[Hasz]

Because it isn't about CSAM, IMO. You see this with plenty of social issues, notably firearms ownership. The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additional behavioral health services for kids, suicide prevention etc)

The same technology/access used for CSAM identification can find copyrighted files, materials that don't support current government, etc. Full E2E encryption seriously raises the cost of mass surveillance, and why the US government fights it at every turn going back 30 years.

[nativeit]

When did we aggressively legislate against, search for, monitor, investigate, and prosecute owning firearms?

[throwaway17824]

I'm taking a guess at what the OP meant, but people focus on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Supposedly most incidents and deaths are caused by handguns. They're more affordable, and easy to discretely keep on your person. A data-driven policy would focus on them first, but it's easier to rile up the public about AR-15s so we keep doing the less-effective thing.

[MBCook]

Things that feel useful instead of are useful.

We're not allowed to use data or experts. They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us.

[LanceH]

> They’re untrustworthy and out to trick us.

When politics is involved, there is a lot of truth to this.

[timr]

Everyone loves the experts that repeat what they like to hear. The ones that don't are obviously quacks.

[forshaper]

One might wonder about why ceramic plates are controlled in Connecticut or New York.

[philipkglass]

It looks like Connecticut first enacted body armor regulations in 1998, the year after the North Hollywood police shootout with a pair of heavily armed and armored men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...

It's hard to find 1998 news articles about it now, but I would guess that the law was a reaction to this high profile crime.

[forshaper]

Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.

[philipkglass]

California also limited body armor ownership in the wake of that shootout, though a court decision invalidated the law in 2009:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-bo...

The decade-old ban was enacted after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a confrontation between police and two heavily armored bank robbers that injured officers and civilians. The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police.

The law was subsequently revised to pass court scrutiny and reinstated:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates...

[belorn]

When we say that handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, is that normalized towards ownership?

Data and statistics is as always dependent on how and what you measure.

[giantg2]

What I could find was that there are estimated to be about 350-500 million firearms in the US. The closest thing to a breakdown was 30-50 million semi-auto rifles, and probably close to a 60/40 split handgun to long gun over time (article shows trends). Murders per year using rifles and shotguns were less than 600 combined. Handguns accounted for over 6000.

So the number of hanguns is maybe something like 20% higher than long guns, but murders using handguns are 10x higher than with long guns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[belorn]

Rifles are problematic as a single category since that involves hunting rifles. We can look at machine guns as a category that is neither rifle or handgun, and with limited use in hunting.

That said, the death rate of machine gun ownership may still be lower than handgun ownership, with a possible explanation being that it is easier to buy a handgun compared to a machine gun. A further jump into the data would then explore who are the buyer demographic of a handgun compared to a machine gun, and how machine guns compare to handguns in locations where both has similar restrictions on those who buy them.

An other avenue to explore would be to look at purchases of ammunition to determine which guns are actually in use for non-murder purposes. Hunting ammunition for example may show a much more common use than guns used for non-hunting purposes, and thus have a lower murder rate per shot. Machine guns and handguns might share a much more similar profile in that regard, possible normalized towards how much ammunition each use in a target range.

[galangalalgol]

Relatively inexpensive plastic semiauto pistols, ruger is overrepresented, are purchased in small batches by people either pressured into it or who make their living marking them up and reselling to people who couldn't pass the background check. The majority of those sales go through a small number of known registered firearms dealers. The straw buyers are the ones breaking the law, but the dealers who knowingly selling to them aren't. There should be some policy fix, but the best I've seen is a state that limited purchases to 3 per month per person. It drastically slowed the flow into those groups driving up prices as old ones were recovered from crime scenes etc. Money and macro also has a good episode where they talk about how neighborhood beautification worked better than gun control for this type of violence. The scary rifles get used by the mentally ill because they look scary, and the large number of deaths at once combined with the inability to control your risk and the more privileged socioeconomic class of those harmed makes it more visible.

[yonaguska]

Full auto handguns are quite popular now despite being effectively illegal.

[lacunary]

just to be clear, it appears you're making up studies, results and explanations for results all in one go, is that right?

[SuperNinKenDo]

Not to get too off track, but it's actually an interesting case in that it's one of those where weighting for prevalence of ownership wouldn't matter for the purpose of discovering the more effective measure. If you did something to restrict handguns you would prevent more death than restricting other firearms.

Also, not that it has any bearing on what I said, but I'm decidedly pro-gun for any repliers who want to follow up on this tangent.

[inigyou]

If it's weighted by ownership then banning one type of gun would increase the ownership of other types of guns, maybe not solving the problem.

[SuperNinKenDo]

Certainly anyone promoting this as a policy goal would brush over the fact that you stated, and exagerate the benefits. However I doubt everybody owning a handgun would go out and buy a rifle. There is also the likelihood that many situations involving the use of handguns would not eventuate if the person in question had a rifle instead.

But again, I'm not actually in favour of this anyway.

[austhrow743]

Most deaths doesn't necessarily mean most deaths that people care about.

[kelnos]

Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents? If the latter, then I don't think it's odd to go after AR-15-type weapons, which usually end up killing people during mass shooting incidents.

[giantg2]

You can look at the FBI data. Also note that if you are concerned about mass shootings, that more mass shootings occur with handguns than rifles.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...

[zyx321]

Predominantly suicide, actually. Which is committed with whatever is conveniently at hand, and reducing convenience reduces incidence.

[novok]

you could of literally googled it, it's murder

[throw1234567891]

Could have

[antonvs]

> Are handgun deaths predominantly murder, or are they mostly accidents?

Have you met many humans?

[wang_li]

The second militia act of 1792. Though that required you to have a gun. Which in some fashion required monitoring. In modern times many states require you to have a permit to own a firearm and states regularly prosecute people without a license. In Washington state they have laws about safe storage and the police can come into your house to inspect your storage solution without if someone calls them and says you aren’t storing it properly. There’s a constant stream of cases fighting these laws in court. In the 2025-2026 SCOTUS term there were 14 petitions for cert.

https://scotus2a.com/

[kaliqt]

This entire time. It’s a gradient and it has been getting worse annually. But the firearms tracking is only for regular people not criminals, funny that, it aligns with the problem OP outlines: it has nothing to do with helping and everything to do with controlling and subduing those who have the ability to stop them.

[lazide]

New York and California have been haphazardly doing so for decades.

[boredatoms]

Most countries do

[marysol5]

Donald J Trump banned the purchase of bump stocks.

[lazide]

The literal president of the United States is heavily implicated in a giant CSA (and trafficking) scandal.

[kryogen1c]

epsteins case tells you how much the US political class cares about SA and CSA happening in the US.

[ryandrake]

Yea, until at least one non-ringleader Epstein party participant goes to jail, I'm not going to believe the US actually gives a shit about protecting children.

[throwaway85825]

Every president since Clinton protected epstein too, it's not a partisan thing.

[myko]

always with the "both sides" stuff, meanwhile trump literally provided girls to Epstein through Mar-A-Lago

[marysol5]

I always love his defenders who will cite "But he banned him from MAL"

Yes, as in the documents, he kicked him out for "stealing his girls".

Fucking hell

[derektank]

There’s no concrete evidence that anyone besides Epstein (and by extension Maxwell, who assisted Epstein) actually abused children. Besides the testimony of Virginia Giuffre, nobody else has claimed they were sexually assaulted as minors (Sjoberg was groped by Prince Andrew at Epstein’s home when she was in her early 20s). And neither the FBI nor the Palm Beach PD found physical evidence of such or communications between Epstein or others indicating this was going on.

Why would you expect anyone else to go to jail under those circumstances? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt seems very unlikely

[dartharva]

Just in case someone might mistake this comment to imply there wasn't actually a large-scale CSA-as-a-service business happening on his island - FBI has officially declared the number of minor victims to be over a thousand: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl

It was an industrial-scale racket. It is impossible for that kind of number of victims to be just for one person or group's recreation.

[austhrow743]

I think you linked to the wrong document, unless you're taking "Epstein had over ten thousand pornographic videos and images" as "there were over one thousand minor victims" which doesn't follow as a logical conclusion.

[antonvs]

Two quotes from the link they posted:

> The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors

> Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials.

The second quote doesn’t explicitly say “minor victims”, but the whole document is focused on that, mentioning that “One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims.”

[ryandrake]

I'd at least expect there to be an investigation, based on the huge volume of information that already exists. Unless we believe that the files are just 3 million pages of casserole recipes and that the people who visited just went to play Settlers of Catan.

[marysol5]

To be utterly fair, most of the "emails" are just inane conversations he had with people.

People love to throw around the statistics about the number of documents, but most are entirely blah

[cogman10]

> Why would you expect anyone else to go to jail under those circumstances? Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt seems very unlikely

It's actually pretty easy to prove guilt in the US. But it becomes a lot harder the longer the distance from the crime. In particular, witnesses die or leave. Heck, investigators die or leave which makes discovery for the perpetrator even harder on the FBI.

Further, the bar for civil litigation is lower than criminal. The FBI refusing to prosecute means that victims have a very hard time pursuing civil cases even if the FBI were to lose their case. The FBI has way more evidence that a victim can have.

The most non-nefarious but still shitty reason I can think of for why the FBI hasn't gone to trial is because they know each of these cases will be long and expensive because of the perpetrators. That's caused them to collect way more evidence than they would have if this were just a normal person.

Funny how the FBI is only careful and pensive when perpetrators are rich.

[ipaddr]

There is if someone would follow the money trail. Plenty of hard facts to reach a guilty outcome. And over half of the papers haven't been released. If someone motivated comes to power there is a good chance.

[blackqueeriroh]

Where are the hard facts about this? If you know them why haven’t you shared them?

[TheOtherHobbes]

There's plenty of concrete evidence. But - for some reason - Trump's government has refused to release it, defying multiple legal judgements.

[holgerschurig]

The thing is that a society does not always do only ONE thing. You mentioned that there are better ways to protect kids. But maybe they cost more (e.g. banning firearms is dead cheap, while setting up a structure with lots of psychologists specialized in teenager problems is really expensive).

Also you can do one and the other ... at the same time. E.g. suicides of kids/teenagers (<= 19) in Germany in 2025: 216. That is, compared to the population in this age group, 1.38 per 100'000. In the USA that ratio is 9.4 in the age-group 15-19 and 2.3 in the age group 10-14.

And keep in mind, the total deaths by firearms in Germany in 2024 was "just" 168 (we have 1/4th of the US population, in the US police forces alone killed more people ... the total number of 44'000 firearms deaths in USA/2024 is even more staggering). Even if I multiply the 168 by 4 for the population difference ... then 672 vs. 44'000 is still a point of shame for the USA.

So in Germany, we do BOTH better regarding firearms AND regarding health services on kids. And if the USA truly would try MAGA they'd actually copy good results from other countries. So a real-MAGA-person must be against liberal firearms distribution AND for better social health work with teenagers.

BTW, the USA ideology of "the population needs arms to fight a corrupt state" is laughable. When you had your armed religious sects clash with the state, then the state always won. They still have more and better weapons and armor. On the other side, if you look how east-europe shed off their socialist regimes 40 years ago, than nowhere was an armed general population involved. So one can conclude that private firearms may as well be highly regulated and diminshed.

[giantg2]

Banning firearms isn't "dead cheap" if you have 400 million in existence. The enforcement would cost a lot, even if you didn't perform a mandatory buyback program. Germany doesn't have an outright ban on guns, but strict regulation. Running the regulation costs money.

A note about copying - you have to look at the culture to see if how things will work. Germany has vastly different socioeconomics than the US, and socioeconomics are major factors in crime and homicide. Not to mention the percentage of people who own guns and are pro-gun are vastly different. Applying the same regulations in the US will take decades for criminals to no longer have many guns and then they will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK, which has about dowluble the violent crime rate as the US after accounting for differences in the stats (somewhat culturally/socioeconomically similar). So it might make the gun numbers better, but it won't solve the real drivers.

The best approach would be to address the underlying factors and causes of all violence while still allowing freedoms for the 44% who do not support stricter regulation.

[KaiserPro]

> will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK

London, with a population of ~8 million has the same murder rate as new Orleans, which is 300k people. Not as in x murders per 100k, but as in total murders in a city.

In terms of knife crime the USA has a slightly _higher_ rate of knife crime than the UK. Bear in mind the UK counts attacks with knifes as knife crimes, where as the states only appear to include death by knives.

Which means that even if you took away gun deaths (~70% of all us homicides) you're still more likley to be stabbed in the USA compared to the USA.

[giantg2]

If we want to compare cities to New Orleans, then you might as well compare them them to Birmingham. Even with firearms being banned you have a murder rate of 28/100k vs 40/100k. Violent crime between the cities is actually equal at 55/1k.

Yeah, stabbing deaths UK vs US is about half (175/70M UK vs 1600/350M US). But if comparing at the national level, 360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK.

So it really comes down to each person's systems thinking approach and which stats they care about.

[KaiserPro]

> 360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK.

Sorry but 1200 knife deaths per 100k means the annual rate would be 840,000 murders a year.

last year the total number of murders in the UK was ~600 which is .86 per 100k

(far less than the _gun_ related homicides in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-...)

The reason why I was talking about knife homicides specifically is that comparing knife crime between the us and the uk is hard. the UK systematically records crimes where knives are involved at a national level, the USA doesn't really.

But brum has a murder rate twice that of the national average. Even so its not 28/100k its around 1.25/100k which is still just over a quarter of the _national_ gun homicide rate of the entire USA.(~4.3/100k)

The point is, the UK is demonstrably less murderous than the USA. Even the UKs most murderous city is safer than Sanjose, which accordign to the stats I can find has a 3.2/100k murder rate.

[giantg2]

"360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK"

That's the violent crime rate.

I do see the 28 was an error.

Yes, lower murder rate, but higher violent crime rate.

[master-lincoln]

> Applying the same regulations in the US will take decades for criminals to no longer have many guns and then they will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK

That seems like a thing to pursue rather earlier than later if it takes so long to bear fruits. Knives and screwdrivers are at least only used for close-up combat.

>The best approach would be to address the underlying factors and causes of all violence while still allowing freedoms for the 44% who do not support stricter regulation.

To have the money for that you would need abolish capitalism I guess...

[giantg2]

"Knives and screwdrivers are at least only used for close-up combat."

Most firearms murders are similarly close-up.

[mschuster91]

> The claim is we will restrict/license/outlaw xyz for the kids, but really, a data-drive approach would have focused on different things entirely (eg additional behavioral health services for kids, suicide prevention etc)

Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well.

The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government - and yet, what do the most rabid of these people do? Vote in and defend a literal tyrant.

[derektank]

>The only reason why the US is so extremely lax on firearms is because people keep blathering on about how guns are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government

No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution and the constitution requires an extreme super majority to update. A 50%+1 majority is all that’s required to ban civilian ownership of guns in most parliamentary systems, not so in the US. The culture is downstream of the law.

[xethos]

> the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution

The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean firearms. Arms doesn't necessarily even have to include firearms, and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns.

Americans are allowed to have certain firearms, sometimes, in some places. I'm not sure how one squares that with the blanket statement from the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, unless it's simply an impossibly poorly-informed citizenry

[kelnos]

You can personally interpret the US constitution however you want, I suppose, but the only interpretation that matters is that of the Supreme Court. And they have held over and over that 2A includes a right to many different kinds of firearms.

I feel like you're the one who is poorly informed?

(For the record, I am in favor of strong gun control laws, but your statement just ignores reality.)

[modo_mario]

> and America is already pretty damn strict about certain armaments, such as sub-machine guns.

Not one but you're really validating their slippery slope fears and claims there.

[redeeman]

and this is very clearly unconstitutional. "shall not be infringed" is very very plain and simple

[inigyou]

Yep, alongside "Congress shall make no law" which says it's fine for anyone who isn't Congress to infringe your free speech, or for Congress to do it in any way that isn't making a law.

[WarmWash]

The system does not work like that, hah. This is the kind of logic sovereign citizens use..."I'm traveling, not driving, so I don't need a license!"

At the end of the day, judges have the ability to clear away silly logic like that, it's part of their job.

[redeeman]

thats very very obviously not how it works or was intended. then they could just come up with "rules" that are not laws, and then rules say cannot have arms.

all these insane and VERY OBVIOUS attempts to bypass the constitution should result in official doing it be put in jail FOREVER

[myko]

The 2A was created for states to maintain their own troops, what is now the modern national guard - hence "well regulated militia"

SCOTUS bastardized this original intent. It's shameful.

[giantg2]

What you miss is that US Code defines militia as the explicit militia that you mention, but also the implicit militia. That implicit militia includes others not in the national guard.

It's also worth mentioning that most states have similar language to the second amendment, including states whose constitutions were implemented prior to the bill of rights, lending to the credence that this is a right of the people, and not of the state. The 10th amendment was supposed to be for the rights of the states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

[Spooky23]

The more… enthusiastic gun people among us think that the national firearms act (which strictly regulates automatic weapons) is an abomination.

It’s unique in that it’s the only right that aligns with business marketing. Peddling fear, mostly to insecure men, has sold hundreds of millions of guns.

The fetishized nature of modern gun culture killed, in addition to people, a lot of shooting sports and hunting.

[deejaaymac]

What a strange take.

I grew up in a small hunting town (I'm in my early 30s), where most high school boys (most girls didn't hunt, but some did) had a rifle and/or shotgun in their truck, mounted against the inside back of the cab where you could see it plain view.

We had 0 homicides from guns in the 19 years I lived there, there was 1 suicide by gun that I know of.

Many of us grew up hunting to feed our family. This is in Colorado.

I shot my first pistol around the age of 5.

I accidentally went to 7th grade with ammo in my pocket because we were hunting that morning. I went to the principal, he told me just to put the ammo in my locker.

With that being said, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of townspeople more respectful of guns.

It's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem.

Not saying that there's not "insecure men" out there that are the victim of marketing, etc, but a lot of us grew up with guns and see them as a tool.

[lesostep]

My mom grew up in a small town (village? settlement even?) like that (surrounded by nature, lots of hunting, animals can wonder in town) in a country where guns weren't free.

Every family still had a rifle, getting license isn't that hard when you could answer questions about your intentions.

No handguns though, not very useful for self-defense or wildlife. I believe mom made and shot her first arbalest around 6-7 yo though.

Similar cultures, but one of them allows for outsiders to screen potential gun owners, and the other doesn't. Which, I believe, is the point – there always will be mentally unwell or ill-intentioned people. There should be a way for a small town to revoke the trust of allowing weapons in their hands.

[Spooky23]

I think we’re closer than you think. I grew up in a similar place - my school had a rifle and trap team. Great place to grow up. I’d often go out for the first they day turkey season and miss school.

Reality is shooting sports licensing churns significantly and has for many years - the people doing it get older every year. Some of the stats look better becuase many states offer more deer tags to fewer hunters.

There is a huge culture problem. Army LARPing and conspiracy move guns. Legal arbitrage makes the retail channel a haven for smuggling. Marketing lands heavily on that and politics. The sportsman (and often conservationist) is a relic notion.

[antonvs]

> see them as a tool.

Yes, a tool for killing. You’re respectful of guns, but where’s your respect for life?

[marysol5]

>No, it’s because the right to own firearms is very explicitly stated in our constitution

No it isn't, it says you have the ability to form a militia. Not wave a AR-15 in Walmart. It's lobbying by the NRA that has changed the definition.

[phoghed]

Or just a reinterpretation of a single line of the constitution.

[plagiarist]

Oh, SCOTUS doesn't radically reinterpret the Constitution in that direction. Or, perhaps maybe it does, but nobody's bought Clarence the right RV yet.

[wang_li]

No part of Europe has “simply banned guns”. Some countries have stricter policies but it’s possibly to own a gun in every country. Some countries are famous for gun ownership, eg switzerland that expects men to keep their militarily issued gun in the home.

[kelnos]

I'd be a lot more comfortable with gun ownership in the US if we could require every owner to have military-level firearms training and certification.

[eecc]

Well, that was the whole point of the 2A: effective preparedness.

But gun manufacturers ragebaited this exceptionally effective marketing campaign around their products and here’s where you folks stand

[marysol5]

That would require you to actually follow the constitution, instead you've got "Nuh-uh! I don't read the rest of the 2A"

[jaharios]

> Vote in a literal tyrant.

Tyrant? You may disagree with him, but he got in through the system. Now if he doesn't get out that is another story.

[mallets]

Being a tyrant has little to do with term limits or office duration.

[Ntrails]

A couple of dictionary checks suggest some set of:

- Ruler who is unrestrained by law or constitution

- A usurper of sovereignty

- Ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly

Obviously b) is not applicable as per GP. He has also been constrained by the supreme court and others multiple times in this term, which suggests a) is a stretch. c) probably a fair accusation, though I'm not sure I would agree.

[one33seven]

Hitler was elected too (not saying he is Hitler)

[Gareth321]

Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the German public. Germany had/has a mixed-member proportional system, meaning that coalitions may form after everyone votes President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after negotiations among conservative politicians who believed they could control him. The Nazi Party was the largest party, but it won only 33.1% of the vote in the final free Reichstag election of November 1932 and never secured a popular majority. Once appointed, Hitler exploited emergency powers and political intimidation to dismantle democratic institutions and convert his government into a dictatorship.

During his political ascent he used his Brownshirts - a large, organised paramilitary force - to assault political opponents, break up rival meetings, intimidate voters, and fight street battles, helping destabilise the Weimar Republic and suppress opposition.

[greedo]

Your comment implies that Hitler seized power despite a lack of popularity. The historical record shows that Hitler was wildly popular in Germany, even up to the end of WW2.

[Gareth321]

I very clearly provided the exact percentage popularity he had at the height of his democratic rise. Whether you'd like to accurately call that less than a third, or "wildly popular" is I suppose subjective.

[marysol5]

I mean 3 seconds after the Nazis surrendered, there was suddenly no Nazis in Germany

[psd1]

> Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead, so that's some data as well

No, that's some bullshit. How do you think we eat pheasant and rabbit and venison? Show me a pheasant farm and I'll show you forty acres of unfenced woodland littered with empty cartridges.

Observe! https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-owner...

[consp]

My guess is the person is drawing from one country and applying it to all. The rules are varied all over the EU. e.g. You can buy pheasant, rabbit and venison at the butcher shop where I live. No hunting required, which you can do but requires a special permit, next to the weapons permit for the shotgun and is very limited in scope.

[psd1]

I'll wager that rabbit and that pheasant that you see skinned and cleaned in the shop were shot by a man in a field. I'm open to counterexamples, so let me know what your butcher tells you.

I like your attitude of charity - we should not rush into judgement. But mschuster91's comment said:

> most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians

This is bullshit. GP must be aware that they are profoundly ignorant on the topic, so why are they holding an opinion, let alone posting it? Should we tolerate bullshit on HN?

[marysol5]

>Well, most of Europe simply has banned guns in the hands of civilians instead

Nope