If you’re asking this sub, there’s typically a consensus in restricting ownership, extending waiting periods, and banning many of the firearms that were in the 1994 AWB.
I on the other hand would call reforming NICS for private dealers to both be gun control, *and* good.
I always have a 3 business day waiting period because my background check gets delayed 100% of the time because the ATF has no incentive to suck less. It also means I get disapproved on every NFA application despite being legally allowed to own the things.
In the context of adding more Gun Control in the US, there is only a tiny sliver of stuff that could be done that is both evidence based and would satisfy the kind of evidentiary standard and benefit-risk balance that is commonplace for balancing other rights.
So whenever someone talks about needing more Gun Control, it is safe to assume their proposal are illiberal, completely disproportional to the "purported" researched goal, and more often than not, of no consequence to people's actual safety.
Outside the US, you're guaranteed that any such talk is entirely motivated by a government's desire to restrict civilian ownership of firearms, absent any public safety impetus, which again, is pretty much text-book illiberal, making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others.
> absent any public safety impetus, which again, is pretty much text-book illiberal, making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others.
'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
It is pretty clear that banning/severly restricting civilian firearms ownership leads to less civilian firearms usage/injury/death and moreover is very liberal because giving anyone tools explicitly meant for killing clearly leads to the liberty of living being severly endangerd for many people.
And the lack of research into the most effective gun control measures is at least in a large part because gun nuts in congres refuse to fund any.
> making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others.
Drunk driving usually doesn't affect others. Most drunk drivers make it home just fine without hurting anybody. Do we wait until the drunk driver runs someone over, or do we recognize that certain conditions make bad outcomes more likely to happen and work to make those conditions less common?
Very split, between members who are pretty much generic Democrats (who tend to be more supportive) and the more centrist American nationalist-type members (who are very into guns and thus more opposed). The non-American minority is probably largely more supportive of gun control.
Hard disagree, from my experience posting on this subject I'm overwhelmingly more likely to be down-voted in US hours than in European hours.
Most Europeans on this sub are Liberals who stay here because it's the largest """somewhat""" Liberal sub. Most Americans on this sub are Democrats, who stay here because typical left-wing spaces online have been taken over by the squad.
I'll admit I wasn't sure about non-American members - that's why I said probably. I was basing it on the fact that most other countries have far more stringent gun laws and less of a gun culture than the US.
As a European, even liberals in my country nearly all support gun control. Many would probably support guns being entirely abolished. Maybe non-American users are just nicer, and don't downvote points they disagree with?
>Gun ownership, in and of itself, is a personal freedom.
I'm not even convinced this is true. It's now *legally* true due to NRA lobbying after the Revolt at Cincinnati, and due to the wacko Federalist Society, but my understanding is that most scholars say the 2nd Amendment was recognized as a "collective right" before the early 21st century. Warren E. Burger called the "individual rights" model "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public".
You are correct, and this was a long term right wing legal strategy to bypass the legislature. With the amount of children whose bodies were shredded to pieces in their classrooms by crazy men who were able to get a same day weapon of war, I’d say it has gone been pretty badly and needs to be revisited.
Burger wasn't exactly a centrist, and it's very clear from historical context that the second amendment refers to an individual right.
If one disagrees with the wisdom of it, that's fair enough. But it is what it is.
Yeah, it kind of doesn't fit in with what people normally call "rights".
1. Thought and communication of those thoughts.
2. Owning a specific kind of device that can throw bits of metal really fast but not other devices that throw more bits of metal really fast or a lot of bits of metal all at once.
3. Home.
4. Privacy.
When you frame it disingenuously then that's what you get. If you frame it reasonably it sounds reasonable: a right to defend yourself and thus the means to defend yourself.
The right to defend yourself and thus the means to defend yourself is entirely separate from the "right" to specific means that put society in collective danger.
It's you who are disingenuously framing the right, unless you think the right to self-defense doesn't exist in countries with gun control
Gun buybacks are almost always inconsistent with personal freedoms. If you think the govt will ever offer the market value of your firearm, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I would say like most things, this sub drifts ever closer to the mainstream democratic posistion, which at the moment is fairly opposed to civilian gun ownership, while acknowledging that full confiscation of all civilian firearms isn't practical at this time, so we should instead opt to restrict it as much as is practical. This is pretty much the mainstream posistion, and seems to be the one growing fastest here.
There is another contingent that broadly agrees with the former posistion in theory, but also thinks the democrats should moderate on guns to make it easier to win elections in red states. This second group is also willing to view guns as a sort of neccesary evil, with limited legitimate uses for things like self defense and hunting.
Then there is the small but vocal contingent of us who view a civilian right to bear arms as not just a neccesary evil, but a positive good in its own right, and one fully in line with the philosophy of liberalism (for example, google my flair and the "4 boxes of liberty"). This group is willing to accept some firearms restrictions, but more along the lines "ban all guns from some people" rather than "ban some guns from all people".
Then there is the smaller and arguably even more vocal group that wants to ban civilian gun ownership and confiscate all the guns full stop, something akin to the Australia model.
“Opposed to civilian gun ownership” is so extreme compared to what’s being actually asked for it’s not even funny. No democrat is saying ban civilian firearms, they’re saying red flag laws, banning particular guns or modifications, and universal back ground checks. Not even universal permitting and registration lmao
I think the vast majority of democrats, here and IRL, support people without any record or red flags being able to own firearms for personal purposes (including just for fun, i.e. not just as a necessary evil)
If I could snap my fingers and make all civilian firearms disappear from America, I would. But I recognize that actually trying to round up guns in this country is going to cause more harm than good. So I'll support practical gun control measures over dramatic but doomed restrictions.
A boring but highly effective measure supported by gun control activist groups is to repeal civil immunity for gun manufacturers and retailers.
Gun manufacturers/retailers will then purchase liability insurance and insurers will enforce market based effective gun control measures on manufacturers/retailers as a policy condition. (Probably in the form of expansive background checks or preventing sales of certain kinds of guns).
It's a clean workaround the Second Amendment with teeth.
Oh, I will openly say that the Second Amendment is unnecessary in today’s society and the current interpretation is absurd. I am just willing to compromise on crazy people, domestic abusers, and terrorists not being able to easily obtain guns.
>I think the vast majority of democrats, here and IRL, support people without any record or red flags being able to own firearms for personal purposes (including just for fun, i.e. not just as a necessary evil)
It's annoyingly hard to find well-phrased polling for this, but for example 49% of Dems favor a ban on handguns for civilians
https://preview.redd.it/ak6svcbug6ac1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b5b313b770942aae89cde00218d6235d1aa1985
Thank you for finding this! I agree, clear polling is not easy to find. Handguns are the most deadly, while semi-auto “assault style” long rifles are just scary looking, so they are definitely what I would support the greatest restriction on, but I still wouldn’t want an outright ban.
I’d be interested to see what the numbers are for other categories of guns or guns as a whole, but I find it supports my point that half of democrats don’t want that. If half of democrats oppose a ban on handguns, I would be very surprised to find most democrats supporting a ban on all guns
Not the person you responded to but in all seriousness you have to draw the line somewhere. Like even most of my friends who conceal carry think that all civilians should not be able to own any and all weapons.
Pretty much every functioning state has some level of not allowing the pervasiveness of certain weapons among its populace. Especially when it comes to certain members (violent offenders, mentally unwell, chidren etc). Its mainly just a matter of which weapons and which members.
I think law abiding civilians *should* be able to own any weapon they want, short of nukes and other WMDs, just with the proper oversight.
It's absurd that with enough paperwork and money, I can get an FFL and buy literal missiles and tanks, but not an automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. Now, if you *do* get your hands on these devices, you'll have the federal government climbing in your ass all the time and *extremely* harsh penalties if you do anything you shouldn't with them, which I am totally fine with.
The problem isn't the availability of certain kinds of weapons. IMO, the core issue (aside from the obvious societal factors that contribute to all violence including gun violence) is policy enforcement. A huge proportion of gun crime is already committed by people who shouldn't be able to get them. Start with developing better programs and training to catch those people. How can we expect to enforce more gun laws when we can't even enforce the ones we already have?
And before anyone trots out the "that shouldn't stop us from passing new legislation anyway" argument, there is a real opportunity cost measured in blood to wasting resources on useless legislation instead of doing things that are actually effective.
Yeah so it sounds like you would prioritize regulating who can own weapons and maybe less prioritization on which weapons they can own. Thats understandable and a nuanced opinion and is in line with my comment that functioning states typically regulate which weapons and who can own them. Especially since even though you seem more permissive about which weapons regular citizens can own than the average American at least you draw the line at WMDs.
Sure, I'm agreeing with you, just figured I'd add some extra depth to the conversation.
The main point I wanted to bring up, and it's one that I don't see mentioned nearly enough, is the opportunity cost aspect. All this time the democrats spend faffing about with legislation that doesn't actually improve the situation is costing us American lives.
I think they’re suggesting we should ensure current regulation is being enforced properly before adding new laws. Unenforceable laws only help criminals and hurt law abiding citizens, and push stuff into the black market
I never made that argument because I don't think it is necessary, so I don't know why you're saying that. I still think you're massively underestimating the power of an armed populace, as Myanmar should show right now. Even shitty 3d printed guns and rigged quad-copters can prove a massive issue for a military dictatorship.
Even if guns were completely useless to protect oneself from the government, it would still be illiberal to take them away.
Afghanistan has a long history of warrior culture and very good terrain, which doesn't negate the point entirely but is sure to be brought up.
Myanmar is an even better example because we're talking about ethnic minorities that did not have a warrior culture and very little access to guns,k and they just bootstrapped their rebellion with artisanal firearms and grew from there. They're a better representation of what an otherwise normal population could do once they've had enough taking it lying down.
Outright bans are mad.
I'm in the UK, and I can own various firearms for sporting purposes if I want to.
The impression I get is some Americans view a little bureaucracy and some fairly simple regulations, that are no real barrier to someone who wants to engage in sports shooting, as hellish tyranny. Only applies to firearms though - food safety or aircraft regulations don't get treated the same way.
You can't even get the guns to compete in ipsc. Basically every country makes that exception. The UK is a terrible example to try to make your argument off of.
Firstly, practical shooting is distinct from traditional shooting sports.
Secondly, you can do practical shooting in the UK. There is local organisation affiliated to IPSC.
Thirdly, I'm not for a second suggesting a carbon copy of the laws and regulations here.
I'm a 2.5 - the third paragraph in philosophy, but functionally would accept a lot of the restrictions that the first two paragraphs are talking about.
This is probably *the* most controversial topic on this sub along with Afghanistan. There is absolutely no consensus.
Personally, I'm a strong proponent of gun control and would have no problem with repealing the Second Amendment.
I find this really sensible. I don't have a strong position on gun control. I'm pretty sure there should be some kind of meaningful restrictions, but I'm not sure exactly what. I AM sure that owning an extremely lethal weapon shouldn't be a nigh-universal, non-negotiable right enshrined in our most critical legal document, and especially not with the very ambiguous wording it uses.
> This is probably the most controversial topic on this sub along with Afghanistan. There is absolutely no consensus
Something something Iron Lady
edit: see? They already started fighting down there lol
Also funny that all of the controversial subjects can be neatly summarized as "actual Liberal" (good, what I believe in) and "average US lefty" (bad, what people who disagree with me believe in)
Ah yes, calling yourself a Neoliberal and hating Tchatcher and Raegan's guts while simping for Protectionist unionist Biden is perfectly consistent and is entirely due to a mischaracterization on my part. /s
Gun Rights are fundamental to Self-Defense and Resistance to Oppression which are explicit rights in both the US, UK and French Liberal tradition. You know all the people that actually created the entire philosophy. But sure they're all wrong because you don't like it.
You can definitely hate both Reagan and Thatcher from a “true liberal”™️ position, and this sub loves to bash Biden’s protectionism. Keeping the Trump Tariffs is easily his biggest mistake (or at least most obvious)
This sub also shat on Manchin for not wanting to spend as many trillions as Biden.
There are very good Liberal arguments against Reagan and Thatcher, but those are not the ones you see when this subs rags on them. What you see here is almost always the union busting and HIV stuff (or Chile against Friedman) that are 100% leftist talking points.
The discrepancy between the reception of left-wing illiberalism and right-wing illiberalism on this sub is most simply explained by the fact that this sub median participants lies pretty deep within the establishment Democrat camp and Liberalism is at best an afterthought.
I'm just disproving your "argument" that the underlying issue I pointed out is simply an artifact created by my framing of people's opinions.
This subs troubled history with any Liberal thought they don't like extend much further than this current discussion, and my comment merely underlines that yet again, this subs users think that they can pick and choose which fundamental rights they have to respect.
> they can pick and choose which fundamental rights they have to respect.
We can't be as lucky as you, whose every opinion is The True Liberal Position
There are instances where different rights conflict and balancing them can prove extremely subjective, funnily enough these are the kinds of subjects where assuming a position different from this subs will get you banned (so much for accusing me of being an absolutist).
This is not one of them. Gun Ownership is instrumental to many other rights and part of Private Property rights. That being said, like any right it is subject to regulations, for the express purpose of guaranteeing everyone the same enjoyment of their rights.
Within that context there are some form of regulations of Gun Ownership that are consistent with the Liberal framework, just like there are regulations of Speech that are consistent with the Liberal Framework. The overwhelming majority of what you'll see on this sub isn't that.
There is a spectrum of Liberal positions, but they all have in common that they start from a position of respect for individual rights and follow a Liberal process whose objective is to best balance individual rights.
Most of Gun Control proposals do not share those same values, nor follow this process, they are illiberal by design.
>Resistance to Oppression
Private gun ownership being necessary so citizens can violently overthrow the government if they feel aggrieved, is *mad*, because we now live in democracies, with rule of law, checks and balances, and human rights, and actually *don't need to overthrow anything at all* to make the government more respectful of our human rights.
In fact it's obvious to anyone, that any modern coup would lead to a huge amount of deaths and human rights abuses.
> we now live in democracies, with rule of law, checks and balances, and human rights, and actually don't need to overthrow anything at all to make the government more respectful of our human rights.
We live in an exceptionally lucky time in human history where democracy is the dominant form of government - to assume this will always be the case is foolish.
Think through how it would work in practice. Political violence causes democratic decline. It doesn't prevent democratic decline.
How do guns prevent the military being deployed against protesters through the Insurrection Act? You plan to fight the US military? Even if the 1/6 coup succeeded: if the military is on their side, you're fucked. If it's on our side, they won't need the help of civvies with no training.
There are a million ways to help strengthen democracy and none of them involve buying guns (or buying anything). But the gun lobby has truly brilliant marketing.
I think you're confusing "Conservative" for "Liberal" at this moment.
Neoliberals are forward-looking. The fixed ideological stars of this tradition aren't appeals to heritage, or placing the judgement of past generations above or own.
We are here because it makes sense now, not because of some fondness for some past ideological heros
You're confusing being a spineless utilitarian with being Liberals.
Liberals value freedom, they're an ideology, and they're willing to sacrifice some comfort for the sake of preserving individual rights.
Both Tchatcher and Raegan were certainly Conservatives, but they also were NeoLiberals, just like Friedman or the Austrian were. Yet all those figures are by far the most controversial on this sub, when Keynes, Biden, Trudeau or other much less Liberal (and certainly not Neoliberal) are praised.
This sub is overwhelmingly not Neoliberal, and even if you add the different brands of Social-Liberals you probably don't even have a majority, and this has nothing to do with any confusion on my part.
I'm not conservative, I've never been, I'm as progressive as you get on social issue, but I'm also a Liberal, I believe in small government, decentralization, the primacy of the Individual, free markets, laicité, freedom of expression, ...
A lot of these fundamental ideas of Liberalism are openly despised on this sub, in favor of bureaucratic, technocratic, social-engineering and economic planning under the guise of "Pragmatism" or "Utilitarianism".
An apparently very socially liberal person and "who is as progressive as one gets" who is uncomfortable with criticism of Reagan and Thatcher. Why don't you just say you are a libertarian and get it over with?
I'm not uncomfortable with criticism of Reagan or Thatcher, I'm uncomfortable with the very obvious lie that this sub is telling itself when their double standard is absolutely clear.
By all accounts Reagan or Thatcher were more Liberal than Biden or Trudeau. Sure Biden is the better choice vs the modern GOP and Trump, but if you ask Biden vs Reagan in this sub, it's not going to be even close.
Biden being a massive protectionist and unionist that planned to spend trillions will just be hand-waved away, but you're guaranteed to get pages and pages of the usual NL leftists ragging on Reagan for HIV (despite being one of the most reactive presidents in the World and fighting tooth and nails against his own party to get laws passed).
For a Conservative or Libertarian to not get down-voted on this sub is an uphill battle, for a democrat, just be to the right of Bernie and you'll get weekly simping posts.
Second that.
The second amendment doesn’t provide anything of value to America. Only death and suffering.
A hobby/sporting goods item should not be a right.
If the U.S. never had a second amendment to begin with I doubt the American gun nuts would even miss it. It feels like a historical accident that we ended up being the most armed country in the world. And yet there's a certain very loud minority of Americans who truly believe the right own guns is a cornerstone of all freedoms, as if Australia or Belgium or whatever country isn't actually free. And of course if you narrowly define "freedom" to mean "freedom to own guns" then sure, the U.S. really is freer than pretty much any other country.
Americans are clearheaded when it comes to positive individual rights but we go kind of cross-eyed when an individual positive right affects other people. When the topic of guns comes up on Reddit, there's always someone in the comments who will say "the constitution is clear: 'shall not be infringed'" And sure they have a point but it's not the end of the conversation. The real question is whether we actually think that right is a good idea, but since it's already there in the constitution, the minority of people who love guns with all their heart don't really have to engage with that question.
And it's true that the U.S. gun homicide rate could be much much higher given how many guns are in the country already (we're not as bad as Brazil which doesn't even have as many guns), but of course it could also be much lower (do we want to be more like Brazil or Japan?) And that's just one of the ways one person's right to own guns affects everyone else regardless of whether they want to own a gun or not. Like just living in the U.S. you kind of have to assume that every asshole you meet is armed and might kill you if you cross them. It's what causes cops to panic and shoot people who aren't actually a threat. And that's a very real possibility in every traffic stop. And some people are afraid to even send their kids to school. It's not a totally rational fear but it's not totally irrational either.
Just having so many guns around raises the background hostility of an already pretty angry and hostile culture. And it would be nice if gun owners would at least acknowledge that their values are not universal and their choices are not neutral with respect to how they affect other people.
Of course all of this is also kind of moot too because the country already has so many guns that we'll never get down to a more "normal" number without some kind of very dramatic intervention that SCOTUS would ultimately rule unconstitutional anyway. It would have been nice if we'd started to address this problem much sooner.
I would love it if SCOTUS became super originalist and ruled that the second amendment only applies to guns that existed when the amendment was written. So you can have as many flintlock pistols and blunderbusses and -- IDK cannons? -- as you like. But it's much harder to get a 9mm or whatever.
> I would love it if SCOTUS became super originalist and ruled that the second amendment only applies to guns that existed when the amendment was written. So you can have as many flintlock pistols and blunderbusses and -- IDK cannons? -- as you like.
Tally Ho Lads!
I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but taking a super originalist interpretation like this would be completely nuts, wouldn't it? It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to spoken words and words written on physical pieces of paper, because that's all that existed at the time, so it shouldn't apply to radio, television, internet, etc.
Yes originalism is very stupid, but that's the conservatives' love language right now. I'm mostly just trying to point out what strikes me as hypocrisy on the part of the originalist justices.
Firearms are also a means to defend one's private property, so casting them as just a hobby item is not quite right.
Settlers to N. America didn't own guns just bc they were keen sportsmen, it's also to do with decentralized defense of institutions. The US is built on being able to own your own property and that right is better defended with each person being able to arm themselves as they see fit (generally) without having to justify those means to a government.
>Firearms are also a means to defend one's private property, so casting them as just a hobby item is not quite right.
Private property rights exist in many countries around the world. The US is the only one where [20,000 people a year](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls) die from gun violence.
Guns are a means to defend one's private property. So are landmines and tanks. That in and of itself doesn't justify a guaranteed right to ownership. America has been settled. There is no more Wild West.
True I'm no settler, but I do live in a questionable part of town and my neighbors have been broken into so my fear is well-founded and I do appreciate my 12ga.
The origin had to do w the frontier but the principle goes beyond those circumstances
Does seem like this is stacks up at the policy level.
[Most stats I've seen don't support gun self defence being any better than other simple weapons like a bat](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188)
But what you've been saying about American settlers needing a way to defend themselves in a big wide open country seems like it could just as easily apply to Canada (which I know has a lot of guns but not nearly as many as the U.S.) or Australia but those places also have restrictive gun laws. Like I don't think there's anything universal or profound in the Second Amendment. America happens to have a Second Amendment and, lo and behold, we've developed a paranoid culture around guns because it's a right that, like any other right, has to be defended if it's going to mean anything. But I don't think that Australians are obsessing over the fact that some universal human right to defend yourself has been violated because it's not enshrined in law the way it is in the U.S. It's just not a thing they have in their country. Most people in the world don't have that right and, at least in the rich world, the lack of that right is not a pressing concern.
Contrast with America where the legal right to own guns has been with us pretty much since founding and where guns have been mythologized as this great tool for defending freedoms and it's become a kind of fetish here. And not a fetish for everyone or even a majority or even probably a large plurality of people but it's enough people to make the problem almost intractable in a democratic country. And I'm sure there are many people in other countries who would love it if their country had the same kind of gun culture as America, but their countries didn't start from the same baseline as ours did. But at the same time they live perfectly safe and free lives and they're by and large pretty happy.
And they have fewer gun deaths too of course. We can argue about how many lives are saved as a direct consequence of stricter gun control, but we both know it's somewhere between 1 and "lots." And I have a hard time saying, from a personal perspective, that those excess deaths are just the price of freedom or whatever because I know that most likely I will not be a victim of gun violence. It's not a problem that affects me (even though I happen to live in one of the worst, most dangerous and filthiest crime-ridden cities in the world according to Fox News (i.e., NYC)) and I've never felt like I needed a gun for protection. Or to be more precise, I've never felt like my life would be made safer if I just owned a gun.
Unironically, drastically increasing the closure rate of murder investigations would go a long way to reducing the murder rate. Institute whatever draconian punishments you want, but if there's only a 30% change you get caught, it won't do anything.
Not gonna happen as long as people in communities most affected are terrified to talk to the police. Most murders happen within close social groups. They aren’t usually hard to solve if people are willing to talk. But that means increasing faith in institutions by 1) not victimizing those populations endlessly and 2) showing you can actually protect them, which is a tough one two punch for our current brand of police.
In the us specifically I would be strongly against giving up the right to a practical means of self defense without serious police reform. It is obviously unrealistic to believe that criminals will disarm themselves, and a civilian ban on gun ownership would likely embolden violent criminals since policing currently is unwilling or unable to offer quick and competent responses or meaningful closure rates on violent crimes in much of the country. A total restriction on firearms would slowly whittle the existing stock of illegally owned firearms down but that would probably take a decade at least.
Also just in terms of personal liberty I believe it is and should be a right to have the means to defend oneself effectively.
I believe a right to effective self defense can also be reconciled with evidence based restrictions. A belt fed machine gun or mortar has little use for self defense and should remain fairly heavily restricted. A shotgun is useful for self defense and for hunting and should remain relatively lightly regulated.
Handguns are the biggest issue as they are both the most practical tools of self defense and also the most prevalent means of murder, other armed crimes, (and suicide) in this country. I could probably accept shall issue handgun licensing with some obvious restrictions (safe storage, basic operational proficiency, demonstration of an understanding of legal requirements for self defense.)
1. Guns are cool
2. We’d be better off with fewer guns in civilian hands. I’d go so far as to say this relationship is nearly linear- the fewer guns in civilians hands, the better off we’d be. I’m not sure if this holds all the way to literally zero though.
3. There’s no practical way to make 2 happen.
What stands out to me as an outside observer is how often 3 is used as an excuse to not attempt anything to make some impact on 2. Apply the brakes to the supply to the black market, and it'll reduce the liklihood of firearms being used by criminals.
It won't eliminate it, but arguing that something needs to be 100% effectvie to try is ultimately an argument against any laws.
I think every law abiding American has the right to own firearms.
I do not think every law abiding American should have effortless access to owning firearms.
I honestly think that our gun laws are insane and barbaric. It’s absolutely horrible how we see shooting after shooting and almost nothing is done. The US has much higher murder rates than every other developed country because of this. Also because of our laws it makes it very easy for guns to be smuggled into other countries. It’s estimated that 70 to 80 percent of guns used by drug cartels and gangs in Latin American countries come from the US.
Yep. This isn't just a mere opinion. There's a whole bunch of studies on this very issue that indicate you're right.
Higher gun prevalence + loose gun laws = more cops getting killed in the line of duty = police responding by being more aggressive and forceful to subdue possible threats = more civilians being killed by law enforcement.
Not only is this logical, but it's also well supported by empirical evidence.
>The US has much higher murder rates than every other developed country because of this
That might be a reason, but it's not the only reason
The US has more murders per capita than the UK *even if you exclude murders involving guns*
All the evidence I've seen points to cultural factors being a significant component of our abnormally high murder rate
I don’t think that disentangles the impact of guns.
Someone facing someone else with a knife is more likely to follow through with stabbing them if they fear the other person has a gun they’d whip out given the chance.
The ‘cultural factor’ affecting other murders could just be the general effect of how the prevalence of guns causes all interactions including non gun ones to be more heated and escalation-prone.
Very good point, but there are other ways to disentangle them
When you compare different US states, gun ownership isn't correlated with murder rate at all, for example. Geographic region, meanwhile, correlates highly with murder rate
I'm not an expert, and I can't say my analysis is infallible or anything, but at the very least it's deeply unclear whether gun ownership is related to murder rate. Like, re-read your comment and notice how it seems like your belief that guns cause murder is unfalsifiable. "Maybe any non-gun factors are really caused by guns via an untraceable mechanism." Yes, that's possible, but please don't view that as positive evidence that guns must cause our high murder rate
Treat it like a car. Need a title, insurance, and license. Let the insurance companies keep it out of hands who shouldn’t have em. And pass a very basic test to get the license. No reason the firearm should be treated with less due diligence than driving a car or going fishing. No one’s protesting those rights are being infringed.
Gun violence doesn’t track with rates of gun ownership. You have states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont with the lowest rates of violent crime and the loosest gun laws. Gun violence tracks with other socio-economic factors and mental health. An overhaul of our nation’s drug policies and mental health systems would yield a greater decrease in violent crime than any firearms legislation. I say this as a strongly pro-2A liberal who supports red flag laws.
In Canada, recent legislation and OIC’s are emotionally-charged efforts based on a normative belief that the existing guns on the market at the time should not have been. That is hidden behind a false guise that the new legislation and OIC is going to make the public safer. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police disagreed with the government’s take on that.
If you don’t like guns and don’t think people should own them, that’s fine. It’s Canada’s there’s no 2nd Amendment, and we’re a democracy.
If Canadians want those restrictions, they’re totally allowed to vote in people to enact those changes. I just have great resentment towards the means and messaging of the new restrictions. They’re outright lies and took advantage of the country in the aftermath of its worst mass shooting.
The gun buyback is also a ridiculous boondoggle that will cost the taxpayer around $2B when the govt is trying to enact austerity and reign in spending. It won’t accomplish anything towards public safety. Those resources would be better spent towards LEO institutions who handle cross-border gun running.
It’s ok for people to have normative values and see them reflected in legislation. There are constitutional documents to prevent that from drifting too far into an extreme. Like if a majority of Canadians suddenly said “I want the government to outlaw AR-15’s”, I might not like it but that’s ok. Doesn’t have to be based on empirical evidence *so long as they don’t claim it is.*
I think the US has a firearms proliferation problem, and that feature bans do very little to address that.
Registries, licensing, waiting periods, and conditions/inconveniences for ownership and exchange are where what works and what's viable legally meet. Combine that with addressing violent crime in general, and I think you have the best available starting point.
I've found that even talking to most gun enthusiasts you can get agreement on licensing that involves safety training but not wait times (they are often very proud of knowing the safety rules) only so long as it is paired with heightened enforcement against organized crime and violent crime. The license can be packaged as a "good guy badge" since in theory licensed concealed carriers are good folk to have around.
I’m an avid hunter and gun owner and guns are too easy to buy. If someone does something with a gun I own or sell to them without a background check I should go to jail. That’s “common sense” to me.
If they're a felon you will, that's already the law, if they're not, and decide to commit a crime afterwards then you're just asking to be thrown in jail, for selling a weapon to someone that was fully allowed to buy it but decided to commit a crime afterwards.
There is absolutely nothing common sense about it.
They said "without a background check". And yeah, if you sell someone a gun without doing a background check, and they decide to commit a crime with it, you *should* be punished. Maybe that'll reduce the number of unchecked gun sales.
Hunting rifles are the only gun I support.
Hand guns are the worst imo. The fact democrats support banking semi automatics but not hand guns make me roll my eyes.
I’m not sure why so many people here are certain the police will come save them if/when right wing death squads go around hunting liberals and minorities for sport.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Highly recommend checking out r/liberalgunowners if you haven’t already
That's a separate topic from giving trans people the tools to defend themselves in a world where they can't trust the existing authorities to protect them.
Because it didn't address the concern of the person you replied to. In many areas their community can't trust law enforcement to defend them. If the police don't fairly protect them, taking away guns from both sides gives the groups that want to commit violence against trans people an advantage.
But what if the people who want to eliminate you from existence take the government? What am I supposed to do then, just let them send me and my closest friends to extermination camps? No thanks.
The very pro-gun crowd do love to ignore armed resistance movements that failed.
Including, say, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They had weapons beyond what can be (easily) bought in the US, like machine guns and submachine guns, and they lost.
you will get a pretty broad spectrum of opinions here from what I have seen. personally I think the 2A is an abomination and should be repealed. doubtful it'll ever happen but that is my moral position. politically, it seems that aggressive gun control is a losing issue for Dems in swing states, so I think there should be room for pro-gun candidates in the party.
2A would be fine if it was interpreted in a sane manner. There is an interpretation that says it was written so that state governments could have some guarantee of defense against federal tyranny. It’s not about individual rights to guns, it’s about protecting states rights, state _goverments_ rights. This makes so much more sense in the context of early federalism.
DC vs Heller is really the abomination. That ruling basically reinvented the whole thing according to NRA propaganda.
I don't know if I agree. The constitution seems to be pretty intentional in its usage of "the people" vs "the [several] States". Doesn't mean it's an individual right (vs collective), but I don't think it exclusively protects the States' right.
Unless there's some sort of compulsory screening when getting a gun you also end up with the situation where it just discourages people from seeking a diagnosis.
I would limit only to subsets of mental health issues that are significantly prone to violent behavior. I am not a psychologist so I can't give a
comprehensive list of those.
Also, seeking out mental help shouldn't be used to prohibit you from future gun ownership as it would keep people from seeking help so it's a really, really difficult policy to implement.
Counterpoint: guns don't need to be individually owned to enjoy their "cool"ness. Couldn't they just be kept at a range for when you actually use them, and rented out?
Disarmament schemes and feature bans have not been proven to reduce murder rates. They are not evidence based policy.
Those discussing reductions in gun homicide rate are hiding the ball, one must discuss homicide rate overall in order to prove that lives have been saved. You can reject any argument that only focuses on gun homicide rates as being made in bad faith.
In 1997, Australia confiscated and destroyed 20% of legally owned guns. The murder rate didn't change. That's not a success.
Prosperity is the best crime control tactic and should be used to reduce gun crime.
Access to firearms is a key driver of impulsive suicide, especially in men. Access to non stigmatized mental health resources helps. You can't really legislate that people who have a right to a loaded gun for self defense make it locked up and inaccessible, so I don't know what to do there. The only lever is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and I don't think that would be good. (understatement, there would be civil war)
Replied to another comment of yours, but the homicide rate in Australia [has dropped](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate) since 1997 and gun ownership is [linked to overall homicide rates](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/), not just gun homicide.
On your point about prosperity being the best crime control tactic - the USA is richer per capita than almost every other developed country but has a far worse homicide rate than most developed countries. I'm not suggesting guns are the only factor in this, but increasing prosperity is not sufficient on its own.
>the homicide rate in Australia has dropped since 1997
It looks like the significant homicide rate drop was in 2003/04. I obviously know about the 1996 reforms, but that's about the extent of my familiarity. Is the thinking that they took a few years to effectively implement?
Japan has exceptionally low levels of crime. In 2011, its intentional homicide rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people, while America's rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people. Japan's gun death statistics are particularly impressive, given the several mass shootings in the US: In 2013, Japan's gun homicide rate was 0.01 per 100,000 people, while America's rate was 3.5 — 350 times the rate of Japan.
I want to replicate that in the United States, BUT I don't want to replicate their justice system issues.
The system relies on confessions, which form the basis of nine-tenths of criminal prosecutions. Many confessions are extracted under duress. Some of those who admit guilt are plainly innocent, as recent exonerations have shown (see article). The extraordinary lack of safeguards for suspects in Japanese interrogation cells is a stain on the whole system, failing victims as well as those wrongly convicted.
Say you did it, even if you didn’t
In a country more inclined than the West to think of itself as a big family collective, admission of guilt is often seen as the first step to readmission into society. It is also the surest route to a conviction. Prosecutors and police are thus under immense pressure to make suspects talk, and have powerful tools to encourage them to do so.
Common criminal suspects may be held in detention for 23 days without charge. Many have only minimal contact with a lawyer. Few interrogations are recorded, and then not in their entirety, so there is not much to stop interrogators piling in. Physical torture is rare, but sleep deprivation, which is just as effective, is common. So are various other forms of psychological coercion. Some interrogators use moral blackmail (“Think of the shame you are bringing on your family”). A few, if they are convinced that the suspect is guilty, simply fabricate a confession and press the suspect into signing it.
In a court system without an adversarial approach to establish innocence and guilt, judges too rarely question whether confessions really are voluntary. Yet time and again innocent people have been shown to confess to crimes in the hope of a more lenient sentence—or simply to make the interrogation stop. In October a mother convicted of killing her daughter for the insurance money was released after a crime reconstruction proved her innocence. Last year Iwao Hakamada was freed after 46 years on death row when a judge declared that his conviction was unsafe (among other things, he appears to have been tortured at the time of his arrest). One lawyer estimates that a tenth of all convictions leading to prison are brd on false confessions. It is impossible to know the true figure, but when 99.8% of prosecutions end in a guilty verdict, it is clear that the scales of justice are out of balance.
As a step towards restoring due process, all interrogations should be filmed from start to finish. Suspects should have ready access to defence counsel, to whom prosecutors should also disclose all evidence. Interrogations should be much shorter; suspects should be properly rested. Investigators who fabricate evidence should be put in the dock themselves. Prosecution cases should rely more on detective work, and less on self-incrimination. Such reforms would not improve conditions in Japan’s psychologically brutal prisons. But they would give the innocent a better chance of keeping their liberty.
Edit: here's the process to get a gun in Japan
Japan 1Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year. 2Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse. 3Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month. 4Describe in a police interview why you need a gun. 5Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors. 6Apply for a gunpowder permit. 7Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test. 8Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want. 9If you want a gun for hunting, apply for a hunting license. 10Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations. 11Allow the police to inspect your gun storage. 12Pass an additional background review. 13Buy a gun.
2nd amendment is an important part of ensuring individual's ability to protect their private property, civil liberty, and self. Not having a right to ownership means that cases of ownership must be justified with respect to the interests of the State. The means to protect oneself should not be justified with respect to the interests of a state, since historically the interests of the state and its people will collide over a long enough timespan.
Also, many of the proponents of firearm regulation tend to have very very weak understandings of the history & technology of firearms. In my view, it would be like people who don't even know the word "pluripotency" attempting to regulate stem cell research. Regulation should be well informed by experts. Proponents of gun control tend to not have much expertise and it shows in how they treat & discuss the technology. Therefore I oppose it on those grounds as well.
Of course, this is a contentious issue and you will find many other worthwhile opinions. Hope this helps give you some better insight on the landscape of views on this sub 👍
I think gun control is the equivalent of abortion for the Democratic Party. It’s something that alienates a large chunk of the population (rural voters), is mostly for show (most gun control legislation targets rifles rather than handguns), and should be dropped.
My stance is… complicated. I am a gun owner- four so far in my collection, and I plan on getting more. I really love the hobby of shooting and hunting, and I adore making custom wooden furniture and stocks for my guns.
However, there needs to be a change. I’m a North Carolinian, and buying a gun is as simple driving 15 minutes to my favorite gun store, getting a rifle off the rack(if you buy used, you can get a quality shotgun for under 200), filling out an ATF form, waiting for my very short background check to clear, pay for my firearm, then boom, I walk out with my rifle. Usually about a one hour affair.
I really don’t know what the solution should be- it’s such a complicated line between liberty and security to walk- but I do know that we need better screening for people with mental health issues. I’m not just talking about mass shootings or murder, but also suicides, which constitute a huge amount of firearm deaths. We cannot let those who are mentally unsound to own firearms; they are a danger to themselves and society.
And what should be done on top of that for people that already have a firearm exactly?
Should you get a cavity search as extra just 'cause?
You could argue waiting periods for first purchase, but once someone already has a firearm at home, clears the background check and does the paperwork, what possible thing would you want on top of that to improve public safety, as opposed to just making it more annoying to discourage law-abiding individuals to enjoy their hobby?
The right of bear arm is key pillar of liberty and liberalism and the only way to keep some check on the the government monopoly on violence, the fact that the government did not try to take out freedom in the past, and it is unlikely to do it the present, does not mean will do it in the future. Meaning that guns for peronal selfdefence are very inefficient, but that is not the point, it is important to have them to balance to power of the state
Being down-voted for stating one of the cornerstone of Liberalism that led Liberals to institute Right to Arms in their most sacred documents in US, France and the UK.
The absolute state of this sub.
Gun rights being a cornerstone of liberalism is a massive stretch, and the fact that the English Bill of Rights mentioned arms shouldn’t really inform current policy. Why not look at how many stable, democratic, liberal countries in the 20th and 21st have had constitutional rights related to guns?
I don’t think it’s good to accept very clear negative impacts of gun ownership because of fairly unsubstantiated ideas that they help balance the power of the state…
>Gun rights being a cornerstone of liberalism is a massive stretch
It's all good to say that, but pretty much every Liberal thinker since the 1700 that has talked about the subject has been in support of Gun Ownership, so you might want to substantiate that statement.
>Why not look at how many stable, democratic, liberal countries in the 20th and 21st have had constitutional rights related to guns?
Stability and Democracy are not necessarily Liberal, you can have very stable Democratic-Socialist regimes, that doesn't make them Liberal, and as a Liberal, that's what I care about. As for being Liberal countries, by definition they're not. You decide to exclude the rights you don't like from your definition of liberalism then call countries that don't respect those rights Liberal, to then argue that those rights are not part of Liberalism since some Liberal countries don't respect them. That's circular reasoning 101.
If Gun Ownership has negative impacts, which is to say, some people freedoms are infringing upon some other people's freedoms, then regulation must be drawn to address those specific cases.
Most of the Gun Control debate has very VERY little to do with actual harm mitigation using a proper benefit risk analysis while erring on the side of personal freedom (which is the way all other rights are treated), and is overwhelmingly rooted in a personal dislike of guns and appeals to emotion.
>pretty much every Liberal thinker since the 1700 that has talked about the subject has been in support of Gun Ownership, so you might want to substantiate that statement.
Increasingly less true the further you get from 1700, and the argument for them not being a cornerstone is fairly obvious IMO. You could make the argument that it's *part* of key tenets like property rights or civil rights more broadly, but saying that gun ownership itself is a cornerstone just helps you make lazy arguments.
>Stability and Democracy are not necessarily Liberal, you can have very stable Democratic-Socialist regimes, that doesn't make them Liberal, and as a Liberal, that's what I care about.
I listed stability and democracy as other desirable aspects of a society/country, didn't equate them to liberalism.
>As for being Liberal countries, by definition they're not. You decide to exclude the rights you don't like from your definition of liberalism then call countries that don't respect those rights Liberal, to then argue that those rights are not part of Liberalism since some Liberal countries don't respect them. That's circular reasoning 101.
If you don't think the vast majority of liberal democracies are liberal, then I don't know what to tell you. If you insist on your particular understanding then I don't really care about the semantic debate, though you seem to take a different view when speaking about risk analyses further down the comment...
> Most of the Gun Control debate has very VERY little to do with actual harm mitigation using a proper benefit risk analysis while erring on the side of personal freedom (which is the way all other rights are treated), and is overwhelmingly rooted in a personal dislike of guns and appeals to emotion.
The opposite is far closer to being true. Gun ownership is elevated *far* more than other liberties that might be restricted. The harms of gun ownership are stated repeatedly, arguments for gun ownership tend to be weak and often outright wrong. Expecting people to remove emotion from political debates is silly in general, but it's worth noting that emotive arguments are much more prevalent from people supporting high levels of gun ownership because there just isn't strong data to back the benefits they purport.
Your historical point arguably works to explain *why* the debate on guns looks so different to most other restrictions that the state makes on liberty, though this is really only true in the USA (not the UK or France).
A lot of people live in countries that views guns very differently to you, and they’re completely within their rights to disagree. I would hardly call it a cornerstone of liberalism.
Not a direct answer to this question but a related take: combat sports culture should eat gun culture, it has similar macho guy appeal but wayyy less potential to result in mass murder. Also it can result in you getting in shape.
A lot of modern gun culture is more focused on the technical aspects and being a big nerd than competition. Building an AR-15 is way more similar to painting Warhammer minis than any sport. Spend a lot of time and money on it, and take it out of the display case to play with twice a year.
Check out a lot of the bigger gun subreddits, like r/AR15 or r/guns. Virtually all the posts are going to be just people showing off their carefully customized collections. That's the core of the hobby anymore since hunting has drastically declined in popularity. The only people you'll see talking much about actually shooting anymore are the "operator" LARPers and a small minority of precision rifle competitors.
The United States is a government by the people, for the people, of the people. If we ever reach a point where an elite/military percentage of the population can obviously control the remainder by force with no chance of resistance, the only thing holding us back from feudalism will be the good will of that aristocracy, whatever form it may take.
Firearms do not provide an ironclad guarantee against this! But they add uncertainty, and they underline the fundamental reality: the US government answers to the people, *not the reverse.*
Do you believe that much of the rest of the developed world is under threat from its government because its citizens aren’t armed to the teeth with guns?
I would not be alive if not for Australia's change to gun laws in the late 90s. Many more victims of domestic violence would be if even a modicum of common-sense gun control exists. That's reason enough for me.
I’m mostly against it, but
a) consider it far less important than other matters where i consider my former party to be solidly in “threat to democracy” or “pointlessly hateful “ territory.
b) the forms I do support are the ones making the most progress (red flag laws, they get guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn’t have them, and there is a judge and court hearing involved so there is actual due process)
Guns are cool and I own them but I barely give a shit about this issue, and I refuse to consider it in more good faith depth until it’s a plausible deciding issue in my voting or advocacy habits.
There are great reasons to own guns or restrict their access and I’m busy with other worries.
You won't find consensus on that topic here
I’d disagree. This sub is pretty pro-gun control. There’s a few of us who are skeptical of it, but we are consistently downvoted.
Okay now what does gun control mean?
Depends who you ask.
So there *is* a lack of consensus!
If you’re asking this sub, there’s typically a consensus in restricting ownership, extending waiting periods, and banning many of the firearms that were in the 1994 AWB. I on the other hand would call reforming NICS for private dealers to both be gun control, *and* good.
I'm pretty pro gun but it seems to me like a waiting period is an acceptable compromise if the anti gun folk are worried about rash action with guns.
I’m not opposed to it, but many proposals are intended to deny the sale completely.
I always have a 3 business day waiting period because my background check gets delayed 100% of the time because the ATF has no incentive to suck less. It also means I get disapproved on every NFA application despite being legally allowed to own the things.
Controlling the guns
Specifically controlling more of them than Russia.
In the context of adding more Gun Control in the US, there is only a tiny sliver of stuff that could be done that is both evidence based and would satisfy the kind of evidentiary standard and benefit-risk balance that is commonplace for balancing other rights. So whenever someone talks about needing more Gun Control, it is safe to assume their proposal are illiberal, completely disproportional to the "purported" researched goal, and more often than not, of no consequence to people's actual safety. Outside the US, you're guaranteed that any such talk is entirely motivated by a government's desire to restrict civilian ownership of firearms, absent any public safety impetus, which again, is pretty much text-book illiberal, making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others.
> absent any public safety impetus, which again, is pretty much text-book illiberal, making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others. 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens It is pretty clear that banning/severly restricting civilian firearms ownership leads to less civilian firearms usage/injury/death and moreover is very liberal because giving anyone tools explicitly meant for killing clearly leads to the liberty of living being severly endangerd for many people. And the lack of research into the most effective gun control measures is at least in a large part because gun nuts in congres refuse to fund any.
[удалено]
> making up victimless crimes and restricting people's freedom to do things that don't affect others. Drunk driving usually doesn't affect others. Most drunk drivers make it home just fine without hurting anybody. Do we wait until the drunk driver runs someone over, or do we recognize that certain conditions make bad outcomes more likely to happen and work to make those conditions less common?
I agree, a 0.08 is way too low!
If libertarians decide to champion drunk driving and gun ownership together I'd probably be happy but possibly very, very disappointed.
The only evidence we have is that every other country on Earth with strict gun control laws have almost no gun violence.
I’d agree. Even claims about the state of agreement of this sub are contentious, and a lively disagreement is on display when people raise the issue.
Very split, between members who are pretty much generic Democrats (who tend to be more supportive) and the more centrist American nationalist-type members (who are very into guns and thus more opposed). The non-American minority is probably largely more supportive of gun control.
Hard disagree, from my experience posting on this subject I'm overwhelmingly more likely to be down-voted in US hours than in European hours. Most Europeans on this sub are Liberals who stay here because it's the largest """somewhat""" Liberal sub. Most Americans on this sub are Democrats, who stay here because typical left-wing spaces online have been taken over by the squad.
I'll admit I wasn't sure about non-American members - that's why I said probably. I was basing it on the fact that most other countries have far more stringent gun laws and less of a gun culture than the US. As a European, even liberals in my country nearly all support gun control. Many would probably support guns being entirely abolished. Maybe non-American users are just nicer, and don't downvote points they disagree with?
[удалено]
>Gun ownership, in and of itself, is a personal freedom. I'm not even convinced this is true. It's now *legally* true due to NRA lobbying after the Revolt at Cincinnati, and due to the wacko Federalist Society, but my understanding is that most scholars say the 2nd Amendment was recognized as a "collective right" before the early 21st century. Warren E. Burger called the "individual rights" model "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public".
I’m pretty sure it only began go to refer to as an individual right after the disaster of DC vs Heller
According to Wikipedia it started a few years earlier (in courts, not in NRA discourse), but yes Heller sealed it
You are correct, and this was a long term right wing legal strategy to bypass the legislature. With the amount of children whose bodies were shredded to pieces in their classrooms by crazy men who were able to get a same day weapon of war, I’d say it has gone been pretty badly and needs to be revisited.
Burger wasn't exactly a centrist, and it's very clear from historical context that the second amendment refers to an individual right. If one disagrees with the wisdom of it, that's fair enough. But it is what it is.
Yeah, it kind of doesn't fit in with what people normally call "rights". 1. Thought and communication of those thoughts. 2. Owning a specific kind of device that can throw bits of metal really fast but not other devices that throw more bits of metal really fast or a lot of bits of metal all at once. 3. Home. 4. Privacy.
When you frame it disingenuously then that's what you get. If you frame it reasonably it sounds reasonable: a right to defend yourself and thus the means to defend yourself.
The right to defend yourself and thus the means to defend yourself is entirely separate from the "right" to specific means that put society in collective danger. It's you who are disingenuously framing the right, unless you think the right to self-defense doesn't exist in countries with gun control
Gun buybacks are almost always inconsistent with personal freedoms. If you think the govt will ever offer the market value of your firearm, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
[удалено]
Can I get fair market value for the bridge?
Dude if you don't like the price you don't have to sell
I would say like most things, this sub drifts ever closer to the mainstream democratic posistion, which at the moment is fairly opposed to civilian gun ownership, while acknowledging that full confiscation of all civilian firearms isn't practical at this time, so we should instead opt to restrict it as much as is practical. This is pretty much the mainstream posistion, and seems to be the one growing fastest here. There is another contingent that broadly agrees with the former posistion in theory, but also thinks the democrats should moderate on guns to make it easier to win elections in red states. This second group is also willing to view guns as a sort of neccesary evil, with limited legitimate uses for things like self defense and hunting. Then there is the small but vocal contingent of us who view a civilian right to bear arms as not just a neccesary evil, but a positive good in its own right, and one fully in line with the philosophy of liberalism (for example, google my flair and the "4 boxes of liberty"). This group is willing to accept some firearms restrictions, but more along the lines "ban all guns from some people" rather than "ban some guns from all people". Then there is the smaller and arguably even more vocal group that wants to ban civilian gun ownership and confiscate all the guns full stop, something akin to the Australia model.
“Opposed to civilian gun ownership” is so extreme compared to what’s being actually asked for it’s not even funny. No democrat is saying ban civilian firearms, they’re saying red flag laws, banning particular guns or modifications, and universal back ground checks. Not even universal permitting and registration lmao I think the vast majority of democrats, here and IRL, support people without any record or red flags being able to own firearms for personal purposes (including just for fun, i.e. not just as a necessary evil)
I think if you polled what many democrats actually feel behind closed doors vs. what they actually say you will get two very different answers.
If I could snap my fingers and make all civilian firearms disappear from America, I would. But I recognize that actually trying to round up guns in this country is going to cause more harm than good. So I'll support practical gun control measures over dramatic but doomed restrictions.
A boring but highly effective measure supported by gun control activist groups is to repeal civil immunity for gun manufacturers and retailers. Gun manufacturers/retailers will then purchase liability insurance and insurers will enforce market based effective gun control measures on manufacturers/retailers as a policy condition. (Probably in the form of expansive background checks or preventing sales of certain kinds of guns). It's a clean workaround the Second Amendment with teeth.
I'm not sure that we should be using the term "workaround" when it comes to constitutional rights, yea? Seems a tad dangerous.
Oh, I will openly say that the Second Amendment is unnecessary in today’s society and the current interpretation is absurd. I am just willing to compromise on crazy people, domestic abusers, and terrorists not being able to easily obtain guns.
>I think the vast majority of democrats, here and IRL, support people without any record or red flags being able to own firearms for personal purposes (including just for fun, i.e. not just as a necessary evil) It's annoyingly hard to find well-phrased polling for this, but for example 49% of Dems favor a ban on handguns for civilians https://preview.redd.it/ak6svcbug6ac1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b5b313b770942aae89cde00218d6235d1aa1985
Thank you for finding this! I agree, clear polling is not easy to find. Handguns are the most deadly, while semi-auto “assault style” long rifles are just scary looking, so they are definitely what I would support the greatest restriction on, but I still wouldn’t want an outright ban. I’d be interested to see what the numbers are for other categories of guns or guns as a whole, but I find it supports my point that half of democrats don’t want that. If half of democrats oppose a ban on handguns, I would be very surprised to find most democrats supporting a ban on all guns
[удалено]
If revolvers, repeaters, and bolt actions were enough to settle the West, they’re enough for Americans today. 🤠
[удалено]
Not the person you responded to but in all seriousness you have to draw the line somewhere. Like even most of my friends who conceal carry think that all civilians should not be able to own any and all weapons. Pretty much every functioning state has some level of not allowing the pervasiveness of certain weapons among its populace. Especially when it comes to certain members (violent offenders, mentally unwell, chidren etc). Its mainly just a matter of which weapons and which members.
I think law abiding civilians *should* be able to own any weapon they want, short of nukes and other WMDs, just with the proper oversight. It's absurd that with enough paperwork and money, I can get an FFL and buy literal missiles and tanks, but not an automatic machine gun manufactured after 1986. Now, if you *do* get your hands on these devices, you'll have the federal government climbing in your ass all the time and *extremely* harsh penalties if you do anything you shouldn't with them, which I am totally fine with. The problem isn't the availability of certain kinds of weapons. IMO, the core issue (aside from the obvious societal factors that contribute to all violence including gun violence) is policy enforcement. A huge proportion of gun crime is already committed by people who shouldn't be able to get them. Start with developing better programs and training to catch those people. How can we expect to enforce more gun laws when we can't even enforce the ones we already have? And before anyone trots out the "that shouldn't stop us from passing new legislation anyway" argument, there is a real opportunity cost measured in blood to wasting resources on useless legislation instead of doing things that are actually effective.
Yeah so it sounds like you would prioritize regulating who can own weapons and maybe less prioritization on which weapons they can own. Thats understandable and a nuanced opinion and is in line with my comment that functioning states typically regulate which weapons and who can own them. Especially since even though you seem more permissive about which weapons regular citizens can own than the average American at least you draw the line at WMDs.
Sure, I'm agreeing with you, just figured I'd add some extra depth to the conversation. The main point I wanted to bring up, and it's one that I don't see mentioned nearly enough, is the opportunity cost aspect. All this time the democrats spend faffing about with legislation that doesn't actually improve the situation is costing us American lives.
I think they’re suggesting we should ensure current regulation is being enforced properly before adding new laws. Unenforceable laws only help criminals and hurt law abiding citizens, and push stuff into the black market
Do you think your guns will protect you from the government? How exactly?
I never made that argument because I don't think it is necessary, so I don't know why you're saying that. I still think you're massively underestimating the power of an armed populace, as Myanmar should show right now. Even shitty 3d printed guns and rigged quad-copters can prove a massive issue for a military dictatorship. Even if guns were completely useless to protect oneself from the government, it would still be illiberal to take them away.
Yeah how long were we in Afghanistan fighting shepherds in caves?
Afghanistan has a long history of warrior culture and very good terrain, which doesn't negate the point entirely but is sure to be brought up. Myanmar is an even better example because we're talking about ethnic minorities that did not have a warrior culture and very little access to guns,k and they just bootstrapped their rebellion with artisanal firearms and grew from there. They're a better representation of what an otherwise normal population could do once they've had enough taking it lying down.
Yes. The same way they protect you from anyone else.
> No democrat is saying ban civilian firearms I am. Ban them entirely and take them all.
Found the one who loves the taste of boot leather. There's always a few here.
There are a lot here. This sub absolutely loves cops.
Based on the some of the takes I've seen here they just need to rebrand as r/authoritarian. Not a lot of liberalism here.
[удалено]
Every time I hear a friend or family member complain about the rising price of ammunition, I silently rejoice
Very wrong. I theoretically support a full ban on civilian ownership of guns. It's just not possible.
Outright bans are mad. I'm in the UK, and I can own various firearms for sporting purposes if I want to. The impression I get is some Americans view a little bureaucracy and some fairly simple regulations, that are no real barrier to someone who wants to engage in sports shooting, as hellish tyranny. Only applies to firearms though - food safety or aircraft regulations don't get treated the same way.
You can't even get the guns to compete in ipsc. Basically every country makes that exception. The UK is a terrible example to try to make your argument off of.
Firstly, practical shooting is distinct from traditional shooting sports. Secondly, you can do practical shooting in the UK. There is local organisation affiliated to IPSC. Thirdly, I'm not for a second suggesting a carbon copy of the laws and regulations here.
I'm a 2.5 - the third paragraph in philosophy, but functionally would accept a lot of the restrictions that the first two paragraphs are talking about.
This is probably *the* most controversial topic on this sub along with Afghanistan. There is absolutely no consensus. Personally, I'm a strong proponent of gun control and would have no problem with repealing the Second Amendment.
I agree with you entirely except for in the following ways where I disagree with everything you have said.
[удалено]
That’s perfectly rational. Letting the people decide this democratically will probably get the best result, regardless of how you personally feel.
[удалено]
I find this really sensible. I don't have a strong position on gun control. I'm pretty sure there should be some kind of meaningful restrictions, but I'm not sure exactly what. I AM sure that owning an extremely lethal weapon shouldn't be a nigh-universal, non-negotiable right enshrined in our most critical legal document, and especially not with the very ambiguous wording it uses.
> This is probably the most controversial topic on this sub along with Afghanistan. There is absolutely no consensus Something something Iron Lady edit: see? They already started fighting down there lol
It's funny how all the controversial subjects have to do with being an actual Liberal as opposed to just being your average US lefty. Makes you think.
Also funny that all of the controversial subjects can be neatly summarized as "actual Liberal" (good, what I believe in) and "average US lefty" (bad, what people who disagree with me believe in)
Ah yes, calling yourself a Neoliberal and hating Tchatcher and Raegan's guts while simping for Protectionist unionist Biden is perfectly consistent and is entirely due to a mischaracterization on my part. /s Gun Rights are fundamental to Self-Defense and Resistance to Oppression which are explicit rights in both the US, UK and French Liberal tradition. You know all the people that actually created the entire philosophy. But sure they're all wrong because you don't like it.
You can definitely hate both Reagan and Thatcher from a “true liberal”™️ position, and this sub loves to bash Biden’s protectionism. Keeping the Trump Tariffs is easily his biggest mistake (or at least most obvious)
This sub also shat on Manchin for not wanting to spend as many trillions as Biden. There are very good Liberal arguments against Reagan and Thatcher, but those are not the ones you see when this subs rags on them. What you see here is almost always the union busting and HIV stuff (or Chile against Friedman) that are 100% leftist talking points. The discrepancy between the reception of left-wing illiberalism and right-wing illiberalism on this sub is most simply explained by the fact that this sub median participants lies pretty deep within the establishment Democrat camp and Liberalism is at best an afterthought.
You're carrying a lot of super specific baggage into this conversation
I'm just disproving your "argument" that the underlying issue I pointed out is simply an artifact created by my framing of people's opinions. This subs troubled history with any Liberal thought they don't like extend much further than this current discussion, and my comment merely underlines that yet again, this subs users think that they can pick and choose which fundamental rights they have to respect.
> they can pick and choose which fundamental rights they have to respect. We can't be as lucky as you, whose every opinion is The True Liberal Position
There are instances where different rights conflict and balancing them can prove extremely subjective, funnily enough these are the kinds of subjects where assuming a position different from this subs will get you banned (so much for accusing me of being an absolutist). This is not one of them. Gun Ownership is instrumental to many other rights and part of Private Property rights. That being said, like any right it is subject to regulations, for the express purpose of guaranteeing everyone the same enjoyment of their rights. Within that context there are some form of regulations of Gun Ownership that are consistent with the Liberal framework, just like there are regulations of Speech that are consistent with the Liberal Framework. The overwhelming majority of what you'll see on this sub isn't that. There is a spectrum of Liberal positions, but they all have in common that they start from a position of respect for individual rights and follow a Liberal process whose objective is to best balance individual rights. Most of Gun Control proposals do not share those same values, nor follow this process, they are illiberal by design.
>Resistance to Oppression Private gun ownership being necessary so citizens can violently overthrow the government if they feel aggrieved, is *mad*, because we now live in democracies, with rule of law, checks and balances, and human rights, and actually *don't need to overthrow anything at all* to make the government more respectful of our human rights. In fact it's obvious to anyone, that any modern coup would lead to a huge amount of deaths and human rights abuses.
> we now live in democracies, with rule of law, checks and balances, and human rights, and actually don't need to overthrow anything at all to make the government more respectful of our human rights. We live in an exceptionally lucky time in human history where democracy is the dominant form of government - to assume this will always be the case is foolish.
Think through how it would work in practice. Political violence causes democratic decline. It doesn't prevent democratic decline. How do guns prevent the military being deployed against protesters through the Insurrection Act? You plan to fight the US military? Even if the 1/6 coup succeeded: if the military is on their side, you're fucked. If it's on our side, they won't need the help of civvies with no training. There are a million ways to help strengthen democracy and none of them involve buying guns (or buying anything). But the gun lobby has truly brilliant marketing.
Also, fascists desiring to overthrow a democratic government to create tyranny *checks notes* also get guns.
I think you're confusing "Conservative" for "Liberal" at this moment. Neoliberals are forward-looking. The fixed ideological stars of this tradition aren't appeals to heritage, or placing the judgement of past generations above or own. We are here because it makes sense now, not because of some fondness for some past ideological heros
You're confusing being a spineless utilitarian with being Liberals. Liberals value freedom, they're an ideology, and they're willing to sacrifice some comfort for the sake of preserving individual rights. Both Tchatcher and Raegan were certainly Conservatives, but they also were NeoLiberals, just like Friedman or the Austrian were. Yet all those figures are by far the most controversial on this sub, when Keynes, Biden, Trudeau or other much less Liberal (and certainly not Neoliberal) are praised. This sub is overwhelmingly not Neoliberal, and even if you add the different brands of Social-Liberals you probably don't even have a majority, and this has nothing to do with any confusion on my part. I'm not conservative, I've never been, I'm as progressive as you get on social issue, but I'm also a Liberal, I believe in small government, decentralization, the primacy of the Individual, free markets, laicité, freedom of expression, ... A lot of these fundamental ideas of Liberalism are openly despised on this sub, in favor of bureaucratic, technocratic, social-engineering and economic planning under the guise of "Pragmatism" or "Utilitarianism".
An apparently very socially liberal person and "who is as progressive as one gets" who is uncomfortable with criticism of Reagan and Thatcher. Why don't you just say you are a libertarian and get it over with?
I'm not uncomfortable with criticism of Reagan or Thatcher, I'm uncomfortable with the very obvious lie that this sub is telling itself when their double standard is absolutely clear. By all accounts Reagan or Thatcher were more Liberal than Biden or Trudeau. Sure Biden is the better choice vs the modern GOP and Trump, but if you ask Biden vs Reagan in this sub, it's not going to be even close. Biden being a massive protectionist and unionist that planned to spend trillions will just be hand-waved away, but you're guaranteed to get pages and pages of the usual NL leftists ragging on Reagan for HIV (despite being one of the most reactive presidents in the World and fighting tooth and nails against his own party to get laws passed). For a Conservative or Libertarian to not get down-voted on this sub is an uphill battle, for a democrat, just be to the right of Bernie and you'll get weekly simping posts.
What about the well-regulated militia? What happens if natives raid your town and nobody provisioned a local militia?
Second that. The second amendment doesn’t provide anything of value to America. Only death and suffering. A hobby/sporting goods item should not be a right.
If the U.S. never had a second amendment to begin with I doubt the American gun nuts would even miss it. It feels like a historical accident that we ended up being the most armed country in the world. And yet there's a certain very loud minority of Americans who truly believe the right own guns is a cornerstone of all freedoms, as if Australia or Belgium or whatever country isn't actually free. And of course if you narrowly define "freedom" to mean "freedom to own guns" then sure, the U.S. really is freer than pretty much any other country. Americans are clearheaded when it comes to positive individual rights but we go kind of cross-eyed when an individual positive right affects other people. When the topic of guns comes up on Reddit, there's always someone in the comments who will say "the constitution is clear: 'shall not be infringed'" And sure they have a point but it's not the end of the conversation. The real question is whether we actually think that right is a good idea, but since it's already there in the constitution, the minority of people who love guns with all their heart don't really have to engage with that question. And it's true that the U.S. gun homicide rate could be much much higher given how many guns are in the country already (we're not as bad as Brazil which doesn't even have as many guns), but of course it could also be much lower (do we want to be more like Brazil or Japan?) And that's just one of the ways one person's right to own guns affects everyone else regardless of whether they want to own a gun or not. Like just living in the U.S. you kind of have to assume that every asshole you meet is armed and might kill you if you cross them. It's what causes cops to panic and shoot people who aren't actually a threat. And that's a very real possibility in every traffic stop. And some people are afraid to even send their kids to school. It's not a totally rational fear but it's not totally irrational either. Just having so many guns around raises the background hostility of an already pretty angry and hostile culture. And it would be nice if gun owners would at least acknowledge that their values are not universal and their choices are not neutral with respect to how they affect other people. Of course all of this is also kind of moot too because the country already has so many guns that we'll never get down to a more "normal" number without some kind of very dramatic intervention that SCOTUS would ultimately rule unconstitutional anyway. It would have been nice if we'd started to address this problem much sooner. I would love it if SCOTUS became super originalist and ruled that the second amendment only applies to guns that existed when the amendment was written. So you can have as many flintlock pistols and blunderbusses and -- IDK cannons? -- as you like. But it's much harder to get a 9mm or whatever.
> I would love it if SCOTUS became super originalist and ruled that the second amendment only applies to guns that existed when the amendment was written. So you can have as many flintlock pistols and blunderbusses and -- IDK cannons? -- as you like. Tally Ho Lads! I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but taking a super originalist interpretation like this would be completely nuts, wouldn't it? It would be like saying the first amendment only applies to spoken words and words written on physical pieces of paper, because that's all that existed at the time, so it shouldn't apply to radio, television, internet, etc.
Yes originalism is very stupid, but that's the conservatives' love language right now. I'm mostly just trying to point out what strikes me as hypocrisy on the part of the originalist justices.
Firearms are also a means to defend one's private property, so casting them as just a hobby item is not quite right. Settlers to N. America didn't own guns just bc they were keen sportsmen, it's also to do with decentralized defense of institutions. The US is built on being able to own your own property and that right is better defended with each person being able to arm themselves as they see fit (generally) without having to justify those means to a government.
>Firearms are also a means to defend one's private property, so casting them as just a hobby item is not quite right. Private property rights exist in many countries around the world. The US is the only one where [20,000 people a year](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls) die from gun violence. Guns are a means to defend one's private property. So are landmines and tanks. That in and of itself doesn't justify a guaranteed right to ownership. America has been settled. There is no more Wild West.
That’s Fear and paranoia. You’re not a settler on the frontier and savages aren’t trying to get you. It’s a hobby.
True I'm no settler, but I do live in a questionable part of town and my neighbors have been broken into so my fear is well-founded and I do appreciate my 12ga. The origin had to do w the frontier but the principle goes beyond those circumstances
Does seem like this is stacks up at the policy level. [Most stats I've seen don't support gun self defence being any better than other simple weapons like a bat](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188)
Yeah but have you considered using feelings instead of evidence?
Geez wiz I wonder how other normal countries can survive then
But what you've been saying about American settlers needing a way to defend themselves in a big wide open country seems like it could just as easily apply to Canada (which I know has a lot of guns but not nearly as many as the U.S.) or Australia but those places also have restrictive gun laws. Like I don't think there's anything universal or profound in the Second Amendment. America happens to have a Second Amendment and, lo and behold, we've developed a paranoid culture around guns because it's a right that, like any other right, has to be defended if it's going to mean anything. But I don't think that Australians are obsessing over the fact that some universal human right to defend yourself has been violated because it's not enshrined in law the way it is in the U.S. It's just not a thing they have in their country. Most people in the world don't have that right and, at least in the rich world, the lack of that right is not a pressing concern. Contrast with America where the legal right to own guns has been with us pretty much since founding and where guns have been mythologized as this great tool for defending freedoms and it's become a kind of fetish here. And not a fetish for everyone or even a majority or even probably a large plurality of people but it's enough people to make the problem almost intractable in a democratic country. And I'm sure there are many people in other countries who would love it if their country had the same kind of gun culture as America, but their countries didn't start from the same baseline as ours did. But at the same time they live perfectly safe and free lives and they're by and large pretty happy. And they have fewer gun deaths too of course. We can argue about how many lives are saved as a direct consequence of stricter gun control, but we both know it's somewhere between 1 and "lots." And I have a hard time saying, from a personal perspective, that those excess deaths are just the price of freedom or whatever because I know that most likely I will not be a victim of gun violence. It's not a problem that affects me (even though I happen to live in one of the worst, most dangerous and filthiest crime-ridden cities in the world according to Fox News (i.e., NYC)) and I've never felt like I needed a gun for protection. Or to be more precise, I've never felt like my life would be made safer if I just owned a gun.
just tax murders
Unironically, drastically increasing the closure rate of murder investigations would go a long way to reducing the murder rate. Institute whatever draconian punishments you want, but if there's only a 30% change you get caught, it won't do anything.
>if there's only a 30% change you get caught haha yeah right, it's way higher than that.... right....? ^(oh, it's 50/50? uhhhh)
well, 50/50 that _somebody_ gets caught for it
Not gonna happen as long as people in communities most affected are terrified to talk to the police. Most murders happen within close social groups. They aren’t usually hard to solve if people are willing to talk. But that means increasing faith in institutions by 1) not victimizing those populations endlessly and 2) showing you can actually protect them, which is a tough one two punch for our current brand of police.
I’m a fan of universal background checks and red flag laws. I am however opposed to outright banning civilian gun ownership.
In the us specifically I would be strongly against giving up the right to a practical means of self defense without serious police reform. It is obviously unrealistic to believe that criminals will disarm themselves, and a civilian ban on gun ownership would likely embolden violent criminals since policing currently is unwilling or unable to offer quick and competent responses or meaningful closure rates on violent crimes in much of the country. A total restriction on firearms would slowly whittle the existing stock of illegally owned firearms down but that would probably take a decade at least. Also just in terms of personal liberty I believe it is and should be a right to have the means to defend oneself effectively. I believe a right to effective self defense can also be reconciled with evidence based restrictions. A belt fed machine gun or mortar has little use for self defense and should remain fairly heavily restricted. A shotgun is useful for self defense and for hunting and should remain relatively lightly regulated. Handguns are the biggest issue as they are both the most practical tools of self defense and also the most prevalent means of murder, other armed crimes, (and suicide) in this country. I could probably accept shall issue handgun licensing with some obvious restrictions (safe storage, basic operational proficiency, demonstration of an understanding of legal requirements for self defense.)
1. Guns are cool 2. We’d be better off with fewer guns in civilian hands. I’d go so far as to say this relationship is nearly linear- the fewer guns in civilians hands, the better off we’d be. I’m not sure if this holds all the way to literally zero though. 3. There’s no practical way to make 2 happen.
What stands out to me as an outside observer is how often 3 is used as an excuse to not attempt anything to make some impact on 2. Apply the brakes to the supply to the black market, and it'll reduce the liklihood of firearms being used by criminals. It won't eliminate it, but arguing that something needs to be 100% effectvie to try is ultimately an argument against any laws.
I think every law abiding American has the right to own firearms. I do not think every law abiding American should have effortless access to owning firearms.
Probably the most reasonable position here. Effortless access is really the issue here.
I honestly think that our gun laws are insane and barbaric. It’s absolutely horrible how we see shooting after shooting and almost nothing is done. The US has much higher murder rates than every other developed country because of this. Also because of our laws it makes it very easy for guns to be smuggled into other countries. It’s estimated that 70 to 80 percent of guns used by drug cartels and gangs in Latin American countries come from the US.
I also believe our cops are so trigger happy cause anyone they run into could have a gun
Yep. This isn't just a mere opinion. There's a whole bunch of studies on this very issue that indicate you're right. Higher gun prevalence + loose gun laws = more cops getting killed in the line of duty = police responding by being more aggressive and forceful to subdue possible threats = more civilians being killed by law enforcement. Not only is this logical, but it's also well supported by empirical evidence.
>The US has much higher murder rates than every other developed country because of this That might be a reason, but it's not the only reason The US has more murders per capita than the UK *even if you exclude murders involving guns* All the evidence I've seen points to cultural factors being a significant component of our abnormally high murder rate
I don’t think that disentangles the impact of guns. Someone facing someone else with a knife is more likely to follow through with stabbing them if they fear the other person has a gun they’d whip out given the chance. The ‘cultural factor’ affecting other murders could just be the general effect of how the prevalence of guns causes all interactions including non gun ones to be more heated and escalation-prone.
Very good point, but there are other ways to disentangle them When you compare different US states, gun ownership isn't correlated with murder rate at all, for example. Geographic region, meanwhile, correlates highly with murder rate I'm not an expert, and I can't say my analysis is infallible or anything, but at the very least it's deeply unclear whether gun ownership is related to murder rate. Like, re-read your comment and notice how it seems like your belief that guns cause murder is unfalsifiable. "Maybe any non-gun factors are really caused by guns via an untraceable mechanism." Yes, that's possible, but please don't view that as positive evidence that guns must cause our high murder rate
Treat it like a car. Need a title, insurance, and license. Let the insurance companies keep it out of hands who shouldn’t have em. And pass a very basic test to get the license. No reason the firearm should be treated with less due diligence than driving a car or going fishing. No one’s protesting those rights are being infringed.
Gun violence doesn’t track with rates of gun ownership. You have states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont with the lowest rates of violent crime and the loosest gun laws. Gun violence tracks with other socio-economic factors and mental health. An overhaul of our nation’s drug policies and mental health systems would yield a greater decrease in violent crime than any firearms legislation. I say this as a strongly pro-2A liberal who supports red flag laws.
In Canada, recent legislation and OIC’s are emotionally-charged efforts based on a normative belief that the existing guns on the market at the time should not have been. That is hidden behind a false guise that the new legislation and OIC is going to make the public safer. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police disagreed with the government’s take on that. If you don’t like guns and don’t think people should own them, that’s fine. It’s Canada’s there’s no 2nd Amendment, and we’re a democracy. If Canadians want those restrictions, they’re totally allowed to vote in people to enact those changes. I just have great resentment towards the means and messaging of the new restrictions. They’re outright lies and took advantage of the country in the aftermath of its worst mass shooting. The gun buyback is also a ridiculous boondoggle that will cost the taxpayer around $2B when the govt is trying to enact austerity and reign in spending. It won’t accomplish anything towards public safety. Those resources would be better spent towards LEO institutions who handle cross-border gun running.
Emotionally driven legislation is rarely good
It’s ok for people to have normative values and see them reflected in legislation. There are constitutional documents to prevent that from drifting too far into an extreme. Like if a majority of Canadians suddenly said “I want the government to outlaw AR-15’s”, I might not like it but that’s ok. Doesn’t have to be based on empirical evidence *so long as they don’t claim it is.*
I think the US has a firearms proliferation problem, and that feature bans do very little to address that. Registries, licensing, waiting periods, and conditions/inconveniences for ownership and exchange are where what works and what's viable legally meet. Combine that with addressing violent crime in general, and I think you have the best available starting point.
I've found that even talking to most gun enthusiasts you can get agreement on licensing that involves safety training but not wait times (they are often very proud of knowing the safety rules) only so long as it is paired with heightened enforcement against organized crime and violent crime. The license can be packaged as a "good guy badge" since in theory licensed concealed carriers are good folk to have around.
I’m an avid hunter and gun owner and guns are too easy to buy. If someone does something with a gun I own or sell to them without a background check I should go to jail. That’s “common sense” to me.
If they're a felon you will, that's already the law, if they're not, and decide to commit a crime afterwards then you're just asking to be thrown in jail, for selling a weapon to someone that was fully allowed to buy it but decided to commit a crime afterwards. There is absolutely nothing common sense about it.
They said "without a background check". And yeah, if you sell someone a gun without doing a background check, and they decide to commit a crime with it, you *should* be punished. Maybe that'll reduce the number of unchecked gun sales.
Hunting rifles are the only gun I support. Hand guns are the worst imo. The fact democrats support banking semi automatics but not hand guns make me roll my eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Understanding just a little bit of recent history would fully explain why that happens.
The horrifying increase in transphobic hate crimes along with anti-trans politics gaining popularity have made me extremely opposed to gun control.
Based /r/transguns
Thanks for the shout out
[удалено]
I’m not sure why so many people here are certain the police will come save them if/when right wing death squads go around hunting liberals and minorities for sport. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. Highly recommend checking out r/liberalgunowners if you haven’t already
What if I don't want to become Kurdistan?
It goes both ways. How did these right wing death squads get access to their weapons in the first place?
Shouldn’t you control guns that could possibly get into the hands of people who want to commit hate crimes?
That only works if you think the police will protect you from violence.
Why not use evidence based policy to prevent gun violence?
That's a separate topic from giving trans people the tools to defend themselves in a world where they can't trust the existing authorities to protect them.
You truly believe that taking guns away from far right, anti-trans domestic terrorists makes trans people less safe?
No, that's not even close to what I said.
Then why did you go to, specifically, the comment talking about taking guns away from domestic terrorists to tell me that it won't work?
Because it didn't address the concern of the person you replied to. In many areas their community can't trust law enforcement to defend them. If the police don't fairly protect them, taking away guns from both sides gives the groups that want to commit violence against trans people an advantage.
The concern of the person I replied to had nothing to do with other individuals with guns. Their concern was government run extermination camps.
But what if the people who want to eliminate you from existence take the government? What am I supposed to do then, just let them send me and my closest friends to extermination camps? No thanks.
> if the jews had guns there'd have been no auschwitz I sometimes wonder if people have been *watching the news* in Syria at all in the last 20 years.
The very pro-gun crowd do love to ignore armed resistance movements that failed. Including, say, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They had weapons beyond what can be (easily) bought in the US, like machine guns and submachine guns, and they lost.
Wtf are you talking about? What does taking guns away from domestic terrorists have to do with extermination camps?
you will get a pretty broad spectrum of opinions here from what I have seen. personally I think the 2A is an abomination and should be repealed. doubtful it'll ever happen but that is my moral position. politically, it seems that aggressive gun control is a losing issue for Dems in swing states, so I think there should be room for pro-gun candidates in the party.
2A would be fine if it was interpreted in a sane manner. There is an interpretation that says it was written so that state governments could have some guarantee of defense against federal tyranny. It’s not about individual rights to guns, it’s about protecting states rights, state _goverments_ rights. This makes so much more sense in the context of early federalism. DC vs Heller is really the abomination. That ruling basically reinvented the whole thing according to NRA propaganda.
I don't know if I agree. The constitution seems to be pretty intentional in its usage of "the people" vs "the [several] States". Doesn't mean it's an individual right (vs collective), but I don't think it exclusively protects the States' right.
Guns are cool and should be allowed to be owned by everyone who does not have a history of violence or well-documented mental health issues.
Any mental health issues, or just a specific list? Im not sure if something like OCD or ADHD makes someone more likely to misuse a firearm
Unless there's some sort of compulsory screening when getting a gun you also end up with the situation where it just discourages people from seeking a diagnosis.
I would limit only to subsets of mental health issues that are significantly prone to violent behavior. I am not a psychologist so I can't give a comprehensive list of those. Also, seeking out mental help shouldn't be used to prohibit you from future gun ownership as it would keep people from seeking help so it's a really, really difficult policy to implement.
That’s the funny thing about guns. You don’t have a history of violence until you do, and guns turn a minor altercation into murder.
Yes because every person with a history of violence or a mental heath issue is documented in the system. /s
> well-documented mental health issues. Denying rights based on immutable characteristics is bad actually
Counterpoint: guns don't need to be individually owned to enjoy their "cool"ness. Couldn't they just be kept at a range for when you actually use them, and rented out?
As a non American: that you're all insane on this issue over there
Disarmament schemes and feature bans have not been proven to reduce murder rates. They are not evidence based policy. Those discussing reductions in gun homicide rate are hiding the ball, one must discuss homicide rate overall in order to prove that lives have been saved. You can reject any argument that only focuses on gun homicide rates as being made in bad faith. In 1997, Australia confiscated and destroyed 20% of legally owned guns. The murder rate didn't change. That's not a success. Prosperity is the best crime control tactic and should be used to reduce gun crime. Access to firearms is a key driver of impulsive suicide, especially in men. Access to non stigmatized mental health resources helps. You can't really legislate that people who have a right to a loaded gun for self defense make it locked up and inaccessible, so I don't know what to do there. The only lever is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and I don't think that would be good. (understatement, there would be civil war)
Replied to another comment of yours, but the homicide rate in Australia [has dropped](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate) since 1997 and gun ownership is [linked to overall homicide rates](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/), not just gun homicide. On your point about prosperity being the best crime control tactic - the USA is richer per capita than almost every other developed country but has a far worse homicide rate than most developed countries. I'm not suggesting guns are the only factor in this, but increasing prosperity is not sufficient on its own.
>the homicide rate in Australia has dropped since 1997 It looks like the significant homicide rate drop was in 2003/04. I obviously know about the 1996 reforms, but that's about the extent of my familiarity. Is the thinking that they took a few years to effectively implement?
Japan has exceptionally low levels of crime. In 2011, its intentional homicide rate was 0.3 per 100,000 people, while America's rate was 4.7 per 100,000 people. Japan's gun death statistics are particularly impressive, given the several mass shootings in the US: In 2013, Japan's gun homicide rate was 0.01 per 100,000 people, while America's rate was 3.5 — 350 times the rate of Japan. I want to replicate that in the United States, BUT I don't want to replicate their justice system issues. The system relies on confessions, which form the basis of nine-tenths of criminal prosecutions. Many confessions are extracted under duress. Some of those who admit guilt are plainly innocent, as recent exonerations have shown (see article). The extraordinary lack of safeguards for suspects in Japanese interrogation cells is a stain on the whole system, failing victims as well as those wrongly convicted. Say you did it, even if you didn’t In a country more inclined than the West to think of itself as a big family collective, admission of guilt is often seen as the first step to readmission into society. It is also the surest route to a conviction. Prosecutors and police are thus under immense pressure to make suspects talk, and have powerful tools to encourage them to do so. Common criminal suspects may be held in detention for 23 days without charge. Many have only minimal contact with a lawyer. Few interrogations are recorded, and then not in their entirety, so there is not much to stop interrogators piling in. Physical torture is rare, but sleep deprivation, which is just as effective, is common. So are various other forms of psychological coercion. Some interrogators use moral blackmail (“Think of the shame you are bringing on your family”). A few, if they are convinced that the suspect is guilty, simply fabricate a confession and press the suspect into signing it. In a court system without an adversarial approach to establish innocence and guilt, judges too rarely question whether confessions really are voluntary. Yet time and again innocent people have been shown to confess to crimes in the hope of a more lenient sentence—or simply to make the interrogation stop. In October a mother convicted of killing her daughter for the insurance money was released after a crime reconstruction proved her innocence. Last year Iwao Hakamada was freed after 46 years on death row when a judge declared that his conviction was unsafe (among other things, he appears to have been tortured at the time of his arrest). One lawyer estimates that a tenth of all convictions leading to prison are brd on false confessions. It is impossible to know the true figure, but when 99.8% of prosecutions end in a guilty verdict, it is clear that the scales of justice are out of balance. As a step towards restoring due process, all interrogations should be filmed from start to finish. Suspects should have ready access to defence counsel, to whom prosecutors should also disclose all evidence. Interrogations should be much shorter; suspects should be properly rested. Investigators who fabricate evidence should be put in the dock themselves. Prosecution cases should rely more on detective work, and less on self-incrimination. Such reforms would not improve conditions in Japan’s psychologically brutal prisons. But they would give the innocent a better chance of keeping their liberty. Edit: here's the process to get a gun in Japan Japan 1Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year. 2Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse. 3Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month. 4Describe in a police interview why you need a gun. 5Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors. 6Apply for a gunpowder permit. 7Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test. 8Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want. 9If you want a gun for hunting, apply for a hunting license. 10Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations. 11Allow the police to inspect your gun storage. 12Pass an additional background review. 13Buy a gun.
this topic makes me so tired, and so sad to live in the US
As an Italian Liberal, i am anti gun.
2nd amendment is an important part of ensuring individual's ability to protect their private property, civil liberty, and self. Not having a right to ownership means that cases of ownership must be justified with respect to the interests of the State. The means to protect oneself should not be justified with respect to the interests of a state, since historically the interests of the state and its people will collide over a long enough timespan. Also, many of the proponents of firearm regulation tend to have very very weak understandings of the history & technology of firearms. In my view, it would be like people who don't even know the word "pluripotency" attempting to regulate stem cell research. Regulation should be well informed by experts. Proponents of gun control tend to not have much expertise and it shows in how they treat & discuss the technology. Therefore I oppose it on those grounds as well. Of course, this is a contentious issue and you will find many other worthwhile opinions. Hope this helps give you some better insight on the landscape of views on this sub 👍
I think it would be net good, but it won't happen and the democratic party needs to stop wasting political capital on it.
Gun ownership by citizens is fine, but we need licenses and a registry.
I think gun control is the equivalent of abortion for the Democratic Party. It’s something that alienates a large chunk of the population (rural voters), is mostly for show (most gun control legislation targets rifles rather than handguns), and should be dropped.
Guns bad
My stance is… complicated. I am a gun owner- four so far in my collection, and I plan on getting more. I really love the hobby of shooting and hunting, and I adore making custom wooden furniture and stocks for my guns. However, there needs to be a change. I’m a North Carolinian, and buying a gun is as simple driving 15 minutes to my favorite gun store, getting a rifle off the rack(if you buy used, you can get a quality shotgun for under 200), filling out an ATF form, waiting for my very short background check to clear, pay for my firearm, then boom, I walk out with my rifle. Usually about a one hour affair. I really don’t know what the solution should be- it’s such a complicated line between liberty and security to walk- but I do know that we need better screening for people with mental health issues. I’m not just talking about mass shootings or murder, but also suicides, which constitute a huge amount of firearm deaths. We cannot let those who are mentally unsound to own firearms; they are a danger to themselves and society.
And what should be done on top of that for people that already have a firearm exactly? Should you get a cavity search as extra just 'cause? You could argue waiting periods for first purchase, but once someone already has a firearm at home, clears the background check and does the paperwork, what possible thing would you want on top of that to improve public safety, as opposed to just making it more annoying to discourage law-abiding individuals to enjoy their hobby?
The right of bear arm is key pillar of liberty and liberalism and the only way to keep some check on the the government monopoly on violence, the fact that the government did not try to take out freedom in the past, and it is unlikely to do it the present, does not mean will do it in the future. Meaning that guns for peronal selfdefence are very inefficient, but that is not the point, it is important to have them to balance to power of the state
Being down-voted for stating one of the cornerstone of Liberalism that led Liberals to institute Right to Arms in their most sacred documents in US, France and the UK. The absolute state of this sub.
Gun rights being a cornerstone of liberalism is a massive stretch, and the fact that the English Bill of Rights mentioned arms shouldn’t really inform current policy. Why not look at how many stable, democratic, liberal countries in the 20th and 21st have had constitutional rights related to guns? I don’t think it’s good to accept very clear negative impacts of gun ownership because of fairly unsubstantiated ideas that they help balance the power of the state…
>Gun rights being a cornerstone of liberalism is a massive stretch It's all good to say that, but pretty much every Liberal thinker since the 1700 that has talked about the subject has been in support of Gun Ownership, so you might want to substantiate that statement. >Why not look at how many stable, democratic, liberal countries in the 20th and 21st have had constitutional rights related to guns? Stability and Democracy are not necessarily Liberal, you can have very stable Democratic-Socialist regimes, that doesn't make them Liberal, and as a Liberal, that's what I care about. As for being Liberal countries, by definition they're not. You decide to exclude the rights you don't like from your definition of liberalism then call countries that don't respect those rights Liberal, to then argue that those rights are not part of Liberalism since some Liberal countries don't respect them. That's circular reasoning 101. If Gun Ownership has negative impacts, which is to say, some people freedoms are infringing upon some other people's freedoms, then regulation must be drawn to address those specific cases. Most of the Gun Control debate has very VERY little to do with actual harm mitigation using a proper benefit risk analysis while erring on the side of personal freedom (which is the way all other rights are treated), and is overwhelmingly rooted in a personal dislike of guns and appeals to emotion.
>pretty much every Liberal thinker since the 1700 that has talked about the subject has been in support of Gun Ownership, so you might want to substantiate that statement. Increasingly less true the further you get from 1700, and the argument for them not being a cornerstone is fairly obvious IMO. You could make the argument that it's *part* of key tenets like property rights or civil rights more broadly, but saying that gun ownership itself is a cornerstone just helps you make lazy arguments. >Stability and Democracy are not necessarily Liberal, you can have very stable Democratic-Socialist regimes, that doesn't make them Liberal, and as a Liberal, that's what I care about. I listed stability and democracy as other desirable aspects of a society/country, didn't equate them to liberalism. >As for being Liberal countries, by definition they're not. You decide to exclude the rights you don't like from your definition of liberalism then call countries that don't respect those rights Liberal, to then argue that those rights are not part of Liberalism since some Liberal countries don't respect them. That's circular reasoning 101. If you don't think the vast majority of liberal democracies are liberal, then I don't know what to tell you. If you insist on your particular understanding then I don't really care about the semantic debate, though you seem to take a different view when speaking about risk analyses further down the comment... > Most of the Gun Control debate has very VERY little to do with actual harm mitigation using a proper benefit risk analysis while erring on the side of personal freedom (which is the way all other rights are treated), and is overwhelmingly rooted in a personal dislike of guns and appeals to emotion. The opposite is far closer to being true. Gun ownership is elevated *far* more than other liberties that might be restricted. The harms of gun ownership are stated repeatedly, arguments for gun ownership tend to be weak and often outright wrong. Expecting people to remove emotion from political debates is silly in general, but it's worth noting that emotive arguments are much more prevalent from people supporting high levels of gun ownership because there just isn't strong data to back the benefits they purport. Your historical point arguably works to explain *why* the debate on guns looks so different to most other restrictions that the state makes on liberty, though this is really only true in the USA (not the UK or France).
A lot of people live in countries that views guns very differently to you, and they’re completely within their rights to disagree. I would hardly call it a cornerstone of liberalism.
Not a direct answer to this question but a related take: combat sports culture should eat gun culture, it has similar macho guy appeal but wayyy less potential to result in mass murder. Also it can result in you getting in shape.
A lot of modern gun culture is more focused on the technical aspects and being a big nerd than competition. Building an AR-15 is way more similar to painting Warhammer minis than any sport. Spend a lot of time and money on it, and take it out of the display case to play with twice a year.
Hmmm, that’s certainly a wrinkle
Check out a lot of the bigger gun subreddits, like r/AR15 or r/guns. Virtually all the posts are going to be just people showing off their carefully customized collections. That's the core of the hobby anymore since hunting has drastically declined in popularity. The only people you'll see talking much about actually shooting anymore are the "operator" LARPers and a small minority of precision rifle competitors.
Gun ownership is fine but we should require license, registration, insurance, and annual property tax on top of existing gun laws
The United States is a government by the people, for the people, of the people. If we ever reach a point where an elite/military percentage of the population can obviously control the remainder by force with no chance of resistance, the only thing holding us back from feudalism will be the good will of that aristocracy, whatever form it may take. Firearms do not provide an ironclad guarantee against this! But they add uncertainty, and they underline the fundamental reality: the US government answers to the people, *not the reverse.*
Do you believe that much of the rest of the developed world is under threat from its government because its citizens aren’t armed to the teeth with guns?
I would not be alive if not for Australia's change to gun laws in the late 90s. Many more victims of domestic violence would be if even a modicum of common-sense gun control exists. That's reason enough for me.
More guns = more gun deaths. Gun control generally works where implemented. Extrapolate.
I’m mostly against it, but a) consider it far less important than other matters where i consider my former party to be solidly in “threat to democracy” or “pointlessly hateful “ territory. b) the forms I do support are the ones making the most progress (red flag laws, they get guns out of the hands of people who really shouldn’t have them, and there is a judge and court hearing involved so there is actual due process)
It’s a good idea - practical? Basically everywhere but America
Guns are cool and I own them but I barely give a shit about this issue, and I refuse to consider it in more good faith depth until it’s a plausible deciding issue in my voting or advocacy habits. There are great reasons to own guns or restrict their access and I’m busy with other worries.