It is disgusting that Democrats in Congress would wear AR-15 pins following an attempt on Donald Trump's life with an AR-15.

Oops, no, I got that wrong. These are the AR-15 pins worn by GOP members of Congress after schoolchildren were gunned down in yet another school shooting using an AR-15.

@augieray Can someone explain to me what AR-15 are good for, what are their purpose? I am a hunter, I spent lots of time getting the permits (in Sweden you need to show that you have the skills and the know-how before you can buy a gun, unless you're a criminal or insane), so I am not oblivious to why one might want a gun. I don't expect hunters to toss the bullets at the deer. I just don't see why anyone would want that particular weapon, if it's not to shoot humans. And that's not legal?

@nemorosa @augieray

> just don't see why anyone would want that particular weapon, if it's not to shoot humans. And that's not legal?

Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people and was acquitted. Shooting people is absolutely legal if you're white and the people you are shooting are black/brown/gay/trans/left-leaning/uppity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse

Kyle Rittenhouse - Wikipedia

@nemorosa @augieray Also, while assault rifles get all the press, the vast majority of firearm violence in the US is done with pistols, which are also only good for shooting people. (I can't lay my hands on the data set right now, but more people are murdered with "bare hands" in this country than with rifles, even with all the highly-publicized mass shootings.)
@d2718 @nemorosa First of all, I think all three men Rittenhouse shot were white. Second, the fact people focus on assault rifles has nothing to do with many they kill in a year but how many they kill in a minute and how they are the weapon of choice in mass shootings.
@augieray @d2718 It takes a long time to kill dozens or more children at a school by hand than with an assault weapon, though. Even I have heard of Columbine, Bath and Virginia Tech.

@nemorosa @augieray I am absolutely _not_ defending assault rifles or advocating for private assault rifle ownership.

I'm just pointing out

a) that, while the overwhelming majority of oxygen expended in the "culture conflict" about firearm ownership is about automatic rifles, if we really want to save lives, handguns should go _too_

b) that the (very reasonable) "they're only for killing people" argument applies equally to handguns, so let's fucking ban them, too.

@d2718 @augieray I'm all for banning stuff that has only one purpose; to harm others.

I am truly worried that the US will tear itself apart. From this side of the Atlantic it sounds like the country is just about ready to rip itself apart. The rhetoric is violent, the speeches spiteful, the headlines fearful. The repercussions will be enormous, imagine what Putin would do if he didn't have to worry about the US?

From here, it looks terrifying...

@nemorosa @d2718 There are crazies on both sides (more on one than the other), and people do histrionically speak of civil war, but most people are nowhere near feeling polarized enough to tear the nation apart. That doesn't mean we won't see some instances and regions with some organized violence, but I still believe most Americans are saner than the headlines suggest.
@augieray @d2718 I hope you're correct, I really do because the alternative scares me.

@nemorosa @augieray I am not so much worried about (unlikely) "civil war" violence so much as (much more likely) state-sanctioned oppressive violence if a combination of the rabid right-wing "culture war" propaganda machine and hand-wringing "both-sides"ing "centrists"* deliver the presidency to Trump and Project 2025.

*My opinion is that these are largely racists or greedy affluent people who are attempting to hide their revolting complicity under some sort of veneer of "reasonableness".