Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.
And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc… they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They’ll tell you that you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.
Gunowners don’t like licenses because if the goverment can decide who owns guns, then they’ll use it to keep guns out of the hands of people they don’t like.
New York City abuses its may-issue system to prevent anyone from obtaining a license to carry concealed, unless you pay high bribes to the police (or are police).
Most gun laws disproportionately affect the poor. Polities such as New York State require people undergo a certified training course before they can purchase a handgun (police excepted of course). I see people complaining that a single day of voting is insufficent, that their hourly job doesn’t leave them a window to go vote. This is much worse with a carry course, where you have to perfectly attend multiple classes that you’re paying hundreds of dollars to attend. It’s a steep cost to exercise a right.
These are addressable problems: all handgun licenses should be shall-issue if you meet the requirements, mandated training courses should be free and people should be compensated for their time like jury duty.
As for the “you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark” part/is that really so unreasonable, minus the hyperbole? When Republicans use phrases like “If it’s a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down” and then try to claim that life starts when the heart does, is it OK that they are wildly wrong about the human body and are trying to legislate it?
You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver’s license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.
There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn’t have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.
Just need to prove a basic knowledge of gun safety
So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it’s just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.
As another person commented somewhere in this thread, the availability of weapons is at a low point historically. Back in the 1930s, a person could order a machine gun in the mail and have it shipped to their house. Until 1986, people could purchase new machine guns at their local shop after a good amount of paperwork.
You’re correct that banning semi-autos would lead to reduced deaths in mass shootings, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a greivous societal wound. I don’t feel that enough thought is put into why people are going on suicidal rampages against children or minorities, there’s just a “people be cray” attitude then they push for disarmament.
Without addressing that societal problem, I just see weapon control becoming more and more stringent in response to the unsolved problems in society. Banning Semi-autos today may reduce deaths, but it’ll be lever-actions tomorrow, then bolt-actions, then knives, then vehicles.
If I were dictator, I would temporarily add semi-autos to the NFA list (along with giving them the resources to process applications promptly) to stop new sales and transfers without stricter checks. Then I would put effort into determining the causes of those rampages and fixing them.
Male socialization, political radicalization, and media contagion are three factors I think lead to these rampages, and to merely remove guns from the situation is the societal equivalent of locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.
In your opinion, what new benefits would requiring a license to own guns have? How will requiring this license supplement existing laws? Specifically, how would this change improve the gun “problem?”
Maybe the people you talk to who claim to be well versed in firearm safety oppose licensing requirements like this because they’re well versed in existing gun laws and the culture war against ownership? Not because “muh guns!”
Your grandparents could’ve mail-ordered machine guns to their doorstep, no background check required. Hell, when they were kids, they could’ve walked into a corner store and bought a rifle with their saved up lunch money. That’s what my grandpa did.
If gun laws have only gotten stricter over this time, then why are mass shootings essentially a new thing? What changed between now and then that could explain it? Living conditions have plummeted, people are poorer, breaking the poverty cycle is basically impossible, our public schools aren’t getting proper funding, prisons are cruel and don’t reform, college tuition has skyrocketed, healthcare has become inaccessible, women are losing bodily rights, etc.
Unfucking our society in all the ways our corporate and political elite have fucked it would do more to curb violence than anything else. Why would anyone mindlessly kill others if society’s worth living in?
The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.
The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.
Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They’re only useful if you intend to attack people.
The US doesn’t have a problem with fully automatic or select fire weapons. They exist, sure. But given they’ve been banned since 1986 and are prohibitively expensive to own, requiring multiple tax stamps and hoops to jump through, they are almost assuredly not used in violent crime. Or for anything other than hobbyist activities.
What seems to garner the most attention here are semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. There is almost nothing mechanical differentiating an AR-15 or similar rifle from a common hunting or farming rifle like the Ruger American Rifle. They’re often mislabeled an “assault weapon”, a term without a concrete definition, or worse an “assault rifle” which does have a concrete definition that aligns to the very guns you call out as not having practical use. Namely, to qualify as an assault rifle, it must be capable of select fire or fully automatic fire.
Ironically, most acts of violence committed using a firearm are done with pistols, which outside of demonstrably ineffective magazine limitations have gone widely untouched by proposed or enacted gun control efforts. Which is especially ironic considering that the NFA was enacted in 1934 primarily focused on handguns - this is why the US has restrictions on ownership of short barreled rifles and shotguns, because the impetus was to focus on weapons which could be easily concealed. By the time the law was passed, however, pistols had been exempted, but the weird language around SBRs and SBSs was left intact.
Broadly, though, gun control in the US has been primarily motivated by class and racial division. Most of the FUD you hear about guns is directly the result of Reagan’s gun control policies as Governor of California in response to not wanting the Black Panthers to have legal access to firearms - which they were using to protect their neighborhoods from violent crime that police wouldn’t respond to. Criminalizing certain weapons gave police the ability to profile and discriminate against minorities under the guise of public safety, and we’ve been treading that water ever since.
The solution to America’s perceived gun problem is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Ending the war on drugs would help too. Without the stress of being impoverished and without having to worry about being able to afford medical care, people tend not to commit crimes. Most gun violence in the US is gang related, and US policies today systemically and disproportionately see the incarceration of people of color for violent and non-violent crime alike. Our penal system is geared for punishment, not rehabilitation, so a person who is now a felon is left with very few options to make an honest living. People turn to gangs to make money, because without income you cannot live in this country.
Eliminate the poverty, decouple healthcare from employers, and stop criminalizing drugs - subsequently arresting and incarcerating so many people for non-violent offenses - and you dramatically reduce the likelihood of a person being left in desperation with few options outside of a life of crime. In turn, gang violence and gun crime overall will plummet.
We’re just too busy picking a team and rooting for the other team’s destruction to actually attack the root of the problem, because doing that might make people realize that it’s all been set up like this to keep us from looking at the class division more closely.
It’s a breath of fresh air seeing a nuanced and thought-out response like yours, so thank you.
I thought I’d see better discussion about this topic when I ditched reddit, but some people here still can’t think past “black guns = dead children = evil”
Yanks seem to think that in countries with gun control, you can’t get a gun. I could get one if I want. If I needed a shotgun or a deer rifle, I could easily acquire one.
Literally nobody needs an automatic rifle or a pistol, other than to kill another human.
It’s that simple, but I think the decades of leaded petrol makes it a bit difficult for them to comprehend
Handguns are excellent for self defense especially while hiking. My sister wouldn’t be here today if she didn’t carry a .45 everywhere when outdoors. Not all of us live in places where humans have exterminated the dangerous wildlife
The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.
Because of that, anything restricting that “right” at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.
With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.
The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.
It’s also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don’t drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.
And that’s the issue here.
The “right” needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.
Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren’t in your situation.
It’s not “perceived” as a right, it literally IS a right, enumerated in the Constitution and confirmed excessively by precedents set in the highest court. There will be no change to that right without an Amendment ratified by 75% of the 50 US states.
You are right that the right to keep and bear arms is a legal right outlined by our constitution. However, just because the constitution says it is a right doesn’t make it so. Legal rights are based upon social conventions. If a society agrees that carrying guns in schools is unacceptable, then the constitution(some document wrote 200 years ago) won’t change that.
Another example is the 4th amendment. We, as a society, have apparently decided that the government logging,recording, and surveilling our texts and calls is acceptable. Even though the practice is clearly against the intention of the 4th amendment.
TLDR: Legal rights are only rights when a society(or government) agrees to continually enforce them.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people is a dependent clause on the whole “well regulated militia” part.
The idea that everyone can just have whatever guns they want is a farce, but don’t listen to me take it from the Burg Man:
This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Interesting that 2008 was the first time the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to a gun for self protection. The article argues that historically the right to keep bear arms was only applicable to those who were called to military service. That seems plausible to me though I can see how it could be interpreted either way as far as whether it only applies in the context of a militia.
I also find it fascinating that one of the most prominent examples of gun control was targeting what could arguably be called a citizens militia. California passed the Mulford act, that banned loaded weapons in public without a permit. The bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther’s (aka Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods according to wikipedia.
Tbh I think that the intention was pretty clear, especially given the time in which it was written. Fledgling colonies building their own government weren’t worried about their government turning to tyranny, they were worried about what they perceived as the tyrannical government in their time, the Brits. Basically, stay ready soldiers, those tea-drinking queen-loving bastards might come for us any time now.
As for the Panthers, this is also wholly unsurprising. Pretty obviously racist, and obviously a selective interpretation of 2a. Like pretty much any modern interpretation of 2a (see also, the 2008 ruling you cite.) Like, why can’t I own a rocket launcher or some grenades or maybe a low-yield nuclear warhead? Can I not arm myself against a tyrannical government? Many of those would be as foreign an idea to the framers as would be many of the totally legal guns you can buy today.
Well actually the Supreme Court had the final say on that already. It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that. All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.
I just wish we had as solid protections on those 4th Amendment rights too. Those are too easy to violate without repercussion. “Persons, papers, and effects” should definitely apply to digital communications in the 21st century.
Definitely agree, especially that our 4th amendment rights should be stronger. On paper should be little difference between the 2nd and 4th amendments when applied. But because the 2nd amendment has vastly more organized support than the 4th amendment, it is defended while the fourth is forgotten.
It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that.
It clearly does, since non state-sanctioned people aren’t carrying guns in schools and in governmental buildings for the most part. However, there is a difference between what the state says and what society says is acceptable. Usually society just decides to blindly follow what the state decides as if it is infallible. But as you touched on with your gun example people can decide to ignore the state’s rules if they decide its in their interests.
All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.
Umm, I think that’s a little far reaching. Remember when the Japanese were put in concentration(internment) camps? Or when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? People tend to follow authority and if those in authority ignore the constitution so will everyone else. A relevant example is Nazi Germany.
Well the Joint Chiefs of the military stood up against President Trump 2 times to support the Rights of Americans during the 2020 bullshit, so you are wrong about the military.
The military defied the president to stand in support of Americans’ 1st Amendment rights twice by stating support for BLM protests, and stating support for voting rights in confirming that Biden won the 2020 election.
We have seen this in action already to have historical precedent on the military supporting the Constitutional rights of Americans against domestic enemies (Trump).
Sure, the military might sometimes defend the constitution over following orders from a president but it is certainly not guaranteed. In my previous comment, I already listed 2 examples of the military breaching the constitution. They did so at the direction of the the President. So even though they do swear to uphold the constitution, in some cases they will break that oath to follow orders from the president. But that is in general, in the specific case of gun rights I don’t see the military taking those rights away anytime soon.
You cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose.
I’ve never actually encountered someone either online or in person who things we can or should ban all guns in the US. I don’t think this person exists in any significant capacity, except in the imaginations of paranoid gun owners. There’s definitely nothing in the image above to imply that, either.
I have certainly met them, both online and in person. One of my best friends is one of them. He thinks all guns everywhere should be banned. He gets angry that one of my hobbies is target shooting. He can’t comprehend that I’m enjoying it for the challenge it is, and not training to mass murder people with my single shot, bolt action rifle.
I’m sure there are individuals who think that way, but I don’t think it’s a significant number at all - certainly not among elected representatives, political commentators, or anyone else with a significant amount of power to actually affect gun legislation.
It’s odd to me that so often when someone refers to gun control of any sort, people like the commenter I responded to immediately respond with “Well you can’t just ban all guns.” The vast majority of the time, nobody is actually proposing that we do so. It’s over-defensiveness at best and strawmanning at worst.
I personally know LOTS of people who feel that way. My best friend feels that way. And although I do not feel that way, I do empathise with that position. To suggest no one feels that way seems out of touch to me.
when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage,
See, this might be the problem. Now I know America is a big place, But you can drone strike a wedding anywhere on the planet, it feels like your nation should have the ability to enforce it’s laws on it’s own ground without having to rely on individuals wielding firearms. And it’s not like there is a shortage of police funding. They just don’t care about your area in particular. Other places the polices get’s to drive literal tanks/apcs.
I don’t think you comprehend the vastness and remoteness of the American West.
There are places where the law enforcement response time is over an hour simply because it takes that long for the one deputy working the county to drive from one side of the country to the other. There’s no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile. Nor is there the finances to hire additional police protection.
Most of the USA that is not the case, but it is a reality for some places in the lower 48 states. Alaska is that to another level.
Police funding is a function of city or county, and sometimes state population. Metro area have the funding. Rural places just can’t afford to employ enough police to reduce response time to under 30 minutes.
Yes, I alluded to that in the previous comment. But is that really a good argument for everyone to have a firearm? You can make exceptions for specific places. Like, all firearms have to be registered and licenced but in rural areas you can get the required training for free.
The ultimate issue is the American constitution says Americans get to own guns. In order to change that requires 2/3rds of the states to want to change that.
As in California with their 39.5 million citizens has the same power to change it as Alaska with their 600,000 citizens.
The supreme Court of the USA has said the constitutional rights are fairly broad for gun ownership. In theory that’s mostly settled case law so that won’t change short of a miracle.
We can debate if it’s prudent or not, but it’s unlikely to change here.
Fwiw, I’m in favor of some reasonable reforms. There’s just no point in pursuing them since it’s in the constitution here.
There’s no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile.
How much crime is there in areas with 2 people per 5.17998 square kilometers that you need an AR-15 for self defense? Does the US have bands of roving marauders? Are we talking a Mad Max like scenario?
If you happen to live in such a place, how many gun fights do you get into in an average week?
Fortunately an unmanned air strike is still considered an unacceptable response to a police assistance request.
There’s a saying “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. That’s a best case scenario and usually only true if you’re in a good neighborhood in the suburbs. The police can take hours to respond to a call, and that’s when you don’t live in the boonies. Rural people need to be able to take care of themselves for the most part.
Do you think we don’t have guns outside of USA??? I don’t think your point is very well measured if you think rural population in Canada do not have guns. Also, books are tools too.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
You didn’t so much provide a measured reasonable response as you compared actual labor saving tools to a machine designed specifically to kill/maim. Then you patted yourself on the back for being brave enough to make such a comparison while preemptively disregarding any discussions to the contrary.
So many other countries run without guns though. Like i guess canada and russia have bears too but they and us dont get into thr newspapers about gun violence.
I consider my take reasonable, and if you can’t understand the nuance of someone who’s been raised with a significantly different life experience than your own, then that’s on you. Have a nice rest of your day.
Your anecdotal examples are irrelevant when compared against facts. But you do you kiddo. I just sincerely hope that comparing your own personal experiences agains the real world doesn’t bite you in the ass later on when you’ve grown up.
I’m going to go ahead and block you from this point forward as I don’t see someone like you commenting or posting anything worth reading down the line.
Yep, thats what I do; its my entire comment history!
Lemme fix it:
“I cannot cope with someone politely expressing an opinion I disagree with, so I’m going insult them, justify insulting someone by saying they’re not worth discussing anything with, and then when they continue to be polite and reasonable to me, THEN I’ll block them!”
So I guess you’re in favor of getting those “crazy humans” the help they need to stop being crazy, and to only allow guns with special permits for things like farm work, hunting and shooting ranges, right?
Because it’s a bit of a straw man argument otherwise. People using guns responsibility for their work is not the problem.
Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.
And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc… they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They’ll tell you that you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.
Gunowners don’t like licenses because if the goverment can decide who owns guns, then they’ll use it to keep guns out of the hands of people they don’t like.
New York City abuses its may-issue system to prevent anyone from obtaining a license to carry concealed, unless you pay high bribes to the police (or are police).
Most gun laws disproportionately affect the poor. Polities such as New York State require people undergo a certified training course before they can purchase a handgun (police excepted of course). I see people complaining that a single day of voting is insufficent, that their hourly job doesn’t leave them a window to go vote. This is much worse with a carry course, where you have to perfectly attend multiple classes that you’re paying hundreds of dollars to attend. It’s a steep cost to exercise a right.
These are addressable problems: all handgun licenses should be shall-issue if you meet the requirements, mandated training courses should be free and people should be compensated for their time like jury duty.
As for the “you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark” part/is that really so unreasonable, minus the hyperbole? When Republicans use phrases like “If it’s a legitimate rape, the body has ways of shutting it down” and then try to claim that life starts when the heart does, is it OK that they are wildly wrong about the human body and are trying to legislate it?
Removed by mod
You can buy a car and own it and operate it on private property without a license. A more direct comparison would be a driver’s license would be like a concealed carry license, licensing it to be possessed/operated in public.
Removed by mod
There’s no legal or philosophical right to a car in the Constitution
There is no legal or philosophical right to a modern firearm in the Constitution, either. The founders couldn’t have predicted the ease with which a single individual could commit mass murder just 50 years later when the firearms of their time took half a minute to reload. One person alone can kill as many people in a minute with a single semi-auto rifle and sufficient ammo as over a dozen militiamen of the day. To suggest the founders intended to include modern weapons is a stretch well beyond the breaking point of reason or logic.
Removed by mod
So you would have no problem with the government requiring proof of literacy before you can vote? After all, every child is taught how to read in school, so it’s just a basic check to see if a person can comprehend the ballot.
Removed by mod
As another person commented somewhere in this thread, the availability of weapons is at a low point historically. Back in the 1930s, a person could order a machine gun in the mail and have it shipped to their house. Until 1986, people could purchase new machine guns at their local shop after a good amount of paperwork.
You’re correct that banning semi-autos would lead to reduced deaths in mass shootings, but it’s just putting a bandaid over a greivous societal wound. I don’t feel that enough thought is put into why people are going on suicidal rampages against children or minorities, there’s just a “people be cray” attitude then they push for disarmament.
Without addressing that societal problem, I just see weapon control becoming more and more stringent in response to the unsolved problems in society. Banning Semi-autos today may reduce deaths, but it’ll be lever-actions tomorrow, then bolt-actions, then knives, then vehicles.
If I were dictator, I would temporarily add semi-autos to the NFA list (along with giving them the resources to process applications promptly) to stop new sales and transfers without stricter checks. Then I would put effort into determining the causes of those rampages and fixing them.
Male socialization, political radicalization, and media contagion are three factors I think lead to these rampages, and to merely remove guns from the situation is the societal equivalent of locking someone in a padded room and declaring the problem solved.
So, where you live, guns are handed out for free?
In your opinion, what new benefits would requiring a license to own guns have? How will requiring this license supplement existing laws? Specifically, how would this change improve the gun “problem?”
Maybe the people you talk to who claim to be well versed in firearm safety oppose licensing requirements like this because they’re well versed in existing gun laws and the culture war against ownership? Not because “muh guns!”
Your grandparents could’ve mail-ordered machine guns to their doorstep, no background check required. Hell, when they were kids, they could’ve walked into a corner store and bought a rifle with their saved up lunch money. That’s what my grandpa did.
If gun laws have only gotten stricter over this time, then why are mass shootings essentially a new thing? What changed between now and then that could explain it? Living conditions have plummeted, people are poorer, breaking the poverty cycle is basically impossible, our public schools aren’t getting proper funding, prisons are cruel and don’t reform, college tuition has skyrocketed, healthcare has become inaccessible, women are losing bodily rights, etc.
Unfucking our society in all the ways our corporate and political elite have fucked it would do more to curb violence than anything else. Why would anyone mindlessly kill others if society’s worth living in?
You funny. It’s like you’ve never heard of children dying because the parents left guns out, or insane people buying guns.
What an intelligent and nuanced response. You even managed to answer my questions, good job.
The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.
The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.
Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They’re only useful if you intend to attack people.
Same goes for handguns.
The US doesn’t have a problem with fully automatic or select fire weapons. They exist, sure. But given they’ve been banned since 1986 and are prohibitively expensive to own, requiring multiple tax stamps and hoops to jump through, they are almost assuredly not used in violent crime. Or for anything other than hobbyist activities.
What seems to garner the most attention here are semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. There is almost nothing mechanical differentiating an AR-15 or similar rifle from a common hunting or farming rifle like the Ruger American Rifle. They’re often mislabeled an “assault weapon”, a term without a concrete definition, or worse an “assault rifle” which does have a concrete definition that aligns to the very guns you call out as not having practical use. Namely, to qualify as an assault rifle, it must be capable of select fire or fully automatic fire.
Ironically, most acts of violence committed using a firearm are done with pistols, which outside of demonstrably ineffective magazine limitations have gone widely untouched by proposed or enacted gun control efforts. Which is especially ironic considering that the NFA was enacted in 1934 primarily focused on handguns - this is why the US has restrictions on ownership of short barreled rifles and shotguns, because the impetus was to focus on weapons which could be easily concealed. By the time the law was passed, however, pistols had been exempted, but the weird language around SBRs and SBSs was left intact.
Broadly, though, gun control in the US has been primarily motivated by class and racial division. Most of the FUD you hear about guns is directly the result of Reagan’s gun control policies as Governor of California in response to not wanting the Black Panthers to have legal access to firearms - which they were using to protect their neighborhoods from violent crime that police wouldn’t respond to. Criminalizing certain weapons gave police the ability to profile and discriminate against minorities under the guise of public safety, and we’ve been treading that water ever since.
The solution to America’s perceived gun problem is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Ending the war on drugs would help too. Without the stress of being impoverished and without having to worry about being able to afford medical care, people tend not to commit crimes. Most gun violence in the US is gang related, and US policies today systemically and disproportionately see the incarceration of people of color for violent and non-violent crime alike. Our penal system is geared for punishment, not rehabilitation, so a person who is now a felon is left with very few options to make an honest living. People turn to gangs to make money, because without income you cannot live in this country.
Eliminate the poverty, decouple healthcare from employers, and stop criminalizing drugs - subsequently arresting and incarcerating so many people for non-violent offenses - and you dramatically reduce the likelihood of a person being left in desperation with few options outside of a life of crime. In turn, gang violence and gun crime overall will plummet.
We’re just too busy picking a team and rooting for the other team’s destruction to actually attack the root of the problem, because doing that might make people realize that it’s all been set up like this to keep us from looking at the class division more closely.
It’s a breath of fresh air seeing a nuanced and thought-out response like yours, so thank you.
I thought I’d see better discussion about this topic when I ditched reddit, but some people here still can’t think past “black guns = dead children = evil”
Another sane approach by NZ.
Yanks seem to think that in countries with gun control, you can’t get a gun. I could get one if I want. If I needed a shotgun or a deer rifle, I could easily acquire one.
Literally nobody needs an automatic rifle or a pistol, other than to kill another human.
It’s that simple, but I think the decades of leaded petrol makes it a bit difficult for them to comprehend
Handguns are excellent for self defense especially while hiking. My sister wouldn’t be here today if she didn’t carry a .45 everywhere when outdoors. Not all of us live in places where humans have exterminated the dangerous wildlife
The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.
Because of that, anything restricting that “right” at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.
With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.
The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.
It’s also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don’t drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.
And that’s the issue here.
The “right” needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.
Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren’t in your situation.
It’s not “perceived” as a right, it literally IS a right, enumerated in the Constitution and confirmed excessively by precedents set in the highest court. There will be no change to that right without an Amendment ratified by 75% of the 50 US states.
You are right that the right to keep and bear arms is a legal right outlined by our constitution. However, just because the constitution says it is a right doesn’t make it so. Legal rights are based upon social conventions. If a society agrees that carrying guns in schools is unacceptable, then the constitution(some document wrote 200 years ago) won’t change that.
Another example is the 4th amendment. We, as a society, have apparently decided that the government logging,recording, and surveilling our texts and calls is acceptable. Even though the practice is clearly against the intention of the 4th amendment.
TLDR: Legal rights are only rights when a society(or government) agrees to continually enforce them.
That’s not even correct (it being a right):
The right of the people is a dependent clause on the whole “well regulated militia” part.
The idea that everyone can just have whatever guns they want is a farce, but don’t listen to me take it from the Burg Man:
source
Further reading - How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Interesting that 2008 was the first time the supreme court ruled that individuals have a right to a gun for self protection. The article argues that historically the right to keep bear arms was only applicable to those who were called to military service. That seems plausible to me though I can see how it could be interpreted either way as far as whether it only applies in the context of a militia.
I also find it fascinating that one of the most prominent examples of gun control was targeting what could arguably be called a citizens militia. California passed the Mulford act, that banned loaded weapons in public without a permit. The bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther’s (aka Black Panther Party for Self-Defense) who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods according to wikipedia.
Tbh I think that the intention was pretty clear, especially given the time in which it was written. Fledgling colonies building their own government weren’t worried about their government turning to tyranny, they were worried about what they perceived as the tyrannical government in their time, the Brits. Basically, stay ready soldiers, those tea-drinking queen-loving bastards might come for us any time now.
As for the Panthers, this is also wholly unsurprising. Pretty obviously racist, and obviously a selective interpretation of 2a. Like pretty much any modern interpretation of 2a (see also, the 2008 ruling you cite.) Like, why can’t I own a rocket launcher or some grenades or maybe a low-yield nuclear warhead? Can I not arm myself against a tyrannical government? Many of those would be as foreign an idea to the framers as would be many of the totally legal guns you can buy today.
Well actually the Supreme Court had the final say on that already. It doesn’t matter what society says, when the gun owners say “no, I’m keeping the guns” and the Supreme Court backs them up then society is shit out of luck on that. All of our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, so you’re not going to get those guys to take those rights from Americans.
I just wish we had as solid protections on those 4th Amendment rights too. Those are too easy to violate without repercussion. “Persons, papers, and effects” should definitely apply to digital communications in the 21st century.
Definitely agree, especially that our 4th amendment rights should be stronger. On paper should be little difference between the 2nd and 4th amendments when applied. But because the 2nd amendment has vastly more organized support than the 4th amendment, it is defended while the fourth is forgotten.
It clearly does, since non state-sanctioned people aren’t carrying guns in schools and in governmental buildings for the most part. However, there is a difference between what the state says and what society says is acceptable. Usually society just decides to blindly follow what the state decides as if it is infallible. But as you touched on with your gun example people can decide to ignore the state’s rules if they decide its in their interests.
Umm, I think that’s a little far reaching. Remember when the Japanese were put in concentration(internment) camps? Or when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? People tend to follow authority and if those in authority ignore the constitution so will everyone else. A relevant example is Nazi Germany.
Well the Joint Chiefs of the military stood up against President Trump 2 times to support the Rights of Americans during the 2020 bullshit, so you are wrong about the military.
The military defied the president to stand in support of Americans’ 1st Amendment rights twice by stating support for BLM protests, and stating support for voting rights in confirming that Biden won the 2020 election.
We have seen this in action already to have historical precedent on the military supporting the Constitutional rights of Americans against domestic enemies (Trump).
Sure, the military might sometimes defend the constitution over following orders from a president but it is certainly not guaranteed. In my previous comment, I already listed 2 examples of the military breaching the constitution. They did so at the direction of the the President. So even though they do swear to uphold the constitution, in some cases they will break that oath to follow orders from the president. But that is in general, in the specific case of gun rights I don’t see the military taking those rights away anytime soon.
Just because the constitution says something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Or even 3/5ths of a good idea.
Yes it does. Everything in the Constitution is good and it made America great from the start.
I’ve never actually encountered someone either online or in person who things we can or should ban all guns in the US. I don’t think this person exists in any significant capacity, except in the imaginations of paranoid gun owners. There’s definitely nothing in the image above to imply that, either.
I have certainly met them, both online and in person. One of my best friends is one of them. He thinks all guns everywhere should be banned. He gets angry that one of my hobbies is target shooting. He can’t comprehend that I’m enjoying it for the challenge it is, and not training to mass murder people with my single shot, bolt action rifle.
Just because you havent met them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I’m sure there are individuals who think that way, but I don’t think it’s a significant number at all - certainly not among elected representatives, political commentators, or anyone else with a significant amount of power to actually affect gun legislation.
It’s odd to me that so often when someone refers to gun control of any sort, people like the commenter I responded to immediately respond with “Well you can’t just ban all guns.” The vast majority of the time, nobody is actually proposing that we do so. It’s over-defensiveness at best and strawmanning at worst.
I personally know LOTS of people who feel that way. My best friend feels that way. And although I do not feel that way, I do empathise with that position. To suggest no one feels that way seems out of touch to me.
See, this might be the problem. Now I know America is a big place, But you can drone strike a wedding anywhere on the planet, it feels like your nation should have the ability to enforce it’s laws on it’s own ground without having to rely on individuals wielding firearms. And it’s not like there is a shortage of police funding. They just don’t care about your area in particular. Other places the polices get’s to drive literal tanks/apcs.
I don’t think you comprehend the vastness and remoteness of the American West.
There are places where the law enforcement response time is over an hour simply because it takes that long for the one deputy working the county to drive from one side of the country to the other. There’s no point in having more deputies working a county where there are only 2 people living per square mile. Nor is there the finances to hire additional police protection.
Most of the USA that is not the case, but it is a reality for some places in the lower 48 states. Alaska is that to another level.
Police funding is a function of city or county, and sometimes state population. Metro area have the funding. Rural places just can’t afford to employ enough police to reduce response time to under 30 minutes.
Yes, I alluded to that in the previous comment. But is that really a good argument for everyone to have a firearm? You can make exceptions for specific places. Like, all firearms have to be registered and licenced but in rural areas you can get the required training for free.
The ultimate issue is the American constitution says Americans get to own guns. In order to change that requires 2/3rds of the states to want to change that.
As in California with their 39.5 million citizens has the same power to change it as Alaska with their 600,000 citizens.
The supreme Court of the USA has said the constitutional rights are fairly broad for gun ownership. In theory that’s mostly settled case law so that won’t change short of a miracle.
We can debate if it’s prudent or not, but it’s unlikely to change here.
Fwiw, I’m in favor of some reasonable reforms. There’s just no point in pursuing them since it’s in the constitution here.
How much crime is there in areas with 2 people per 5.17998 square kilometers that you need an AR-15 for self defense? Does the US have bands of roving marauders? Are we talking a Mad Max like scenario?
If you happen to live in such a place, how many gun fights do you get into in an average week?
I don’t recall mentioning AR-15s in my response.
Not that I’m aware of.
Nope, anyways that is set in Australia.
Fortunately an unmanned air strike is still considered an unacceptable response to a police assistance request.
There’s a saying “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. That’s a best case scenario and usually only true if you’re in a good neighborhood in the suburbs. The police can take hours to respond to a call, and that’s when you don’t live in the boonies. Rural people need to be able to take care of themselves for the most part.
Do you think we don’t have guns outside of USA??? I don’t think your point is very well measured if you think rural population in Canada do not have guns. Also, books are tools too.
You didn’t so much provide a measured reasonable response as you compared actual labor saving tools to a machine designed specifically to kill/maim. Then you patted yourself on the back for being brave enough to make such a comparison while preemptively disregarding any discussions to the contrary.
So many other countries run without guns though. Like i guess canada and russia have bears too but they and us dont get into thr newspapers about gun violence.
How does getting a gun compare to getting a car?
And this class, is a good example of a dumb argument.
About as dumb as yours, considering you haven’t bothered to comment anything in opposition besides name calling.
Oh I learned LONG ago not to waste my time in futile discussions with people that base their entire argument on opinionated rhetoric.
Pot, kettle, black.
I consider my take reasonable, and if you can’t understand the nuance of someone who’s been raised with a significantly different life experience than your own, then that’s on you. Have a nice rest of your day.
Your anecdotal examples are irrelevant when compared against facts. But you do you kiddo. I just sincerely hope that comparing your own personal experiences agains the real world doesn’t bite you in the ass later on when you’ve grown up.
I’m going to go ahead and block you from this point forward as I don’t see someone like you commenting or posting anything worth reading down the line.
Best of luck though. You’ll need it.
K
“I cannot cope with someone politely expressing an opinion I disagree with, so I’m going to block them”
🤡
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen something sadder
So… you’re one of those people that like to edit others opinions so that you can form an argument that at least makes sense to you….
Fait enough. It’s dumb and incredibly childish, but that’s your thing it seems.
Cary on. Since I need not be a part of this, you go ahead and write my side for me. It’ll be hilarious!
Yep, thats what I do; its my entire comment history!
Lemme fix it:
“I cannot cope with someone politely expressing an opinion I disagree with, so I’m going insult them, justify insulting someone by saying they’re not worth discussing anything with, and then when they continue to be polite and reasonable to me, THEN I’ll block them!”
🤡
Better than yours, which wasn’t even important enough to include in your comment.
Lol
As I’ve said, I don’t waste my time in pointless arguments with people that have nothing but rhetoric infused opinions.
…but you took the time to make both posts
So I guess you’re in favor of getting those “crazy humans” the help they need to stop being crazy, and to only allow guns with special permits for things like farm work, hunting and shooting ranges, right?
Because it’s a bit of a straw man argument otherwise. People using guns responsibility for their work is not the problem.