Harris and Walz Announced Assault Weapons Ban, Not Gun Ban, During Rally

When a fact checker must make up false claims to fit their preferred facts then the result is nothing more than propaganda.  Snopes is now deliberately attempting to influence the election with lies.  But that's not unusual for the unbiased liberal press.

So, it’s not propaganda to call it only a “gun ban” and leave out the “assault weapons” part?

So, it’s not propaganda to call it only a “gun ban” and leave out the “assault weapons” part?

Since the term 'assault weapons' encompasses more than actual assault weapons then, yes, Harris and Walz are talking about a gun ban.  The term 'assault weapon' originally described specific military firearms and not civilian arms.  Politicians, particularly Democrats, have appropriated the terminology and misapplied the terminology for emotional appeal.  

They call it “an assault weapons ban.” That is inherently, on its face, limiting. So, simply referring to it as “a gun ban” is incomplete, at best, and arguably misleading. Considering the NRA is the source, I would guess the misleading part was intentional.

the term 'assault weapons' encompasses more than actual assault weapons

That’s a pretty unclear, and circular statement. The central issue with any of these proposals is defining what is meant by the term “assault weapon.” A conversation about it is impossible without everyone agreeing on the definition. You don’t get to say with authority that a given weapon is - or is not - an assault weapon just because Nerm - or anyone else - says so.

And this is not a big stumbling block, either. Virtually every legal term gets defined in a statute - or it should, at any rate. Getting bogged down in what is or isn’t an assault weapon is a disingenuous deflection. “Assault weapon” means whatever the law says it means. All other definitions are irrelevant. What matters is the specific qualities of a weapon we think we need to control.

That’s a pretty unclear, and circular statement. The central issue with any of these proposals is defining what is meant by the term “assault weapon.” A conversation about it is impossible without everyone agreeing on the definition. You don’t get to say with authority that a given weapon is - or is not - an assault weapon just because Nerm - or anyone else - says so.

Then why did the fact checker need to add the descriptor 'general' to broaden the claim of a gun ban?  Apparently the fact checker wanted the claim to fit the preferred talking points.  That is how propaganda works.

There's no denying that assault weapons, by any definition, are guns.  So, banning assault weapons would, indeed, be a gun ban.  Claiming that Harris/Walz advocates a gun ban is not an exaggeration or falsehood.  The only way to artificially create a falsehood is to embellish the claim by exaggeration.

And this is not a big stumbling block, either. Virtually every legal term gets defined in a statute - or it should, at any rate. Getting bogged down in what is or isn’t an assault weapon is a disingenuous deflection. “Assault weapon” means whatever the law says it means. All other definitions are irrelevant. What matters is the specific qualities of a weapon we think we need to control.

After all the spin, a gun ban is still a gun ban.  And Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are promising voters they will deliver a gun ban.

Then why did the fact checker need to add the descriptor 'general' to broaden the claim of a gun ban?

I hope you appreciate that I am not the writer, so I would need to speculate.

As I said above, the NRA left out the “assault weapons” part. They declared the ban would be against “commonly owned weapons.” Now “commonly owned” is conveniently vague and subject to interpretation, but factually, the most commonly owned firearms are handguns.

The NRA, in recent decades, has become infamous for its dogmatic reactions to virtually any proposed firearm legislation. So, trying to manipulate people into fearing the proposed legislation would be SOP for them.

And it worked. Consider these replies:

so we can end up like the UK? I do not think so

A vote for these two means you have no interest in owning any type of firearm.

Everything can be an assault weapon

There are more that are similar. There are also several pictures of guns, and virtually none of them are what I think most people would consider an assault weapon - shotguns, revolvers, etc. Clearly, the responders are thinking about a general gun ban. What are the chances they just absorbed the headline and ignored the video? Pretty good, I’d guess.

Now the authors do reference the comments, so it’s clear this is relevant to them, and probably why they felt it necessary to clarify that there is no general gun ban being proposed.

There's no denying that assault weapons, by any definition, are guns.  So, banning assault weapons would, indeed, be a gun ban.

So since I have speculated on why I think Snopes took the approach they did. Perhaps you can explain why the NRA - and you - are happy to minimize the specificity of a proposed “assault weapons” ban.

Because you seem like you’re trying to have it both ways. You demand only an exact quote from Snopes, but if the NRA paraphrases, that’s just fine.

As I said above, the NRA left out the “assault weapons” part. They declared the ban would be against “commonly owned weapons.” Now “commonly owned” is conveniently vague and subject to interpretation, but factually, the most commonly owned firearms are handguns.

They would be banning commonly owned weapons. There are more than 24 million so called assault style weapons in public hands. Justice Sotomayor recognized them as commonly owned guns. By any definition of the word, they are common. Therefore, it is a gun ban. 

Further, the distinction "assault weapon" is a propaganda ploy. Every firearm in history was an assault weapon as their intended purpose was always first military and civilian use secondary. This isn't sophistry or splitting hairs. The military was always the driver behind advances in firearms. Hunting rifles are simply military rifles modified for civilian use. The same goes with so called assault weapons. They, too, are modified for civilian use, in that they do not have any mode of fire other than semi-automatic, whereas military firearms are actually assault weapons, having more than one fire mode in most cases. 

So since I have speculated on why I think Snopes took the approach they did. Perhaps you can explain why the NRA - and you - are happy to minimize the specificity of a proposed “assault weapons” ban.

Speaking for myself, because the specificity shouldn't be there in the first place. Dems are trying to place AR-15 style platforms in the same category as military weapons when they are not. This can be empirically shown to be factual because the military doesn't use AR-15 platforms. They only look alike, they do not function alike. I cannot switch my Bushmaster to three-round burst or fully automatic, for instance. 

Because you seem like you’re trying to have it both ways. You demand only an exact quote from Snopes, but if the NRA paraphrases, that’s just fine.

Again, speaking for myself, the NRA correctly calls it a gun ban because that is what it is. It is Harris and other Dems that are trying to distinguish them as something that they are not. In doing so, they are trying to apply a precise definition for the purpose of their political goals. That would mean Snopes would have to address this more precisely than the NRA would, who simply recognize them as guns. 

Lastly, whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, it is empirically provable that the founders wanted the public to be armed for the purpose of resisting the government should it ever devolve into tyranny. Since so called assault weapons are statistically insignificant in the number of deaths caused by firearms, handguns being by far the greater danger, that they are going after them has no rational purpose except to deprive the citizenry of that ability is a rational consideration. 

They would be banning commonly owned weapons. There are more than 24 million so called assault style weapons in public hands.

In this context, “common” is being defined in whatever way suits the narrative. Does 24 million make it common? Maybe. 

I suspect exact figures are impossible, but I have seen various sources estimating that there are nearly 400 million firearms in the United States, so even though 24 million sounds like a big number, it would only amount to about 6% of the total. Is that common?

But even if we decide it is “common” then so what? Why is that important? Is that a reason to try not to control, restrict, or even ban them? Many things that used to be common no longer are because we decided we would be better off if something changed.

When I was a kid, I don’t think anyone had ever heard of a school shooting. Now that is common. Shouldn’t we take serious steps to do something about that? Shouldn’t even uncomfortable ideas be on the table? I’m not saying that anything Harris is proposing is the answer, but we should at least be willing to examine the issue with an open mind.

Every firearm in history was an assault weapon as their intended purpose was always first military and civilian use secondary.

Sure, but every firearm in history wasn’t cable of killing an entire classroom of children in about a minute. Nor was it capable of killing dozens of concert-goers in moments. It’s just to dishonest to not acknowledge that firearms have evolved to a level of capability that might require some restriction.

Dems are trying to place AR-15 style platforms in the same category as military weapons when they are not. This can be empirically shown to be factual because the military doesn't use AR-15 platforms. They only look alike, they do not function alike. I cannot switch my Bushmaster to three-round burst or fully a

Actual military-only weapons are not the problem - and what we call them is less important than how we define the problem.

It is Harris and other Dems that are trying to distinguish them as something that they are not.

They are distinguishing them as more effective at mass killing, which is true.

That would mean Snopes would have to address this more precisely than the NRA would, who simply recognize them as guns. 

One would have to be deliberately obtuse to characterize all guns the same. And here again, you are another one trying to have it both ways. You want a distinction between what is or is not a proper assault weapon when Democrats are talking, but then you embrace the NRA’s characterization of an assault weapons ban as a gun ban - as if there were no difference.

Since so called assault weapons are statistically insignificant in the number of deaths caused by firearms, handguns being by far the greater danger

So, do you support a handgun ban? I agree that handguns are used in more murders generally, but in recent years, these rifles are increasingly the weapon of choice for maniacs who want to kill a lot of people at once. This wasn’t always the case, but in the last decade or so, they are now in the majority for mass shootings. 

Whatever weapons we look at, shouldn’t we be trying to make these events more rare? Why shut off discussion before it begins?

We ignore the obvious relationship between easily accessible firearms and gun deaths because our desire to have guns invites cognitive dissonance on that point. It’s not dissimilar to the way people ignore what a vulgar, lying POS Trump is just because they want to beat Democrats on Election Day.

I don’t think anyone can rightfully give the definition of what an assault rifle is. most on the left  just see guns as scary and want to ban all of them. 

In this context, “common” is being defined in whatever way suits the narrative. Does 24 million make it common? Maybe.  I suspect exact figures are impossible, but I have seen various sources estimating that there are nearly 400 million firearms in the United States, so even though 24 million sounds like a big number, it would only amount to about 6% of the total. Is that common?

According to Sage Journals there are an estimated 113 million long guns owned by civilians in the US. 22 million are hunting type rifles and 23 million are AR style rifles. The rest is mostly represented by shotguns. If hunting rifles are considered common, then AR platforms are certainly common as well. Any attempt to argue otherwise is disingenuous, else "common" loses any meaning. 

But even if we decide it  is  “common” then so what? Why is that important?

Good question. In fact, it may be THE question. Near as I can tell, you treat this as simply trying to keep deaths down to a minimum, although your reasoning is faulty in my opinion, which I will get to shortly. My perspective is that this is about how much control government should have over its citizens. Why should my rights, and other law-abiding citizens, be restricted because of the actions of a fraction of the population? If we make decisions on such a basis, where will it end? Monetary transactions? If I deposited $10,000 into my bank account today, the bank would have to report it to the government. The scrutiny of the government would be upon me, regardless of the reason. If I were pulled over on a traffic stop and the police searched my car, discovering the $5,000 I was taking to the bank for deposit, they could, and probably would, seize it under civil forfeiture laws without any probable cause. It happens all the time. The reasoning is that because criminals transport cash, anyone transporting cash may be a criminal. And there is nothing we can do about it. Where are you going to draw the line, Tacos!?

When I was a kid, I don’t think anyone had ever heard of a school shooting. Now  that  is common.

While no one would classify it as "common" it happened way more than people think. What has changed is the frequency of such occurrences and the technology of the weapons used. However, stating that AR style platforms make them more likely or that they make such occurrences worse is simply wrong. The only difference between a semi-auto handgun and a semi-auto rifle is that the mag for the rifle tends to be larger. All that means is that the user of a handgun has to switch mags more often, which doesn't take more than a couple of seconds. Considering that most shootings by far are by handguns, going after AR platforms because they look scary doesn't make any sense. 

Shouldn’t we take serious steps to do something about that? Shouldn’t even uncomfortable ideas be on the table?

Yes, we should, but banning guns on the basis of how they look isn't the answer. The real uncomfortable idea is that it isn't the guns, it is the society that produces the shooter. Why is it that the proponents of gun bans do not address that? Banning guns attempts to address the symptom, not the disease. 

More importantly, we already had a gun ban targeted at AR platforms that lasted for ten years. It made no difference to the crime rates. Ask a Dem and all they will tell you is that the data is "inconclusive", which means that it had no effect. 

In reality land, AR platforms have been available to the public since the 60's. Why is it, then, the problem didn't start then? Answer; because it was a different society, then. What's changed? You will probably consider me a conspiracy theorist but the answer is Marxist thought inculcating our educational institutions and the politicians they produced. Look up postmodernism. It explains the Democrat position on nearly everything. There is no objective reality, there is only ideology. 

Sure, but every firearm in history wasn’t cable of killing an entire classroom of children in about a minute. Nor was it capable of killing dozens of concert-goers in moments.

True, but equally true for semi-auto handguns, as we have ample examples of. 

Actual military-only weapons are not the problem - and what we call them is less important than how we define the problem.

Again, I agree. Where we likely do not agree is what the problem is. Apparently, you think the problem is with an inert tool, such as an AR platform. My view is what is being promoted as morality in our society is the problem. I own a Bushmaster AR-15. Owning it does not create in me a desire to go out and kill my fellow man. Nor does it in the rest of the 99.9% of AR owners. If the Sage Journal is anywhere near correct, there are 23 million owners of AR platforms and almost none of them would do anything different than I would. This is inarguable since were it otherwise, there'd be a lot more dead people right now. A lot more. 

What's actually going on is that the Harris and the Dems are simply pandering to one segment of society. The one's who actively want to rely on and be subject to, the government. Essentially, they don't want to grow up. They don't want to be responsible for themselves. They want a nanny state as long as it panders to their desires. 

For those like myself, we recognize that freedom is expensive. We recognize that what we choose to do carry consequences we have to be willing to pay for. We recognize that, even though we are, or should be, free to do as we please, we can't always do so without infringing on the rights of others, and so, limit our freedoms ourselves. 

They are distinguishing them as more effective at mass killing, which is true.

I disagree. They are only more effective within certain parameters. They are no more effective than handguns in school shootings, for instance. This is because schools are confined, close quarters environments. It is debatable as to whether a handgun or a long rifle such as an AR platform would be more effective. Long guns are more effective over large distances than handguns for obvious reasons, but in close quarters, such as a school, there isn't really any reason to choose one over the other. One could claim mag size but they make large mags for handguns as well. 

One would have to be deliberately obtuse to characterize all guns the same. And here again, you are another one trying to have it both ways. You want a distinction between what is or is not a proper assault weapon when Democrats are talking, but then you embrace the NRA’s characterization of an assault weapons ban as a gun ban - as if there were no difference.

I am trying to understand your point but it makes no sense to me. You say I want a distinction when it's Dems talking. That isn't true. I don't care what Dems, or even Repubs, think about the issue. AR platforms are objectively different from military weapons in that civilian weapons do not have any mode of fire other than semi-auto, whereas military firearms have either burst or fully auto modes of fire. The rest is cosmetics. 

As far as I understand, the NRA feels the same way. If so, I don't understand why you think I'm trying to have it both ways. AR platforms are not military assault weapons. Therefore, opposing the Dem insistence that they are is hardly trying to have it both ways. If you believe otherwise, you need to do a better job of explaining why that is. 

Whatever weapons we look at, shouldn’t we be trying to make these events more rare? Why shut off discussion before it begins?

Again, because the weapon isn't really the problem. Rather, what is it about or society that produces the shooters, is. If the Dems want my support on this issue, they first need to convince me that they understand what the real problem is and how they plan to address it. They won't, though, because these shooters are, in my opinion, a result of their decades long policies coming home to roost. 

We ignore the obvious relationship between easily accessible firearms and gun deaths because our desire to have guns invites cognitive dissonance on that point.

Um, sure. Just like some ignore that the original ban on "assault weapons" had no measurable effect on crime, right? Seems to me that is the real cognitive dissonance. 

I don’t think anyone can rightfully give the definition of what an assault rifle is. most on the left  just see guns as scary and want to ban all of them. 

Except bling guns.  The left is attracted to shiny objects.

According to there are an estimated 113 million long guns owned by civilians in the US. 22 million are hunting type rifles and 23 million are AR style rifles. The rest is mostly represented by shotguns. If hunting rifles are considered common, then AR platforms are certainly common as well. Any attempt to argue otherwise is disingenuous, else "common" loses any meaning. 

How many of those firearms are owned by civilian government?  For example, many national parks own rifles of various types for wildlife management; so it's not only law enforcement that owns rifles and shotguns.

Why should my rights, and other law-abiding citizens, be restricted because of the actions of a fraction of the population?

Hey, I don’t like it either. I now have to make a special request and show ID to acquire an over-the-counter cold medicine I have been taking all my life - Sudafed. I take it because I have always had hay fever and sinus congestion issues. But now I have to go through this bullshit and my supply is limited. Why? Because a handful of assholes can apparently use it to make meth. I hate it when assholes make it so we can’t have nice things. But I am at least willing to examine the idea that sometimes a generally applicable restriction is the most efficient solution to a problem.

If I deposited $10,000 into my bank account today, the bank would have to report it to the government. The scrutiny of the government would be upon me, regardless of the reason.

Ok, but you understand why, right? The government is tasked by the people to take on a great many duties, which cost money, and taxes are a thing (see: 16th Amendment). The government is also tasked with monitoring and preventing financial crimes. If the bank ended up cheating you, there would be evidence of the transaction.

People say they want total freedom, but I find they usually haven’t thought through the real-life consequences of that emotion.

The only difference between a semi-auto handgun and a semi-auto rifle is that the mag for the rifle tends to be larger.

I’m sorry, but that is not the only difference. While you can kill a person with any firearm, a rifle is far more effective than a handgun. Ask a roomful of hunters what the best weapon is for taking down deer and you’ll start a big debate about calibers, loads, barrel lengths, stopping power, etc., but handguns won’t be a big part of the conversation. Or, ask yourself why the primary weapon of a soldier is a rifle, when pistols are so much easier to carry, and their ammo is so much lighter. Or ask yourself why police complain they are “outgunned” when they have to match their handguns and shotguns against criminals carrying ARs. 

There are very important differences between a rifle and a handgun.

AR platforms are objectively different from military weapons in that civilian weapons do not have any mode of fire other than semi-auto, whereas military firearms have either burst or fully auto modes of fire.

But this is not a relevant difference any more than the color of the weapon is relevant. Combat weapons are rarely used at full auto. Full auto makes it much more difficult to accurately hit a target, and you run out of ammo in seconds. So in terms of relative functionality, as contrasted with handguns, the differences between a military M16 and a civilian AR15 are insignificant.

If the Dems want my support on this issue

I would say Dems are reacting to dramatic events that are uniquely heart-wrenching - and who can blame them? We should be outraged when people in a church, classroom, or theater are slaughtered.

These are not close to being the majority of murders committed in this country, of course, but they feel like the most intolerable murders. It’s easy to say all lives have equal value, but that’s not really how we feel. Children are more precious to us than gangbangers who mostly kill each other. 

Mass shooting is also a problem that seems like it has different causes or motivations than shootings that are connected to other criminal activity (e.g., armed robbery), and so maybe it has different solutions. We hear all the time “what about all the shootings in [insert name of big city]”? People care about those, too, but I think we are looking at different problems, even though death is an outcome they have in common.

the original ban on "assault weapons" had no measurable effect on crime

There have been many studies on this. “Effect on crime” is too vague a metric. I think it’s fair to say results are mixed.

For myself, banning any particular weapon is not what I would think I would choose as a policy response, but I will at least have the conversation. Too many people are unwilling to even go that far. Right now, we have warring emotions, and not enough analysis.

I think it needs to be much harder than it currently is to acquire and keep a gun. The idea that any random asshole can obtain firearms of unlimited quantity - and virtually unlimited type - with no training, review, or monitoring is insane to me.

At minimum, there should be similar restrictions on civilians as there are on those in uniform. The police or army does not just hand out pistols and rifles to everyone who walks through the recruitment door. Soldiers are trained and tested. When and how they can carry a weapon is limited. Freedom and responsibility should walk hand in hand. If you can’t be responsible, you shouldn’t have the freedom to possibly kill.

 The 1994 assault weapons ban Harris intends to reinstate made it unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

 definitely not true .

during the ban period , it was legal to do all those things, all the so called ban did was increase the price of those already in existence  , existing firearms were grandfathered and still legal , what the companies did was looked at the list of features that made up what the definition of an assault weapon was , and simply started leaving those features off the finished product , thus not an assault weapon , and not illegal for sale or possession , this of course ticked off those thinking it would eliminate those firearms . to be considered an assault weapon and thus illegal it had to have 3 features on a list in the law , not to include being semi automatic or having a detachable magazine .

When i put my AR platform rifle together AFTER the ban expired , i made sure it was ban compliant ,meaning it had none of the listed features that would have classified it as an assault weapon ,  i DID toy with the Cali ban compliant "whale tail grip ( not a pistol grip, one of the features mentioned ) , and opted to go with the traditional pistol grip common to the AR platform , the only feature in the list that could contribute to it being classified as an assault weapon .

 It would take me about 45 seconds to make my AR , ban compliant or none ban compliant .

Now one thing that did become illegal to make or sell , was high capacity magazines , though those already owned were also grandfathered , and thus became like gold if one owned them . they became VERY expensive for 10 years  .

That always gets me, the absolute stupidity over this. The two weapons are exactly the same, shoot the same bullets, have the same semi-automatic rate of fire. Yet under the 1994 assault weapons ban, only one of them would be banned, strictly on cosmetic differences that do not change how the weapon operates.

The two weapons are exactly the same

Well, they're clearly not exactly the same - you can see some of that at glance - but they do share many capabilities and characteristics. The real issue is what would a law against such weapons be trying to achieve? And then, if both weapons are problematic in the same way, they should both be banned. As the owner of a Mini-14 myself, that doesn't thrill me, but I have to admit, it probably should have been included in the original law.

As the owner of a Mini-14 myself, that doesn't thrill me, but I have to admit, it probably should have been included in the original law.

Yep, and that was my point. The "legal" description of what constitutes an assault weapon was mostly cosmetic issues. The only common piece between a Mini-14 and an AR-15 is both are semiautomatic rifles with a detachable ammunition feeding device. 

“(40) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that—

“(i) has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device; and

“(ii) has any 1 of the following:

“(I) A pistol grip.

“(II) A forward grip.

“(III) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.

“(IV) A grenade launcher.

“(V) A barrel shroud.

“(VI) A threaded barrel.

Text - H.R.698 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Assault Weapons Ban of 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

In all fairness, what you posted was Diane Feinstein's last wish list for an AWB before she croaked . there is little to NO chance that , as it sits will ever get passed . 

as it was the 94 AWB , only passed because it had a sunset clause AND it was written in such a way that it was not a "catch all, for every semi auto on the market that used a detachable mag .

 I doubt even the 94 law would get passed today as it was in 94 .

it might be best to also look at what the 94 law stated , not Feinstein's , wish list .

The "legal" description of what constitutes an assault weapon was mostly cosmetic issues.

Yes and no. Features like pistol grips and stocks that are short/adjustable certainly give a different aesthetic, but they also genuinely impact the utility of the rifle. Additionally, while you can mount accessories on the mini, it’s way easier on the AR, and there are many more options for general customization. These features are big reasons why the damned thing is so popular.

"Harris and Walz Announced Assault Weapons Ban, Not Gun Ban, During Rally"

What a human tragedy it is that guns are considered by so many to be so fucking essential to survive in the USA if not just a toy to play with.  I live every day in fear that my son and his family in Milwaukee could be victims and I wish they would move to his home country. 

If God had any love for humanity He would turn every gun into a water pistol. 

Or just bring back Klaatu and Gort.  Gort knew what to do with guns. 

What a human tragedy it is that guns are considered by so many to be so fucking essential to survive in the USA if not just a toy to play with.  I live every day in fear that my son and his family in Milwaukee could be victims and I wish they would move to his home country.  If God had any love for humanity He would turn every gun into a water pistol. 

Aren't there armed police in China?  In the United States, civilian government owns a large number of firearms.  A law enforcement officer may have two or three firearms available; a sidearm, a long rifle, and a shotgun.  There are more than 50,000 law enforcement officers in the US.  And that doesn't include armed security guards (prisons), park rangers, wildlife control, and a number of other public entities that own and use firearms.

The number of civilian firearms in the United States doesn't distinguish between civilian government ownership and civilian private ownership.  That's how the statistics are used to scare people.  And there is no way that any gun control in the US will take firearms away from civilian government.

In China, civilians do not have guns.  Regular police officers do not carry guns.  Bank guards and security guards (such as guarding school entrances or residential buildings or gated communities) do not have guns.  Special SWAT police will have guns.  Armoured car bank delivery guards do have guns - rifles, I saw them delivering money when I was just about to enter a bank.  The military, of course, have guns.  I feel totally safe and secure in the fact that there is no way I, or my wife, or her extended family, or our friends will ever be shot, or even be threatened with a gun.  In all my years here I never heard of anyone wherever we lived here being shot.  However, some Uighur separatist terrorists have used guns, but no longer as they are no longer where they can be a threat to innocent people.  

In China, civilians do not have guns.

According to this source, there are about 50 million civilian firearms in China.  (China ranks third but I do not know if that includes all countries.  Need to look at the Small Arms Survey, link below the chart.)  The Countries With The Most Firearms In Civilian Hands

The cited source for the data is the Small Arms Survey

Bank guards and security guards (such as guarding school entrances or residential buildings or gated communities) do not have guns.

That is similar to the United States.  However, there is a difference between carrying a firearm and having access to a firearm.  Just because the guards do not carry guns doesn't necessarily mean that firearms are not available.

You omitted law enforcement.  China's People's Armed Police is a paramilitary force that performs law enforcement duties.  The PAP have been present for crowd control and to quell riots.  Even the unarmed police in China have been trained in the use of firearms and will have access to firearms.

If so, it sure as hell isn't obvious.  Well, I've known some, and seen many Chinese policemen and none of them carried a gun.  China does have a lot of farmers so I never thought of the fact that many might have guns to protect their crops from wild animals and their livestock from predators, and I know there are a lot of government and civilian rangers dealing with the denizens in the forests who need to carry guns. 

I also note that at the Olympics Chinese athletes won gold in shooting sports, so I suppose there are some guns among citizens that are used for recreational purposes.  You just never hear of people being shot in China (save for the Uighur terrorist separatists). 

But when it comes to ordinary citizens they simply don't need them but one fact may be that the number of people with illegal guns has got to be awfully small. 

Now, I've never been much good at math and you seem to have access to lots of numbers.  What is the percentage of Chinese civilians having firearms as compared with the percentage of American citizens having firearms?  

I did NOT omit law enforcement.  I mentioned Police SWAT teams that would have guns, and probably SWAT teams are what the Chinese call the People's Armed Police.

If so, it sure as hell isn't obvious.  Well, I've known some, and seen many Chinese policemen and none of them carried a gun.  China does have a lot of farmers so I never thought of the fact that many might have guns to protect their crops from wild animals and their livestock from predators, and I know there are a lot of civilian rangers dealing with the denizens in the forests who need to carry guns. 

Well, somebody in China is producing fentanyl being smuggled into the United States.  China has also been a source of opiates smuggled into the US, even if the poppies have been grown in Afghanistan.    

Now, I've never been much good at math and you seem to have access to lots of numbers.  What is the percentage of Chinese civilians having firearms as compared with the percentage of American citizens having firearms? 

That information is available from the Small Arms Survey link.  According to that site, for China there are 3.58 firearms per 100 persons.  Yes, that is quite low but not zero.  And, yes, the US overwhelms the data with 120.5 firearms per 100 persons.  But keep in mind that institutional use of firearms in the US is far greater than other countries, too.  The data doesn't appear to distinguish between public civilian ownership of firearms and private ownership of firearms.  The arsenals of firearms required to support the entertainment industry (TV and movies) are far larger than people realize.  

What does fentanyl have to do with this topic?  Besides, your comment is nothing more than an UNPROVED smear that China is smuggling it into the USA, something that the American government and its poodle media do for reasons obvious to me if not the rest of the world.  

I'm not proud of the fact that so many Chinese civilians have firearms but I've pointed out who they might be in situations that are quite legitimately peaceful.  Are you proud of America's gun ownership numbers?

What does fentanyl have to do with this topic?

Even Chinese criminals will carry guns.  Although I doubt criminals would respond to surveys.

I'm not proud of the fact that so many Chinese civilians have firearms but I've pointed out who they might be in situations that are quite legitimately peaceful.  Are you proud of America's gun ownership numbers?

Pride?  Shame? Emotional response to objective facts?  

I am proud that US history and heritage of gun ownership established a Constitutional government, free society, and a robust economy that has been the envy of the rest of the world.  As we say in the states, freedom isn't free.  

That pride may be incomprehensible to those who disparage national pride.

"Even Chinese criminals will carry guns."

LOL.  More likely knives or cleavers.

Since you've probably never been to China you have no idea about the feelings of the people here.  As a Canadian I have always been proud of Canada, and I bet that if you were to ask one of our members who is Australian how they feel about their country I know damn well what her answer would be.  As for China, I've been here long enough to feel a certain amount of pride about this nation myself, and I'm fully aware that virtually every Chinese person I've met (and I'm sure that after 18 years it has been an awful lot of them) is damned proud of China.   

Now, during my lifetime I've spent a lot of time in America,  I might have spent time in more places in America than even you have, and in fact I've even owned (partners with my brother) a home in America, I used to love America, so I think I can say how disappointed I am with what it's become and what is happening there, and I must say you must have a lot of fortitude to be proud of it. 

but I've pointed out who they might be in situations that are quite legitimately peaceful. 

I would like to point out that even with the number of gun ownership in this country, 99.9% of the civilian owners are legitimately peaceful also. 

I'm neither proud or shamed by the gun ownership numbers in the US. To the vast majority of Americans, a gun is just a tool that they use for peaceful purposes. I've owned several guns since I was 16 years old and not once have I had an unrestrained desire to go out and kill someone. The streets of America are not nearly as bad as Hollywood would portray. There are areas where gun crimes and murders are high but the vast majority of those gun crimes are being caused by criminals who don't follow the law in the first place.

As been stated many times before, this is a people problem. But until the government is willing to do the hard thing and actually try to work on a people problem, there will just continue to be a hue and cry over the issue with people blowing it out of proportion for their own means.

"To the vast majority of Americans, a gun is just a tool that they use for peaceful purposes."

Tell that to the families of the victims of America's gun violence - or do you want to tell me how 'minimal' that is?

Why do you acknowledge that there are many in China who own guns who might be in situations that are quite legitimately peaceful but not give the same accord to the majority of gun owners in the US whose situations are also quite legitimately peaceful? I know many people who own guns who have never misused them or gone out looking to shoot people. 

I can feel for the families of victims of ANY TYPE of violence and hope they get the justice deserved as defined by the legal system, but I won't demonize a group of people who have not done anything wrong.

Just as there could be need for farmers who have to protect their livestock, or hunters in China who legitimately and peaceably may possess guns, I see nothing wrong with the same for Americans, but you know damn well that I'm speaking about the general public and the facts that there are so many more guns owned than there are people and so much gun violence in America, as compared with other civilized nations.  I was my high school's champion rifle marksman but those rifles were not and would never be used to kill or wound anyone.  

She’s already called for a mandatory gun buy back via executive order. 

I don't think she's that dumb to think an EO would give that sort of power. She has to know she would lose the first court battle. That "promise" (I did hear it talked about) is just a campaign promise that will soon be forgotten should she win in November. The standard excuse is already written, "Upon reflection I do not have the power to do that so I call on Congress to pass a bill that I promise I will sign". 

It's an easy campaign promise to make because it's red meat to fire up her believers and honest people know it has very little chance to go anywhere.

ink she's that dumb to think an EO would give that sort of power. She has to know she would lose the first court battle.

But it's an opportunity to attack the Court and call for it's packing. 

Morning...pray tell...what necessitates you needing an assault weapon of any description in the first place in civilian life?

Other than military or wildlife culling..Surely you mob can't be that crook shots...

Mmmm, I think mob is the key word based on recent events.. .

what necessitates you needing an assault weapon of any description in the first place in civilian life?

I tend to think for many people , its not a need to have one , but the fact that they CAN , and the government is supposedly restricted from infringing on the right to do so  without due process. 

 seems i remember , 249 years ago , some government officials decided they didnt want the people to have a storage of powder and shot ( lead) available to the people , so they decided to confiscate it in the name of the government  like they had done in other places , just this time , it didnt work out to well or as planned  and it started a war .

 Now i CAN justify my having some items that would be considered by some contrary to said ban if it ever came about again , which i doubt today would happen like it did in 1994 , its a different world we live in than then .

Arvo Mark..yes I think you are right..just because you can, but don't really need it, people will still go and get it...

It's basically all to late now and even I can see there is no point in trying to even bring in restrictions...

The gun is well and truly entrenched in American life now and people will continue to create massacres much to all your detriment...and that to me is dreadfully sad for all...

All this talk about "gun bans" won't do anything when it comes to those who are actually the problem.  And yes, the PERSON is the problem and not the firearm.