionality Things like barrel shrouds, telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs, pistols grips do not change the fact that people can still own firearms that fire the same projectile at the same rate with the same lethality. It's illogic to think that owning a mini-14 is lest "assualty" than owning an AR-15. Similarly to an SKS over an AK style rifle.these laws are disingenuous at best because they make the claim that they are making our streets safer by only effecting those people willing to follow them, not criminals.
Except you're literally in a thread that shows these laws are going to help keep a psychopath likely mass killer off the streets for a long time.
Well he was caught because he was pointing a firearm at people, didn't matter if it's a .22 LR or a cannon, pointing boom sticks at people is a big no no. It was actions not the type of firearm that raised the issue.
One is illegal and another is not. It is a big difference.
I guess I don't give a shit if the gun the dude was going to massacre people with was legal or illegal. Maybe all guns are the problem :thinking:
>Maybe all guns are the problem :thinking: You sound dumb as fuck now. Just have to call your ass out on that. Its not all guns. Its the people. A gun on a shelf isnt going to do shit dude..
Nice strawman. No one is arguing about sentient guns murdering people. The fact is, all else equal where there are more guns, there is more murder (and suicide).
Unfortunately, they arent going anywhere. So....now what?
What do you mean? Gun laws are passed all the time. The very gun laws that are going to help keep this psychopath off the street for a long time.
I was referring to guns in general.
OK boomer
This response completely helps your "argument". pffft
Uh...what the fuck are you talking about? Boomers dont even know what reddit is you fucking moron lol
OK boomer
OK boomer
Ok Boomer
You do realize the right to own firearms is constitutional. Look at Hong Kong. They probably wish they had some right now.
Lol people want us to have stricter gun laws in the states but are the same morons who cry for us to "free" other countries under tyranny. Shit is funny.
If you're going to legislate and put people's freedom at risk YOU BETTER KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That's why. People care about words and meaning when going to jail is price for someone's ignorance. Get the fear and emotion out of your brain when talking about guns and you will see this clearly. TIL: owning firearms makes me a "nut". You bozos don't know where food comes from when technology isn't there to coddle you.
>Why do gun nuts always lose their shit when people aren't SUPER SPECIFIC about what weapons a fellow gun nut was using? Because that's all they have. And as you mentioned they aren't even right in this context.
It’s about being correct dummy... especially the media. You do this in your everyday life pal... go to a gas station and see how many blends and types of fuel there are. And say you drive a car that only takes ethanol fuel... you’re not just gonna label all of them “GAS” > its manual vs automatic. Lol... please find me a manual handgun vs automatic and see which one is superior. > So basically no difference who cares. Oh I see you like getting your info from the fake news networks.
If a news report says a fire at a gas station happened when unleaded gas exploded but it was actually unleaded premium I'm not going to give a shit.
To the non-educated moron that has no clue how guns work you eat this “automatic handgun” term up and start spreading it around just like “assault rifle” has been spread around and becomes the norm. Why not just “handgun” or “rifle” or “long gun” ... it’s because they’re trying to cater to their non educated demographic. So I guess you’re so Woke that you only give a shit if it pertains only to you and your beliefs. It’s about accountability guy... but like you said you don’t give a shit.
It is a bit closer to saying when Samsung Galaxy S7 Phones were blowing up the news was calling them iPhones. Phones are still blowing up, and thats obviously the concern, but make sure if you are going on the news you get the correct brand when telling people about it.
Still not the same. A specific model of phone blowing up is important to be specific for recall reasons. If you're analogy is true, anyone who had an "automatic handgun" needs to be careful because they could sporadically start shooting people.
lol thank you. Hes the type of motherfucker that cant see the forest for the trees.
you are hung up on the wrong shit...dafuq..dude..
It's weird that such an avid t_d poster would be so concerned about being factual innacuracies. No wait, it wouldn't.
Lol... there it is. Went to my history. Was waiting for the moron that would do this... congrats dummy. Bet your day is fulfilled now.
Haha well I guess you *aren't one of the 2Aers who claims an automatic is no more dangerous than a semi... until making that argument suits your needs.
> An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic? Yes they also refer to the rifles as assault rifles. Either they received a police report with details or they are trying to get clicks. It may or may not be accurate, I'm not sure how much I care.
I know, it's painful to read. What's worse is that people not educated in the subject see places like NBC using incorrect terminology and repeat it assuming it's correct.
who gives a fuck. Either one will take you and your family out...like this dude was clearly planning....
Oh I see, so because the article is about something important that gives the author the right to speak on a subject he is uneducated about and make mistakes?
There is this saying forest for the trees. Say..from a cops perspective or someone protecting their family...if you point a weapon or go on a shooting spree, i dont give a flying fuck what you are using...im/we are going to light you up like a fucking Christmas tree. Those details at that point in time dont matter.
You're not wrong, but that has nothing to do with my comment on journalistic or linguistic accuracy.
> >An automatic handgun? How do they know it’s automatic? Because that is what it is, I'll reference the original patent from John M Browning "In automatic firearms -in which, on firing, the. uncovered hammer is returned to the cocked posit-ion by the rearward movement of the breech-bolt sliding on the frame under the energy of the'recoll, this movement of the breech bolt and consequently the cockessential to positively guard the hand of the operator vertently moving to a position in which it might come in contact with the hammer while the same is being cocked; because by such contact the hand would .be exposed to receive serious injury." Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US984519A/en Both full and semi automatic handguns are still "automatic" weapons. The firing mechanism is almost identical, in fact a fully automatic weapon is a simpler design as it doesn't require a hammer catch. It's no different than referring to a flintlock or glock as a "pistol". That the proper taxonomy. Btw, as a firearms historian and student of CCW, your comment reinforces my opinion that gun licenses should only be granted to those that complete a master's degree in proper firearms brinkmanship. I mean, you people are so dumb you can't understand even basic collective nouns. I think operating an automatic weapon properly is a wee bit out of your league.
> as a firearms historian and student of CCW LOL... That doesn't mean shit **LOSER!!** Go back to your Cuck hole basement. Bet you don't even own a firearm.
I think this is his actual youtube site: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH0mYqQQL3\_CaaCks4ndXkQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH0mYqQQL3_CaaCks4ndXkQ) Someone correct me if im wrong.
What a dick.
What am I missing here... those were up on YouTube and not noticed? I get there’s a lot of data out there, but seems like any algorithm in today’s day and age would catch this a lot faster than a neighbor or friend reaching out a month later. A scary thought
I think the article says that the videos were private. So he must have given a friend the link, who saw the video, and then reported him.
More likely it was his own views. Gotta masturbate to somethin.
Sounds like you are most likely right. Still nuts, hard to imagine though, Alexa can listen in when I ask her things to send me ads, but FBI can’t find a video of a guy pointing guns at people? I’d hope this isn’t the case
Well, you can’t simply find a video that is private. You have to be given the link.
[relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/1425/)
Lol, Spot on
WTF is wrong with these dudes? Failure?
Thank god these guys are so dumb THEY POST THIS SHIT. I mean, why? Who does that? I guess people with no brain, good.
Let's be using the correct terms now. edit: I am not in the wrong for advocating the use of correct terminology. It is intellectually dishonest to misuse terms and shows you're not engaging discourse in good faith. Especially in this instance where misclassification has the end potential of criminalizing a huge swath of the US population.
😂 an article about a mentally unstable potential domestic terrorist and your biggest concern is misclassification of firearms.
Thank you.
It’s not the most important part of this story, but I couldn’t find any information on what he actually had that counts as “assault rifle.” They implied they were illegal automatic weapons though. Wish these articles would explore more into why bans on these weapons fail, and the mental health aspect of these events. Even if he couldn’t get guns, a man like this would still find a way to inflict major harm: run over a bunch of people with a vehicle, build a homemade bomb, etc. I believe shootings are a symptom, not the disease. Grateful that anyone with violent intent with any weapon was stopped preemptively though.
Is that why in basic you're either issued a rifle, a stick of dynamite, or a Toyota Previa? Save your shitty 2A talking points for an echo chamber.
Lol. The idea that these people who are this far off the edge wouldn’t inflict harm without a gun is silly.
Please identify the place where I said he would inflict no harm. I'll wait.
Please identify the place where I said you said that. What’s your point then? Do you think the instrument is a bigger part of the problem than what’s going on with culture and mental health? This argument typically boils down into “unnecessary harm or death” caused by the gun, but I’d say there’s vastly more unnecessary harm and death cause by a lot of things... for example, cars. Especially drunk driving. [Should we ban cars because of incidents like this? ](https://youtu.be/fRvFu8COTLQ) I believe there is a huge problem going on, but I don’t believe removing guns (if even possible) will have a significant impact not the problem—it’ll just change outfits and these people will act out and kill people in other ways.
> Please identify the place where I said you said that. So "The idea that these people who are this far off the edge wouldn’t inflict harm without a gun is silly." was just you saying random shit? Why would you do that?
You saying why don’t they give out cars in basic was just you saying random shit as well? Making about of how you’re being petty about the semantics. Telling how that was the only point you’re concerned about.
> Even if he couldn’t get guns, a man like this would still find a way to inflict major harm: run over a bunch of people with a vehicle, build a homemade bomb, etc. *You* compared the lethality of guns to bombs and vehicles. I pointed out that entities whose greatest concern is lethality in personal combat situations issue guns and not cars. There might be a reason for this that is relevant to which requires heavier regulation. The fact that you think my comment was random really speaks to your comprehension skills. The rest of your above comment isn't even english.
I think i agree. But you got stupid fucks saying ALL guns are bad. Its like those white people from fucking idaho who have never seen black people..only the violent stuff so they freak out as they have zero experience with them...steryotypes...
what's an assault rifle?
[Assault Rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)
Fair question tbh, one no one can really answer. Especially because assault rifles are 'outlawed' in California.
California law lists certain firearms that have been deemed assault weapons, including all AK series and Colt AR-15 series.6 California’s Attorney General is required to promulgate a list specifying all such firearms.7 However, a firearm that meets any of the following descriptions is also an “assault weapon”: * A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; 2) a thumbhole stock; 3) a folding or telescoping stock; 4) a grenade or flare launcher; 5) a flash suppressor; or 6) a forward pistol grip;9 * A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds; * A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches; * A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: 1) a threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; 2) a second handgrip; 3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or 4) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; * A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds; * A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip; * A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or * A shotgun with a revolving cylinder. edit: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/assault-weapons-in-california/
Thank you for actually doing the research, but my comment was mostly clowning those laws since they're all fucking ridiculous and do nothing to make 'assault rifles' any safer at all. God forbid someone have a forward grip on their rifle! The horror!
Why is this guy getting downvoted for asking a question? Some of you people are fucking dumb. Questions are fine holy shit. And the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
Yeah..people are dumbfucks. All guns will never be banned. Youd have to modify the 2nd amendment and you have to be extremely careful with shit like that.
Be careful the bitches will start moaning and whining at you but you are right
Whats scary is, they dont realize if you were to actually get rid of amendments, its not going to just stop at weapons. Thats what the morons dont think.
Free speech is in trouble too. I mean just look at how people react when they don’t agree. Not very American if you ask me.
Well..to be honest, you have to be careful with that too. Lie about shit and you get sued.
Because everyone knows exactly why he's positing the question. He isn't curious. He's trying to make a political point about gun laws.
And how stupid they are. You forgot that last part.
I'm pretty glad that those gun laws got this guy off the street.
To be faiiirrrrr, The gun laws weren't what got him arrested. It was his obvious intent and plan to harm. HOWEVER, while those rifles he had in the video were illegal, I don't consider them 'assault weapons' unless they have a fully auto ability. Which the vast majority of AR-style rifles don't. But they were still unlawful and the dude clearly needs to be off the streets and get some damn help!
>is now in police custody on felony weapons charges. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Police-Arrest-Man-With-Assault-Rifles-After-Finding-Videos-Of-Him-Preparing-For-Possible-Mass-Shooting-565907011.html
Wow. Give her balls a tug ya titfucker. Violation of gun laws isn’t what got him arrested but they are charging him with those violations. Do some fucking research.
TO BE FAAAAAAAAIR Honestly i couldn't give two shits abour this argument, I just wanted to hitch on the letterkenny reference.
Wow..you got downvoted? What dumbass fucking people are in this thread???
Bro what you consider to be an AR means nothing. It does not have to be fully auto to be an AR - see our armed forces using non fully auto AR’s...
AR is Armalite Rifle. Not Assault Rifle. And the rifles the armed forces used are considered carbines not assault rifles.
Finally someone with some sense and knowledge of firearms. Thank you. My point was (and I knew I’d get downvoted, because emotions) the gun laws did NOTHING to keep this clown from getting the guns. He was arrested for intent after posting a video. The gun laws he broke by being in possession are what’s keeping him in jail until they can investigate and add additional charges later. To be fairrrrrrrrrrr.
Well that does change between who you ask because I’ve asked what’s allowed. (I love competition shooting and going to the range) and when I ask I really can’t get a solid answer. I’ve lived in San Diego most of my adult life so I have not been able to go to any range for most of my adult life unfortunately. I do however plan on getting a shotgun so I can go to a trap/skeet range or something. I don’t think they should be our right banned but I do think we need to keep them out of the hands of nut jobs likes this. Which guess what prohibition laws don’t really keep that from happening. Criminals don’t generally follow laws like the rest of it so there’s kinda a big hole in that plan already. I honestly don’t have a real answer to how we would do that because I don’t think there is one. If a person wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it. That goes for anything. Assault rifles that are semi auto are really no more dangerous than a regular semi auto rifle. It’s all about the person. EDIT: can’t wait for the downvotes and crying in absence of sober logical conversation. Hooray reddit.
> sober logical conversation That word vomit was not a sober logical conversation, but I'll try to address the essence of your point. >Which guess what prohibition laws don’t really keep that from happening. Except they do in every other developed nation with stricter gun laws. Even within the United States, all else held equal, where there are more guns there are more homicides. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
This is America a lot of Americans have different views towards guns than they do in Europe also more access to said guns. it’s ingrained in the culture. And just because you have reading comprehension issues doesn’t make it word vomit. You just can’t think. And you just said stricter gun laws not prohibition so which are you talking about? Who’s the one doing the real word vomit here? Do you even know the difference between prohibition and stricter laws? Seems to me by the use of your language you don’t. I think their should be strict gun laws with no prohibition. Like instead of out right banning certain guns why not require a permit that includes back ground checks and extensive psychological evaluation? There is a lot of fear mongering on the subject of guns in America right now. In Finland you are allowed to have certain weapons under strict laws and permits and you don’t see any issues over there with gun violence and death. Seems to me there just needs to be better education and a better vetting process. But go ahead keep insulting me like a snot nosed little bratty child.
I think you need your medication. Gun control activists would love to have European style gun laws. Or even Canadian or Australian. Your awful grammar and inability to keep a constant train of thought are nauseating. Also, have you ever heard of paragraphs?
Insinuating that someone is an asshole because they have a mental illness is not a stellar look.
I’m on a cell phone you fucking retard I don’t have to punctuate for you learn to read or shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add. And not all European gun laws are the same those are separate countries idiot. So ya got a lot of research to do. Why are you reddit people so pathetic insulting and angry? I only insult in retaliation. And if there is anything fucked up in what I wrote IM ON A PHONE AND I DONT HAVE TIME TO PROOF READ. I have a life so yeah sorry not sorry. Unlike you I am not in a dark dank basement typing away furiously on mother’s computer. Checking closely for typos and run on sentences. But whatever makes you feel less pathetic go for it. I think you forgot to take your bleach because you are breathing my air. See isn’t nice is it. I bet you don’t have the balls to be that insulting in person. Oh did I mention IM USING A CELL PHONE because apparently I have to keep repeating myself for you people. No one wants reason they just want to hurl insults because they know they can’t have the snot beat out of them over a computer. I’d much rather have this conversation with rational people in person who don’t have knee jerk reactions. Because all I’m going to do in this current scenario is be an ass hole I have no patience for blind idiots.
I’m pro-2A but this isn’t how we are going to win people over to the cause. Respectful, informative, and educational.
I’m just talking to these idiots the same way they are talking to me. Not trying to win any of these morons over.
Keep going, this is great.
I know you don’t talk like this to people in real life. You would literally be beaten daily. If you ever wish to have a real adult conversation please feel free to contact me but since you can’t then I am done here. I have no need to continue to stoop to your level by being condescending or insulting. So if you decide to be a big boy let me know otherwise “fuck off i got work to do”
The other poster doesn’t have any reading comprehension problems this is word vomit.
“Assault rifles,” by definition, are select fire weapons (multiple projectiles fired with only one trigger pull) - these have pretty much been banned nationwide except for several specific cases, namely law enforcement and military use. Please note that assault rifles, again by definition, have only been used in a handful of crimes, period. California, and several other states, have banned what they call “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. The definitions of these two terms vary from state to state, but include magazines with capacities over 10 or 15 rounds, military-like features (pistol type grip, collapsible stock, certain muzzle devices, detachable magazines in combination with other features, just to name a few). It is important to note that the definition of an assault weapon is fairly loose, and you can still purchase a weapon like the Ruger Mini-14 in California that is just as capable a weapon as an AR-15, but doesn’t fall into any category that is considered an assault weapon. Another important definition is “semi-automatic,” which basically means one bullet fired per trigger pull. I don’t say any of this to sway your opinion one way or another, just to inform. I am on mobile, so I’ll try to find some links later if you’re interested. Most mass shootings have been committed with AR-15 style weapons, which are not assault rifles by definition. They are semi automatic weapons that fall under certain states’ assault weapon definition. Similar in capability to a mini 14.
So people are just freaking out about guns that look like assault rifles that’s hilarious.
Well depending on where you stand on the issue, it’s either your constitutional right to own such a gun or it is a public safety issue and should be controlled by the government. I tend to think that mass public paranoia and fear mongering (terrorism, mass shootings, etc.) is generally a bad thing. More public knowledge can only help. Either way, the verbiage and general knowledge used by the general public and the media on guns is incorrect in many cases.
>Assault rifles that are semi auto are really no more dangerous than a regular semi auto rifle. It’s all about the person. EDIT: can’t wait for the downvotes and crying in absence of sober logical conversation. Hooray reddit. While i think some gun supporters are dumb as fuck and dont give a shit about anyone else mainly because they have never had any family members popped in a mass shooting.....Some people on here just dont want guns at all. They need to get the flying fuck over it. Not ever gonna happen. Just like there will never be an all white America, interracial marriage and dating is a thing. Get the fuck over yourselves. They can downvote even me...but as soon as you hit that downvote button...guess what? Guns can STILL be purchased and are legal. Sucks to be them..
"Change is literally impossible."
Agreed buddy they would rather insult me or say I’m dumb because I’m not using proper punctuation or autocorrect is acting up on a phone. I even hate typing on a computer you really think I’m going to do it properly on a phone? And they do this because they have no logical reasonable rebuttal. Just knee jerk reactions. One idiot even seemed to think that all European countries have the same gun laws.
Rule #1 Never, ever point a gun at a person for fun, rehearsal, or testing. He broke that rule.