HelixDab2

Ooooo! Can I play?

Let's say that you have a pro-genocide Republican, a pro-genocide Democrat, and an anti-genocide 3rd party candidate, but the anti-genocide candidate also wants to give all school children machine guns and grenades, and require cars to intentionally run down pedestrians?

Or or or let's say that the anti-genocide candidate's campaign is so bad that her own party is telling her drop out? .

Most people in the military do a basic qualification that is pretty easy to pass (23/49 targets, at ranges from 25 to 300m); these aren't head shots, these are just on the target. Once you've done that, and graduated from basic, depending on your specialty, you may rarely touch a rifle. Lots of former military people think that they're good, just because they managed a single qualification, and that they know a lot about guns, but it's often just fudd-lore. Spec ops guys and Marines tend to be more proficient overall, because they spend more time practicing. (TBH, a lot of the spec ops are very mediocre as far as competitive shooting goes, but they have a lot of other skills that are relevant to the military, and tend to refuse to give up.) Cops are often even worse; their qualifications are at short distances, with very lenient time standards.

Bear in mind that the kill-to-bullet ratio in Afghanistan was about 1:300,000; most shooting in the modern military is suppressive, rather than directed at a specific target.

Compare that to someone that's a USPSA B class shooter, or someone that regularly shoots PCSL 2 gun matches; they will tend to outshoot a lot of retired military, because they tend to practice, and practice on a shot timer, a lot.

Where o where is UniversalMonk when you want to shove something in his smarmy, trollish face...?

Without claiming outright magic [...]

...We're still talking about zombies, right? Animated corpses that have an overwhelming need to consume human flesh, and can only be killed with overwhelming brain damage? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of magic right there. If you're talking about something like the cordyceps fungi--which, to infect humans, would still need some kind of magical power--you still have a very, very finite limit on how long a 'human' will survive (about four weeks without food, give or take), so you should be able to just wait them out, rather than needing to proactively kill them.

That zombie horde will be a lot less dangerous and easy to clean up once it’s crawling on the ground with all the speed of a toddler.

Less dangerous, yes. Not not dangerous, depending on which version of zombies you're talking about specifically.

You haven't shot with people that were in the military, have you? :P

I thought that they still used them for destroying some munitions? Like, those burn pits in Iraq that caused so many cases of cancer? IDK.

You can quite legally buy them in the US though. They're pricey, but, hey, you never know, right?

You'd still need to hit each zombie individually though.

Kinda hard to walk with one leg

Zombies can and do drag themselves, or even worm their way across fields. Until the brain is destroyed, they're a threat.

25mm chain gun is probably going to mist a few bodies.

Sure, but, again, unless you hit the head, they're still a threat. And meanwhile, you've blown through a thousand rounds of ammo.

Artillery is an area denial weapon.

You can only deny area when people aren't willing to charge into it. Zombies aren't doing massed charges though; each and every zombie is Leroy Jenkins, acting entirely independently, and with zero foresight.

IMO, the most effective method weapon would be a steam roller, as long as all the mechanical parts and the operator cockpit were completely covered so that a zombie couldn't damage anything. Like, say, some of the mine removal vehicles. Moving around is going to attract the zombies, and then running them over would eliminate them.

Conventional infantry tactics don't really work against zombies. For instance, suppressing fire; you can't suppress zombies, because they don't care if they get shot, and it only matters if they get shot in the head. You can't inflict any amount of damage that's going to force a retreat. Artillery and bombs are only going to effect them if they're in the direct blast zone; shrapnel still has to penetrate the brain.

Your best bets are likely going to be napalm and flame throwers. I'm not sure how many napalm bombs the US military has, but I'm pretty sure that they don't have tons of flamethrowers.

Republicans need young men to turn out; from what I can see, they are trending conservative. They don't want young women to turn out, because they are trending overwhelmingly liberal.

Yeah, shocking... People will use substances until they want to quit. Unless and until the addict makes that choice for themselves, nothing is going to change. The best you can do is change their circumstances so that they want to change their lives.

What exactly are the “material conditions leading to gun crime”?

Largely economic and educational, yeah, but also systemic racism and ingrained misogyny. While it's facile--and accurate--to say that Republicans block efforts that would help these problems, the fact is that Democrats often do as well, opting to ban firearms and features rather than addressing root causes. I recall one particular violence intervention program that got cancelled in Chicago by--IIRC--Rahm Emmanuel. And unfortunately, many of the centrist Dems don't really believe in programs that work, like enrolling inmates in college to reduce recidivism.

Why do other countries thar have lots of guns have less gun crime?

Other countries with a relatively high number of firearms also tend to have significantly better social welfare systems, more focus on rehabilitation than punishment in their criminal justice systems, and a lower rate of income inequality overall. If the US had, for instance, the social conditions of Finland, while still having the same number of firearms, I expect that you would see a sharply lower rate of firearm homicides. (Interestingly, Finland has very similar rates of suicide as we have in the US overall. I'm not sure what to make of that. But I also note that all of the Nordic countries seem to have fairly high suicide rates, and all of the Mediterranean countries tend to have quite low suicide rates. Climate and amount of sunlight, maybe?)

Aside from the, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil right. IMO, attempts to restrict that right should be subject to strict scrutiny. NYSPRA v. Bruen helped with that, but it hasn't gone far enough. Think of it this way: voting is supposed to be a right. Republicans want to limit the ability to vote in ways that favor them. I would say that this is wrong, and that Republicans need to change the way that they govern or message so that they can attract more voters, rather than trying to make it harder to exercise a civil right.

or the gas station clerk to get a gun pointed at her and told to give up the cash.

...Which you aren't very likely to do once economic conditions have been addressed. Not very many people go out and rob people for the sheer joy of it. Little Johnny shoots Susie because society has taught him that the only acceptable emotion is rage, and he can't deal with his emotions in any other way. Again: address the messaging--about gender norms and expression in this case-- and fix the underlying problems, and then access to the tools of violence becomes immaterial because there's no longer the impetus towards violence. Dems have made some inroads regarding gendered emotional expressions, but a lot of far-right influencers are actively working against those efforts.

parents of shooters bought them guns despite clear warnings

I think that this is probably appropriate in limited cases, such as with the Crumbleys in Detroit, MI, and with the Grays in Winder, GA. In both cases, the parents (father, in the case of Mr. Gray) had credible information from authorities that their child was at risk of harming other people, and both of them gave firearms to their child despite and after receiving the credible information about them being a risk. I would say that, if parents made a reasonable attempt to deny a child access to firearms, or did not have credible information about their child being a risk, then you should no longer be looking at a criminal or civil case. It seems to me that having your firearms locked inside your home or vehicle should be enough to say that you made a reasonable effort, because anyone that takes a firearm from those places knows that they're breaking and entering already.

The desire to make locking firearms up is yet another way of making firearms prohibitively expensive, and functionally denies the right to keep and bear arms to people that can't pony up the $1000+ for a locking firearms container that's even slightly secure.