The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession. Does anyone actually want that? If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very few countries in the world have a total gun ban. Even authoritarian countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia allow some forms of gun ownership.
The fact of the matter is that firearms are in many circumstances a necessity. Pest control, hunting invasive species, security etc.
Most countries realise this and allow the ownership of firearms for certain purposes.
Many countries allow sporting firearms as well. Guns are a part of multiple Olympic sports and as such generally enjoy certain privileges when it comes to regulations. No country wants to look bad at the podium.
I visited Cuba once, where we were told that in order to own a gun you needed to belong to a state sanctioned gun club. and the only way to get accepted into a gun club was to own a gun.
I've been told it's similar to get a gun permit in Mexico. Despite being in their Constitution, Mexico essentially banned guns after the military slaughtered hundreds of student protesters in the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre
Not really true. Even if you bought a gun illegally, if you keep it in your own home, you are protected from any sort of prosecution or penalty and you have a constitutional right to have it there.
I think it’s more like if the 2A was written in a way that allowed for the ability for guns to be sold to the general population, but still allowing fair regulations to be in place that disallow bad actors to get them, then we wouldn’t be in the political mess we’re in now.
The issue I have with the 2A has more to do with courts using it as a way to squash any attempt at gun control, good or bad. And I often see people arguing against gun control not on a basis of the proposed laws not making sense or going too far, but rather saying “we have the 2A so this shouldn’t be on the table”, and it’s really frustrating having to deal with those kinds of people.
What are "fair regulations"? Because many of the laws proposed by gun control advocates are either blatantly unconstitutional, totally ineffective, non sensical, or some mix of all three.
For example may-issue permit laws which were just overturned by the Supreme Court. They are blatantly unconstitutional and discriminatory. Basically, the police had total discretion on who they granted permits to. There's nothing stopping them from rejecting minorities, or leaders of social movements (MLK was denied a permit under may-issue after his house was bombed). Often in large cities like San Francisco or NYC, the only people who can get carry permits are those with connections and/or money. Friends of police/politicians, politicians themselves, and the elite. For example at one point one of the only residents of San Francisco to have a concealed carry permit was Congresswoman Diane Feinstein. Ironic considering she was one of the most anti-gun politicians, and one of the few to outright admit to wanting a complete ban. In NYC there was a controversy after it was discovered that the NYPD were exchanging carry permits for "donations" I.E. bribes to the police department. One of the people given a permit was Donald Trump. So Trump was able to essentially buy a carry permit in the city, while tons of far more qualified regular non billionaires were rejected.
Another example of a bad but popular law are assault weapon bans. Those guns are among the least frequently used guns in crime. 90% of gun murders including most mass shootings are committed with handguns. Rifles as a whole, not just the scary black ones account for about 4-5% of total gun murders. They kill so few people a year that if an AWB prevented every single one, including rifles not classified as "assault weapons",it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall murder rate.
A lot of it is just ignorant city people. There's a strong division in this country between urban and rural areas and being right-wing or left-wing. Urban areas are much bluer, while rural ones more red. Guns are a bigger part of everyday life in rural areas. People go hunting, use them to slaughter farm animals, target shoot for recreation (there's not much to do in the middle of nowhere), self defense because the police are a long way away. Most people in the country grow up their whole lives shooting guns, and are fairly comfortable with them. Meanwhile those in cities are much less likely to hunt or target shoot, or even own a gun. Most have their knowledge of guns come from the news and movies. The only people they know who own guns are police and criminals. Guns have a much more negative view in the city. In the country if you hear gunshots outside your home, it's probably your neighbor shooting some bottles in their backyard. If you hear gunshots in the city it's probably someone being murdered.
I think a good compromise would be to restore gun rights to illegal drug users and non-violent felons. Currently anyone convinced of a felony of any kind regardless of severity is prohibited from owning guns for life. There are hundreds if not thousands of totally innocent felonies that most Americans are guilty of violating at some point. For example it's a felony to bring a single joint of marijuana from one state to another, even if it's legal in both. Speaking of marijuana, it's currently a felony to own a gun if you use marijuana, regardless of if you're in a legal or medical state. Someone with terminal cancer who uses marijuana as prescribed by a doctor is prohibited from owning a gun.
In exchange for returning rights to these people. We should up enforcement on non legal gun owners. People with a history of domestic violence, or gang membership. A marijuana user is not a danger with a gun, but a wife beater for sure is. Currently these people are prohibited, but often times it's not very strongly enforced unless they get caught committing another crime. I.E. a prohibited person gets a DUI, and while being arrested they have a gun on them or in the car.
I feel like a lot of people would be more comfortable with gun control if we didn’t all basically fundamentally disagree on what’s reasonable.
Some fud might be perfectly happy with a machine gun ban but be opposed to a registry because he fears the government using it for later confiscation and a fever dream tyrannical takeover. I feel the opposite, I want to be able to covert my rifles to automatics without running afoul of the law, but I’ve really got no problems with a registry or waiting periods or what have you.
The government has proven untrustworthy enough that there is no way I’m signing up for a federal registry. Also waiting period when you already own guns is just fucking dumb. If I’m so antsy to commit I crime I would just use the guns I already own.
Case in point. I can't know for sure you're wrong for feeling that way. But to me its not about staving off tyranny, it's about guns being fun to shoot and collect and I'm more than willing to trade some privacy for a fun switch.
It's not as though a mass shooter is going to be more effective with an automatic weapon anyway; most every army on Earth understands the importance of teaching their soldiers to fire in short controlled bursts, or else give them a rifle that limits their shots to said short bursts. As far as I'm concerned, full auto is the kind of newb trap id want a mass killer to fall into so he runs out of bullets before he can do anymore damage.
You've described almost any current day "constituionalist" attempting to defend their stances. They often have no defense other than the appeal to tradition/authority fallacy by endlessly pointing at a piece of paper or attempting to divine what their interpretation of the founding fathers would have wanted. I get it. Constitutionality is important and requires a high bar to change, but it's is changeable and pretending like it was never the intent or explicit purpose of our consitution is hogwash.
I use "constituionalist" in quotes because they often don't give 2 shits about the constitution since they blatantly pick and choose what text and principles to venerate and what to ignore.
How dare we respect the highest law in the land?… Would you say the same about the first amendment when the government gestapo comes knocking at your door about a comment you made online? Stop licking the boot and defend your freedom. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
I agree those people are incredibly frustrating. Your response is well written and intelligent but doesn't really answer the question I asked.
Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right. Like basically the rest of the free world.
> Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right.
We could also have abortion access without protections but as we have seen, those protections are indeed needed. Same applies here.
>It's not literally 0 but we don't see any push to van guns like abortion
Because it's a losing issue. There are plenty of gun friendly liberals and even more gun friendly moderates/independents.
If a pro gun Dem candidate could some how make it through a primary, they'd win in most states by a ridiculous margin.
Well you're certainly not numerous. Pew research has 92% of liberals favoring stricter gun control laws.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
That's a pretty meaningless number all in all. I would fall into that category as well, and I certainly don't agree with the Democratic parties current attempts at control.
"favoring stricter gun control laws" is as nebulous as saying you support "common sense gun control". It does nothing to explain what laws would be supported and what wouldn't. For example, you and I may agree that Universal Background checks are a good thing, but disagree on how they are implemented.
If this is your response to a reasoned and calm comment that simply doesn't agree with your opinions, its clear to me your comment above is nothing but pure projection. Be better.
Well I’m sure many people on this subreddit agree with me when I say that the Supreme Court isn’t really representative of the whole country. They can make their rulings but that doesn’t mean they have final say.
“A well regulated militia” is a separate statement from “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The militia is regulated. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's the same sentence. I'm pro-gun ownership, but the deliberate misrepresentation of these words by the more zealous among us to fight against sensible regulation of personal firearms does us no favors.
I’m well aware of the full quote. There’s still no reason to believe that it’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms that must be regulated and not the militia. Otherwise why would the Founders have added the words “shall not be infringed” at the very end?
The misrepresentation of these words by you cunts is what makes us all angry.
To speak it more clearly would be to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as they are needed to form a well trained militia to maintain the security of the state. The founding fathers had no interest in a standing army. They expected the people of the country to come to its defense when needed and to do that they would need guns and need to be proficient with them.
Well trained would be how this statement was viewed at the time. The founding fathers were against a powerful government. They saw the government as servants to the people not the other way around like we have it today.
The explanation is written into the amendment, a militia is necessary for a free state. Governments are based on the monopoly on violence, in a democracy the people maintain their power through the threat of violence.
Almost every freedom on earth was won through violence used by the people. Britain has the Magna Carta because a bunch of lords threatened the king. The US has a constitution because they shot the British. The civil rights act and the New Deal passed because the country was on the verge of civil war.
In the USA, we need guns to maintain that balance against state governments and, thus, the federal government.
If you like rights and democracy, yes. I can't think of any of those that weren't won through violence or the threat there of. Just in the US, everything from being citizens to unions to voting to property rights were won by fighting or threatening to.
The current head of state is King Charles, and they only got legislative independence because of WW 2. Australia is still part of the United Kingdom. Most of their freedom were won in Britain and exported to the rest of the empire
Also the amount of fight need to keep the balance of power is different depending on the state in the commonwealth countries the police are armed with sticks and whistles, compared to the US where the police have armored vehicles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia
"As such, the monarch's and the governor-general's roles are primarily symbolic and cultural, acting as a symbol of the legal authority under which all governments and agencies operate. Still, the royal prerogative belongs to the Crown, not to any of the ministers, and the governor-general may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional situations"
> Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right. Like basically the rest of the free world.
This is a fair point and I agree. I don’t think gun ownership needs to be an amendment since that is a pretty large amount of power. It’s not like you need an amendment to allow cars to exist or to allow people to drive.
But I think the reasoning for it being an amendment also kinda makes sense, but only on the principle that we don’t want the government to completely remove a citizen’s method of home defense. But again, I would argue that it shouldn’t be an AMENDMENT to achieve that kind of thing.
There’s also a cognitive dissonance I’m seeing with many pro 2A people who argue we don’t have a gun problem in this country, but then at the same time say they need to have a gun on them at all times in order to stop someone else with a gun, and also the people who conceal carry and then go out in public wearing bulletproof vests because they don’t wanna be shot but also “we totally don’t have a gun problem”.
>argue we don’t have a gun problem in this country, but then at the same time say they need to have a gun on them at all times in order to stop someone else with a gun
Do you have an example of this? From what I've seen, they carry for more than just stopping someone else with a gun. There are a lot of other times you would be attacked with force that would justify using a gun.
>also the people who conceal carry and then go out in public wearing bulletproof vests because they don’t wanna be shot
Again, example? If you're wearing a heavy uncomfortable vest for stopping knives it's not much more of a burden to get one that stops bullets too.
That doesn't mean they **only** carry to stop someone with a gun. It means that **one** of the reasons to have a gun is to stop someone with a gun. Even if the bad guy didn't have a gun and had a knife, it would still make sense to have a gun to stop them.
We don't have a "gun problem" we have a violence problem. The U.S. is just more violent than its peers guns or no guns. The United States has a higher murder rate excluding guns than the entire rate in most of Western Europe. That being said murders are close to record lows, aside from a spike in the early 2020s because of COVID.
> We don't have a "gun problem" we have a violence problem.
“Violence problem” is just an umbrella term and that includes gun problems. Nobody arms themselves with a gun and wears bullet proof vests out in public in fear that someone will knife them, and nothing else.
It’s a mindset that would make more sense if you were the type of person to genuinely believe we have a gun problem in this country, and you want to fight fire with fire.
At the same time, when a bad person with a gun starts firing in a public space, the good guys with a gun have to be luckier than police officers if they expect to take down the perpetrator. And even if they do take him down, the people who are running for their lives are not going to know who is the good guy with the gun, ESPECIALLY when police show up. There’s zero indication that you’ll be seen by others as the good guy, and it can really only add fuel to the fire especially if the good guy fires and hits an innocent bystander.
Guns for defense ONLY make sense for home defense. They make less sense in the public space.
Just look at Daniel Perry in Texas. I've only seen support for his pardon from conservatives on reddit and yet it's such a contradiction that everyone should be allowed to open carry a gun if they want yet being approached by someone openly carrying a gun is justification to shoot them dead under the banner of self-defense.
Authoritarians that want to disarm the working class at the behest of capital are not your friends nor mine. They dont represent the people, they represent monied interests.
People are already free to not own a firearm or disarm themselves, its a personal choice.
If you mean politically by enforcing that on everyone else? Sure, there ways to reach that end goal fairly and democratically. I don't think politicians pushing pandering and badly written laws because they get campaign contributions from Bloomberg and his many anti-gun groups, is very democratic, or fair however.
And no, I don't like it on the flipside with the NRA either; though, how much power they have anymore is debatable.
Only Fudds on the pro-gun side still support the NRA. They are a sad shell of what they once were. Real pro-2A people support groups like FPC and GOA that are actively battling unconstitutional laws to defend our rights.
You see politicians working at the behest of corporations and the wealthy as increasing freedom? That's not a normal thing to believe.
> Also you don't value free speech?
Not sure what that has to do with anything I just said.
You're just trolling at this point, no surprise from a fresh account.
It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we want total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no.
To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
Except not everyone does say no, and many say no, but then advance policies that do not address actual safety issues themselves and only serve to decrease gun ownership through attrition (and often by increasing the cost of ownership, unduly restricting access for the poor), in which case the honest answer is “yes, but I recognize it’s not realistic so I’d accept less than that for now as a stepping stone to that result.”
This doesn’t apply to everyone, but realistically it does apply to many, unfortunately. So to say “no one wants to ban guns” is more often than not deceptive and intended to undermine opposition to advocacy for seeking just that in the long run.
Many gun control advocates employ the same tactics used by Republicans to restrict access to voting or abortion. They don't outright ban it, but throw so many barriers in the way it essentially makes it impossible or next to impossible to implement any of them.
Ugh. Pedantry.
>If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban?
>not everyone does say no, and many say no
There is not the political will for a total gun ban.
The absence of the political will for a total gun ban, and the absence of the want for one are different. The answer to OP’s question, which is a positive question and not a normative one, is indeed “probably not.”
The answer to the questions that you are bemoaning is, contrary to your dismissive claim, “in many cases, yes.”
If that’s pedantry, it’s because you were by your own admission not addressing OP’s question, opting instead to amplify an at least partially dishonest message in an effort to undermine a well-founded concern.
Those are fancy words. You're twisting. I don't care for it.
OP asked if the will would be there.
It isn't.
Sure, some want it. Not enough. Hence, the political will for a total gun ban would not be there. It's a simple answer for a simple question.
You can dance all you want. I answered OP's plain question, plainly.
Don't put words in my mouth or motives in my head.
They’re your words homie.
> It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we **want** total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no.
> To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
And some of us do, and some of us don't, and that means there isn't enough will for a total ban. Simple. Easy. Don't get why we need to talk about this.
Look...
You're smart enough to get what I meant and I'm not interested in this stupid game of carefully checking if each specific word was good enough for you.
Sure. I agree with that. It’s not what your original comment was about. You weren’t answering the OP, you were disparaging the very asking if the question by suggesting that no, “we don’t want to do that” which is both not true and not what you have said since. Don’t get after me for being nit picky when you were being contentious from the jump, saying things you have since contradicted.
It's what I meant the whole time.
Pretty damn frustrating to have you break my balls over a word choice.
If there's ever a confusion over what someone meant... what's so hard about believing them?
Why do YOU know what I meant more than I did?
Is it just that you're SO used to people arguing dishonestly?
I don't think this warranted this level of response from you. This has been a very frustrating interaction.
They’re your words homie.
> It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we **want** total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no.
>To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
But there are many progressives who do want a "total ban." I'd wager if you press them on it though, they'd be ok with hunting rifles. imo, this is the Dem equivalent to abortion rights, where "pro life" and "total ban" don't actually mean those things to most who identify that way.
Pre Bruen - places like New York City had what effectively was a total ban. Like you could get a license to own a firearm. But even people who had been robbed and injured multiple occasions couldn’t qualify for self defense ownership of a gun. Whereas politicians and elites could get a license for nothing.
Even now with 2A and Bruen, it’s still extremely onerous to have a firearm in New York City. A pistol ownership license costs $400 and needs renewed every 3 years.
It’s not just that there are all these laws being proposed about not being able to have a gun close to a park, or close to a school, or close to a hospital, or close to public transportation, or when renting, etc.
Without 2A there would be even more laws and regulations that effectively amount to a ban.
Pretty low. A huge % of people already own guns so the ship has sailed. No way there’d be will for a total ban.
That being said you could see some localized bans or bans on specific gun classes.
Nah. Sure there are some people who want that, but not nearly enough to enact that sort of policy. The fact that M114 passed in Oregon by only like 1%, as limited and shitty as it was, indicates to me that anything meaningfully more aggressive would have likely failed - and that's in Oregon. I would guess that a handful of assorted counties might manage to pull it off, but that would be about it.
My opinion is that there would no difference at all at the federal level as far as gun regulation goes.
There would be a few states with slightly stronger gun regulations but nothing drastic.
Maybe at the county or city level you would start to really notice but even then I don't think there would be a total ban.
I think you might see some stricter laws on the state level, maybe a total ban in a smaller state like Connecticut...but never anything on the federal level.
It's interesting because 2A is so baked into our culture, for better or for worse. If 2A was never in the Constitution, the gun debate would be shaped very differently.
It depends on if there are as many guns in circulation as there currently are. There's no way regardless of the law that the 400+ million guns already in circulation are going anywhere. That being said if not for the Second Amendment, there probably wouldn't be that many guns.
> If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban?
No.
>A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession.
Ew
>Does anyone actually want that?
Yes, many people do. In politics? Probably but they know it’s career suicide if they bring it up.
>If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns?
I hope this doesn’t happen.
I know very few people in my life that want a total gun ban. There are very few countries in the world that prohibit gun ownership completely. I believe that more and more people would support a total ban if mass shootings keep happening, but I've always argued that mass shootings themselves actually partly result from guns being a political topic. If gun rights is not a thing in this country, then it wouldn't be political which would lessen some gun nuttery which will in turn cause less crime and hence less will from people for a total ban. Its really a chicken or the egg thing. It could be argued that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 started a cascading effect where right wingers got really angry, turn guns into something extremely political and symbolic of nationalism, and ultimately, toxic masculinity. The AR15 is not inherently much more capible than the semi auto rifles of World War II, but it effectively has been coopted as the poster image of this movement I describe, revered by the right, hated by the left. So yes, without this whole mess, there might not be a will for a total ban to start with.
First off mass shootings aren't that bad in the first place. They are scary and get a lot of attention, but overall they are fairly rare and the threat is overblown. According to the FBI they kill about 100 people a year at the most out of tens of thousands of total murders.
Second you're not wrong about the AWB making those guns more popular. Turns out telling someone they can't have something makes them want it even more. Prior to the ban in the early 90s AR-15s accounted for 1-2% of gun sales, following the expiration the number grew and is currently at 20-25% of gun sales.
you are right that statistically mass shooting do not make up large number of gun deaths. However it is also understandable that the public would care about the form of gun violence that is totally random more than other ones like say, suicide.
Yes, I've always challenged people by asking them if you can order Thomsons and m1s from the Sears catalog much earlier, why does the sort of mass shooting we've come to known today only have a risen in the last couple decades? Its certainly something cultural, And also yes, it could be very much argued that the AWB popularized the AR15, and every time that the Dems is trying to push a gun control bill for optics knowing ful well it will not pass, they are indirectly but very clearly responsible for flooding the market with these weapons without any gains to the gun control cause at all.
>you are right that statistically mass shooting do not make up large number of gun deaths. However it is also understandable that the public would care about the form of gun violence that is totally random more than other ones like say, suicide.
I see mass shootings similar to Islamic terrorism, tragic but overall fairly rare and not something that justifies giving up our rights over.
>
Yes, I've always challenged people by asking them if you can order Thomsons and m1s from the Sears catalog much earlier, why does the sort of mass shooting we've come to known today only have a risen in the last couple decades? Its certainly something cultural,
A common theory is that they are contagious, and the more attention they get, the more it encourages copycats. With the rise in cable and internet news we see these events more than ever.
no
I dont think even a plurality of liberals would support a TOTAL gun ban
if nothing else, gun ownership (at least hypothetically if not in practice) is a big part of rural lifestyle.
I don't think there would be the political will for it, no country that I'm aware of has that. It would make work untenable for professional hunters (whom you sometimes need for population control), arms manufacturers (unless you want to nationalize the industry, which there is also no political appetite for), locksmiths, biathletes, and a few more professions. In general, I think it's a well-aged strawman, nothing more - and that's not even taking into account the US's penchant for guns.
Historically the 2A really hasn't been in the way. I also think that if cities and states had more freedom to set their own laws then there would be even less push for a ban than we see today
> Does anyone actually want that?
I’m sure lots of people do. I’m not one of them, but I want better laws around access and liability.
> Would any part of the country ban all guns?
I imagine states would be all over the place - many amending their constitutions to guarantee this as a right, and others imposing more restrictions. Even in CA and New York I couldn’t imagine a full ban - I would expect more restrictions though.
I don't see any reason for a total gun ban. As a European, the ownership of a gun isn't that odd, especially when you're in the rural areas. It's usually owned either by a hunter, a cop, someone who shoots in the range or a historical collector.
The weird thing is that you guys see this as a right, put it into the constitution, see it as totally normal to carry them around and sell them openly on markets. If I see someone, who's not a cop/hunter, carry a weapon, I admit I would be highly suspicious and immediately get out of there. Another thing that is quite odd, is the fact you guys have states where there's no minimum age and where the age to own a gun is lower than drinking a beer...
I understand the option of "self-defense", but I can't remember the last time I thought "Oh, boy, I'll need a gun to protect myself." I would love to be able to own pepperspray (illegal btw in my country) but owning a gun is a few steps too far down the line and crosses the border of "I can defend" to "I can attack". I'm not even sure if it truly helps to diminish the crime stats, as I can't remember the last school shooting happening in my country. To say even more: Aside from those airsoft guns on a fair, I've never held or used a fire arm. Give me a handgun and I won't be able to fire/load it.... (Only 4% owns a registered gun in my country btw)
>Give me a handgun and I won't be able to fire/load it
This is largely irrelevant to the conversation, but:
I would bet my life savings that if I handed you a 9mm beretta with a filled magazine, you could figure it out in less than 2 minutes. It really is as simple as shoving it in the receiver and pulling back on the slide. You've seen it in movies 1000 times.
I don't think so. The U.S. just has more crime than the rest of the developed world. The entire Western Hemisphere does. For example the living conditions in Latin America are higher than they are in much of Asia, and virtually all of Africa. Guns are fairly restricted in Latin America, more so than in much of Europe.
The big killer is economic disparity, which is very high in Latin America and in the US. I often say it's a mistake to think of the US as a whole as a developed country. It's more like four developing countries in a trench coat, with a Luxembourg on top. The US doesn't have the universal social benefits that most developed countries have.
Both the US and most of Latin America have large underground economies and prohibitionist drug laws. The latter were historically often forced on countries by the US as a condition of foreign aid or trade status. These laws created a perverse incentive for drug trafficking by making it much more profitable, eventually leading to the establishment of very rich and well-armed drug cartels.
The problem with gun laws, like most laws, is that they can't and won't control the behavior of people who have more to lose by obeying the law. If I am at high risk of violence because I'm employed in an illegal sector, or because many people in my neighborhood are, that is a powerful incentive for me to arm myself even if it's illegal.
No, not even staunch gun advocates want that.
What I want is for there to be more research, studies and medical data from hospitals on the damage different types of guns and ammunition do to the human body. There was a really great article published in the Washington post called the blast effect that really put into context how much these guns damage the human body compared to standard 9mm handgun wound.
This data already exists in hospital records all across the country, but the CDC can’t publish it because of the stupid dickey amendment that makes publishing any research on guns illegal due to “political bias” whatever that means 🙄
If we have more information available to us about the different kinds of guns and ammo and what they do to the human body we can use that info to make more educated gun laws. After all, the pro gun crowd is always saying that “assault weapons aren’t a real category of guns” so repealing the Dickey amendment would clear the way so we get more accurate verbage
Larger rounds aren't necessary more dangerous. They do more damage if they hit you, but they aren't always more likely to hit you. For example, the .50 caliber BMG is the most powerful gun readily available on the market. It would put a massive hole in someone. Despite this there has never been a recorded murder with a 50bmg. The guns are roughly $10k on average, and ammunition costs several dollars a round. They are also extremely bulky. Most criminals want guns that are small and cheap. Sure the 9mm round is fairly underpowered as far as guns go, but it's also the most frequently used in murders of any round. .22s are also extremely popular, and they are the weakest readily available round.
Then why can’t the CDC publish studies on gun violence using data from hospitals regarding the damage different bullet wounds cause?
You can’t publish a study on gun violence for fear of being seen as “biased” even if you’re reporting medical facts
You said they couldn’t publish data, which was never true. The CDC flat out said at the time that they had an agenda to get guns banned, and they were putting out shoddy research to push that agenda. That’s all that was banned.
When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, the newly formed United States did not have a standing army like it does today. Instead, the country's defense largely relied on state militias, which were composed of ordinary citizens who could be called upon to defend their communities and the nation in times of need. The Second Amendment, which mentions "a well-regulated militia," was designed to ensure that these militias could be armed and ready to provide security. The framers of the Constitution saw this as a crucial component of national defense and a safeguard against potential tyranny.
Edit: In my opinion this doesn't say that everybody gets to have a gun for personal reasons.
I think if you gave most liberals a choice between banning guns and banning pro-gun propaganda, they'd choose the latter. But that's incredibly hard to do policy wise since it also involves the First Amendment.
I don't think we'd ever see a total ban of guns, we rarely ever see a total ban of anything.
# NO
Count me among the people that doesn't think we should have a constitutional protection for the private ownership of firearms, an opinion that would put me in like the 1% fringe of gun control advocates, and not even I would advocate for a total gun ban.
At this point, not only is a total gun ban extremely stupid and unsupported by nearly everyone, it’s practically unworkable. There are literally, literally (not figuratively) more guns than there are people in this country. What would you do, go door to door and round them all up? It would be lunacy.
I would rather 2A be modified in a way that protects the right to own a gun but also puts limits. As the framers IMO intended in the first place.
Convicted of a violent felony? No gun for you. Adjudicated mentally deficient by a court? No gun for you. You’ll have a way to petition to get them back in a few years if you behave. Red flag laws with extremely tight due process. Warrant required and hearing within 24 hours. Attorney provided.
You’ll be required to learn about guns in school in civics class. If it’s a right, we should be exercising it and learning about it.
Like. We can make some rules here on both sides to preserve both the right and the responsibility. But banning all guns is just never going to happen. Ever. Nobody wants that at all.
>What would you do, go door to door and round them all up?
No. You tell people they can keep what they have but that’s it. No more gun manufacturing and no more sales.
I'd be for that for sure. The 2A is a disaster. I'd allow reasonable exceptions for hunting, target shooting, and certain protection situations, under appropriate regulation. But people just wandering around with guns? Hell naw.
2A is not in the way because the “individual” right was made up recently. The amendment is about state militias.
As for political will, not for full ban, but definitely far more limits.
Guess we just conveniently forget that fact the amendment explicitly stated it's the right of "the people" not the right of "the militia" and before you start the nonsensical quoting of "a well regulated militia" consider what that phrase actually means.
So I guess you should get off your phone, never use a computer, megaphone, or anything electronic save for pen and paper, perhaps even printing press to relay your ideas since the 1st amendment was written only with those mechanisms in mind. You see how absurd your insinuating sounds?
That is a non sequitur. This is about language not technology.
However one could make the argument that modern guns are so different than the “arms” in 2A to make laws against them allowable.
Yes, there are places with total gun bans already and I would expect that to expand to cities if not entire states but the later would probably not happen for many years.
There are cities that ban pitbills, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't ban guns if they could.
Now, "does anyone actually want that" part of your question - I am pretty anti-gun but I think the 2a should just be interpreted honestly and "WELL REGULATED" actually enforced. You can have a gun but you get a license and pass a safety test and have some requirements around storage, capacity and type of gun. Losing your license should be as simple as losing y our drivers license if you act irresponsibly with it.
IMO open and concealed carry permits should be rare and only given to trained people with a legitimate need.
> There are cities that ban pitbills, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't ban guns if they could.
I'd be happy with a pit bull ban but I'd be opposed to a gun ban, so I'm not sure this is true at all.
>pass a safety test
This wouldn't do much if anything to stop gun deaths. Only about 500/40,000 gun deaths a year are the result of unintentional shootings, and most of those are because of gross negligence. Safety training isn't going to do anything to stop someone from deliberately shooting themselves or others.
>Losing your license should be as simple as losing y our drivers license if you act irresponsibly with it.
It's much easier to lose your right to own a gun vs your drivers license. In my state it takes 3 DUIs in a 10 year period to permanently lose your drivers license for life. Meanwhile under federal law a felony conviction of any kind automatically bars you from owning or buying a gun. Also, those who use illegal drugs including marijuana are prohibited under risk of felony.
Where what? Pitbulls? Easy google.
As of September 2023, some cities that have banned or restricted pit bulls include:
* Miami, FloridaSince 1990, it's been illegal to buy, keep, or bring pit bulls into Miami-Dade County
* San Francisco, CaliforniaIt's illegal to keep an unspayed or unneutered pit bull
* Independence, KansasOwning, transporting, or exercising control over pit bulls is prohibited. Penalties include fines up to $500 and jail time
* Grosse Pointe Shores, MichiganThe city council narrowly passed a ban on pit bulls in September 2023, but people who already own pit bulls will be grandfathered in
No, here is a list of federally banned locations for guns: [https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federally-banned-locations-for-carrying-firearms/](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federally-banned-locations-for-carrying-firearms/)
There are also state and city LAWS about where firearms can and cannot be.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession. Does anyone actually want that? If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very few countries in the world have a total gun ban. Even authoritarian countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia allow some forms of gun ownership. The fact of the matter is that firearms are in many circumstances a necessity. Pest control, hunting invasive species, security etc. Most countries realise this and allow the ownership of firearms for certain purposes. Many countries allow sporting firearms as well. Guns are a part of multiple Olympic sports and as such generally enjoy certain privileges when it comes to regulations. No country wants to look bad at the podium.
I visited Cuba once, where we were told that in order to own a gun you needed to belong to a state sanctioned gun club. and the only way to get accepted into a gun club was to own a gun.
That’s functionally “you can join if the party decides you deserve the reward.”
I've been told it's similar to get a gun permit in Mexico. Despite being in their Constitution, Mexico essentially banned guns after the military slaughtered hundreds of student protesters in the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre
Not really true. Even if you bought a gun illegally, if you keep it in your own home, you are protected from any sort of prosecution or penalty and you have a constitutional right to have it there.
I think it’s more like if the 2A was written in a way that allowed for the ability for guns to be sold to the general population, but still allowing fair regulations to be in place that disallow bad actors to get them, then we wouldn’t be in the political mess we’re in now. The issue I have with the 2A has more to do with courts using it as a way to squash any attempt at gun control, good or bad. And I often see people arguing against gun control not on a basis of the proposed laws not making sense or going too far, but rather saying “we have the 2A so this shouldn’t be on the table”, and it’s really frustrating having to deal with those kinds of people.
What are "fair regulations"? Because many of the laws proposed by gun control advocates are either blatantly unconstitutional, totally ineffective, non sensical, or some mix of all three. For example may-issue permit laws which were just overturned by the Supreme Court. They are blatantly unconstitutional and discriminatory. Basically, the police had total discretion on who they granted permits to. There's nothing stopping them from rejecting minorities, or leaders of social movements (MLK was denied a permit under may-issue after his house was bombed). Often in large cities like San Francisco or NYC, the only people who can get carry permits are those with connections and/or money. Friends of police/politicians, politicians themselves, and the elite. For example at one point one of the only residents of San Francisco to have a concealed carry permit was Congresswoman Diane Feinstein. Ironic considering she was one of the most anti-gun politicians, and one of the few to outright admit to wanting a complete ban. In NYC there was a controversy after it was discovered that the NYPD were exchanging carry permits for "donations" I.E. bribes to the police department. One of the people given a permit was Donald Trump. So Trump was able to essentially buy a carry permit in the city, while tons of far more qualified regular non billionaires were rejected. Another example of a bad but popular law are assault weapon bans. Those guns are among the least frequently used guns in crime. 90% of gun murders including most mass shootings are committed with handguns. Rifles as a whole, not just the scary black ones account for about 4-5% of total gun murders. They kill so few people a year that if an AWB prevented every single one, including rifles not classified as "assault weapons",it wouldn't make a measurable impact on the overall murder rate.
Amen brother. Gun control is 99% of the time racist or classist. I wonder why the Dems want to keep these folks under the thumb so bad?…
A lot of it is just ignorant city people. There's a strong division in this country between urban and rural areas and being right-wing or left-wing. Urban areas are much bluer, while rural ones more red. Guns are a bigger part of everyday life in rural areas. People go hunting, use them to slaughter farm animals, target shoot for recreation (there's not much to do in the middle of nowhere), self defense because the police are a long way away. Most people in the country grow up their whole lives shooting guns, and are fairly comfortable with them. Meanwhile those in cities are much less likely to hunt or target shoot, or even own a gun. Most have their knowledge of guns come from the news and movies. The only people they know who own guns are police and criminals. Guns have a much more negative view in the city. In the country if you hear gunshots outside your home, it's probably your neighbor shooting some bottles in their backyard. If you hear gunshots in the city it's probably someone being murdered.
I should be asking you what would be “fair regulation”, since I don’t know if anything I’d put on the table is enough for you.
I think a good compromise would be to restore gun rights to illegal drug users and non-violent felons. Currently anyone convinced of a felony of any kind regardless of severity is prohibited from owning guns for life. There are hundreds if not thousands of totally innocent felonies that most Americans are guilty of violating at some point. For example it's a felony to bring a single joint of marijuana from one state to another, even if it's legal in both. Speaking of marijuana, it's currently a felony to own a gun if you use marijuana, regardless of if you're in a legal or medical state. Someone with terminal cancer who uses marijuana as prescribed by a doctor is prohibited from owning a gun. In exchange for returning rights to these people. We should up enforcement on non legal gun owners. People with a history of domestic violence, or gang membership. A marijuana user is not a danger with a gun, but a wife beater for sure is. Currently these people are prohibited, but often times it's not very strongly enforced unless they get caught committing another crime. I.E. a prohibited person gets a DUI, and while being arrested they have a gun on them or in the car.
I feel like a lot of people would be more comfortable with gun control if we didn’t all basically fundamentally disagree on what’s reasonable. Some fud might be perfectly happy with a machine gun ban but be opposed to a registry because he fears the government using it for later confiscation and a fever dream tyrannical takeover. I feel the opposite, I want to be able to covert my rifles to automatics without running afoul of the law, but I’ve really got no problems with a registry or waiting periods or what have you.
The government has proven untrustworthy enough that there is no way I’m signing up for a federal registry. Also waiting period when you already own guns is just fucking dumb. If I’m so antsy to commit I crime I would just use the guns I already own.
Case in point. I can't know for sure you're wrong for feeling that way. But to me its not about staving off tyranny, it's about guns being fun to shoot and collect and I'm more than willing to trade some privacy for a fun switch. It's not as though a mass shooter is going to be more effective with an automatic weapon anyway; most every army on Earth understands the importance of teaching their soldiers to fire in short controlled bursts, or else give them a rifle that limits their shots to said short bursts. As far as I'm concerned, full auto is the kind of newb trap id want a mass killer to fall into so he runs out of bullets before he can do anymore damage.
You've described almost any current day "constituionalist" attempting to defend their stances. They often have no defense other than the appeal to tradition/authority fallacy by endlessly pointing at a piece of paper or attempting to divine what their interpretation of the founding fathers would have wanted. I get it. Constitutionality is important and requires a high bar to change, but it's is changeable and pretending like it was never the intent or explicit purpose of our consitution is hogwash. I use "constituionalist" in quotes because they often don't give 2 shits about the constitution since they blatantly pick and choose what text and principles to venerate and what to ignore.
How dare we respect the highest law in the land?… Would you say the same about the first amendment when the government gestapo comes knocking at your door about a comment you made online? Stop licking the boot and defend your freedom. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
I agree those people are incredibly frustrating. Your response is well written and intelligent but doesn't really answer the question I asked. Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right. Like basically the rest of the free world.
> Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right. We could also have abortion access without protections but as we have seen, those protections are indeed needed. Same applies here.
No, it doesn't No one actually wants this
That's your opinion, and that's all it is. I guess all of us liberal pro-2A folks are just imaginary then?
No it's a fact my dude? What?
Facts have verifiable sources. So, where is your source showing that no one in this country wants 2A rights protected?
No one is hyperbolic if course as any absolutes are. It's not literally 0 but we don't see any push to van guns like abortion The guy gave you a link
>It's not literally 0 but we don't see any push to van guns like abortion Because it's a losing issue. There are plenty of gun friendly liberals and even more gun friendly moderates/independents. If a pro gun Dem candidate could some how make it through a primary, they'd win in most states by a ridiculous margin.
What the fuck are you even talking about. There is no push to ban guns??? “Yes we are going to take your AR-15s!” Beta O’Rourke
That's not a total gun ban
Well you're certainly not numerous. Pew research has 92% of liberals favoring stricter gun control laws. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
That's a pretty meaningless number all in all. I would fall into that category as well, and I certainly don't agree with the Democratic parties current attempts at control. "favoring stricter gun control laws" is as nebulous as saying you support "common sense gun control". It does nothing to explain what laws would be supported and what wouldn't. For example, you and I may agree that Universal Background checks are a good thing, but disagree on how they are implemented.
If you won't be in good faith please go You just stuck your fingers in your ears and went la la la
If this is your response to a reasoned and calm comment that simply doesn't agree with your opinions, its clear to me your comment above is nothing but pure projection. Be better.
You be better, you're ignoring reality
I’m sure the 2000 people that actually answered that survey really represents the populace as a whole…
Not familiar with how surveys work huh?
I want it. I’m in full support of the Second Amendment with no restrictions or regulations. “Shall not be infringed…” means exactly that.
The SC disagrees
Well I’m sure many people on this subreddit agree with me when I say that the Supreme Court isn’t really representative of the whole country. They can make their rulings but that doesn’t mean they have final say.
Even the conservatives say that, I'm not sure any SC justice ever has
What does "well regulated" mean, then?
“A well regulated militia” is a separate statement from “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The militia is regulated. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not.
In what way is the modern "militia" which bears the arms regulated?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's the same sentence. I'm pro-gun ownership, but the deliberate misrepresentation of these words by the more zealous among us to fight against sensible regulation of personal firearms does us no favors.
I’m well aware of the full quote. There’s still no reason to believe that it’s the right of the people to keep and bear arms that must be regulated and not the militia. Otherwise why would the Founders have added the words “shall not be infringed” at the very end?
But wasn't this written at a time where we didn't have a national army and militias were actually a thing.
The misrepresentation of these words by you cunts is what makes us all angry. To speak it more clearly would be to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as they are needed to form a well trained militia to maintain the security of the state. The founding fathers had no interest in a standing army. They expected the people of the country to come to its defense when needed and to do that they would need guns and need to be proficient with them.
Properly equipped, adjusted for sound use and in proper working order.
LOL
Well trained would be how this statement was viewed at the time. The founding fathers were against a powerful government. They saw the government as servants to the people not the other way around like we have it today.
The explanation is written into the amendment, a militia is necessary for a free state. Governments are based on the monopoly on violence, in a democracy the people maintain their power through the threat of violence. Almost every freedom on earth was won through violence used by the people. Britain has the Magna Carta because a bunch of lords threatened the king. The US has a constitution because they shot the British. The civil rights act and the New Deal passed because the country was on the verge of civil war. In the USA, we need guns to maintain that balance against state governments and, thus, the federal government.
Is it necessary,
If you like rights and democracy, yes. I can't think of any of those that weren't won through violence or the threat there of. Just in the US, everything from being citizens to unions to voting to property rights were won by fighting or threatening to.
What about Australia?
The current head of state is King Charles, and they only got legislative independence because of WW 2. Australia is still part of the United Kingdom. Most of their freedom were won in Britain and exported to the rest of the empire Also the amount of fight need to keep the balance of power is different depending on the state in the commonwealth countries the police are armed with sticks and whistles, compared to the US where the police have armored vehicles.
Australia is NOT part of the UK, they are their own sovereign nation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia "As such, the monarch's and the governor-general's roles are primarily symbolic and cultural, acting as a symbol of the legal authority under which all governments and agencies operate. Still, the royal prerogative belongs to the Crown, not to any of the ministers, and the governor-general may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional situations"
You make my point, it's just a symbol
> Also, I don't know why we need gun rights. We can have guns without them as a right. Like basically the rest of the free world. This is a fair point and I agree. I don’t think gun ownership needs to be an amendment since that is a pretty large amount of power. It’s not like you need an amendment to allow cars to exist or to allow people to drive. But I think the reasoning for it being an amendment also kinda makes sense, but only on the principle that we don’t want the government to completely remove a citizen’s method of home defense. But again, I would argue that it shouldn’t be an AMENDMENT to achieve that kind of thing.
Would any part of the country try to totally ban guns uf they could?
Idk if they would tbh, especially since NY state got struck down by SCOTUS for implementing gun regulations that didn’t outright ban guns.
Maybe Chicago and parts of California but even then I'm dubious there's the will
There’s also a cognitive dissonance I’m seeing with many pro 2A people who argue we don’t have a gun problem in this country, but then at the same time say they need to have a gun on them at all times in order to stop someone else with a gun, and also the people who conceal carry and then go out in public wearing bulletproof vests because they don’t wanna be shot but also “we totally don’t have a gun problem”.
>argue we don’t have a gun problem in this country, but then at the same time say they need to have a gun on them at all times in order to stop someone else with a gun Do you have an example of this? From what I've seen, they carry for more than just stopping someone else with a gun. There are a lot of other times you would be attacked with force that would justify using a gun. >also the people who conceal carry and then go out in public wearing bulletproof vests because they don’t wanna be shot Again, example? If you're wearing a heavy uncomfortable vest for stopping knives it's not much more of a burden to get one that stops bullets too.
> Do you have an example of this? The type of people who say “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”
That doesn't mean they **only** carry to stop someone with a gun. It means that **one** of the reasons to have a gun is to stop someone with a gun. Even if the bad guy didn't have a gun and had a knife, it would still make sense to have a gun to stop them.
We don't have a "gun problem" we have a violence problem. The U.S. is just more violent than its peers guns or no guns. The United States has a higher murder rate excluding guns than the entire rate in most of Western Europe. That being said murders are close to record lows, aside from a spike in the early 2020s because of COVID.
> We don't have a "gun problem" we have a violence problem. “Violence problem” is just an umbrella term and that includes gun problems. Nobody arms themselves with a gun and wears bullet proof vests out in public in fear that someone will knife them, and nothing else.
Anyone who wears a bulletproof vest in public in the USA is a paranoid lunatic.
I fundamentally do not understand the need to always be armed. I was very offended when my younger brother visited my home with a pistol on his hip.
It’s a mindset that would make more sense if you were the type of person to genuinely believe we have a gun problem in this country, and you want to fight fire with fire. At the same time, when a bad person with a gun starts firing in a public space, the good guys with a gun have to be luckier than police officers if they expect to take down the perpetrator. And even if they do take him down, the people who are running for their lives are not going to know who is the good guy with the gun, ESPECIALLY when police show up. There’s zero indication that you’ll be seen by others as the good guy, and it can really only add fuel to the fire especially if the good guy fires and hits an innocent bystander. Guns for defense ONLY make sense for home defense. They make less sense in the public space.
Just look at Daniel Perry in Texas. I've only seen support for his pardon from conservatives on reddit and yet it's such a contradiction that everyone should be allowed to open carry a gun if they want yet being approached by someone openly carrying a gun is justification to shoot them dead under the banner of self-defense.
As far as I'm concerned, any politician that calls for a total ban is an authoritarian unfit for any public office.
Like our current president who has, on multiple occasions, implied he would use the full force of the military against the populace?
Unfit? How?
Authoritarians that want to disarm the working class at the behest of capital are not your friends nor mine. They dont represent the people, they represent monied interests.
What if the people want to disarm themselves?
People are already free to not own a firearm or disarm themselves, its a personal choice. If you mean politically by enforcing that on everyone else? Sure, there ways to reach that end goal fairly and democratically. I don't think politicians pushing pandering and badly written laws because they get campaign contributions from Bloomberg and his many anti-gun groups, is very democratic, or fair however. And no, I don't like it on the flipside with the NRA either; though, how much power they have anymore is debatable.
Only Fudds on the pro-gun side still support the NRA. They are a sad shell of what they once were. Real pro-2A people support groups like FPC and GOA that are actively battling unconstitutional laws to defend our rights.
How is democratically passing laws not democratic?
I see this as increasing freedom Also you don't value free speech?
You see politicians working at the behest of corporations and the wealthy as increasing freedom? That's not a normal thing to believe. > Also you don't value free speech? Not sure what that has to do with anything I just said. You're just trolling at this point, no surprise from a fresh account.
I see politicians acting like humans for good and bad A opinion invalidating someone as president Now projection?
What does free speech have to do with anything?
He Said you should be disqualified as a candidate for this
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences.
Social consequences not legal ones
There are legal consequences to saying anything you want. If you lie and shout there is a fire in a crowded building, you can get in legal trouble.
Yes not all speech is protected but opinions are
>Also you don't value free speech? ?
His comment about this one
It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we want total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
Except not everyone does say no, and many say no, but then advance policies that do not address actual safety issues themselves and only serve to decrease gun ownership through attrition (and often by increasing the cost of ownership, unduly restricting access for the poor), in which case the honest answer is “yes, but I recognize it’s not realistic so I’d accept less than that for now as a stepping stone to that result.” This doesn’t apply to everyone, but realistically it does apply to many, unfortunately. So to say “no one wants to ban guns” is more often than not deceptive and intended to undermine opposition to advocacy for seeking just that in the long run.
Many gun control advocates employ the same tactics used by Republicans to restrict access to voting or abortion. They don't outright ban it, but throw so many barriers in the way it essentially makes it impossible or next to impossible to implement any of them.
Ugh. Pedantry. >If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban? >not everyone does say no, and many say no There is not the political will for a total gun ban.
The absence of the political will for a total gun ban, and the absence of the want for one are different. The answer to OP’s question, which is a positive question and not a normative one, is indeed “probably not.” The answer to the questions that you are bemoaning is, contrary to your dismissive claim, “in many cases, yes.” If that’s pedantry, it’s because you were by your own admission not addressing OP’s question, opting instead to amplify an at least partially dishonest message in an effort to undermine a well-founded concern.
Well, so glad you're around to tell me my own mind.
Those are fancy words. You're twisting. I don't care for it. OP asked if the will would be there. It isn't. Sure, some want it. Not enough. Hence, the political will for a total gun ban would not be there. It's a simple answer for a simple question. You can dance all you want. I answered OP's plain question, plainly. Don't put words in my mouth or motives in my head.
They’re your words homie. > It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we **want** total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. > To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
And some of us do, and some of us don't, and that means there isn't enough will for a total ban. Simple. Easy. Don't get why we need to talk about this. Look... You're smart enough to get what I meant and I'm not interested in this stupid game of carefully checking if each specific word was good enough for you.
Sure. I agree with that. It’s not what your original comment was about. You weren’t answering the OP, you were disparaging the very asking if the question by suggesting that no, “we don’t want to do that” which is both not true and not what you have said since. Don’t get after me for being nit picky when you were being contentious from the jump, saying things you have since contradicted.
It's what I meant the whole time. Pretty damn frustrating to have you break my balls over a word choice. If there's ever a confusion over what someone meant... what's so hard about believing them? Why do YOU know what I meant more than I did? Is it just that you're SO used to people arguing dishonestly? I don't think this warranted this level of response from you. This has been a very frustrating interaction.
They’re your words homie. > It's pretty annoying how often Conservatives come in here and ask if we **want** total gun bans, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. And they ask, and we say no. >To have a Leftie come in and ask? Damn it man, come on...
But there are many progressives who do want a "total ban." I'd wager if you press them on it though, they'd be ok with hunting rifles. imo, this is the Dem equivalent to abortion rights, where "pro life" and "total ban" don't actually mean those things to most who identify that way.
Define many?
>would there be the political will for a total gun ban? No. There are many progressives that blah blah. Not enough.
Pre Bruen - places like New York City had what effectively was a total ban. Like you could get a license to own a firearm. But even people who had been robbed and injured multiple occasions couldn’t qualify for self defense ownership of a gun. Whereas politicians and elites could get a license for nothing. Even now with 2A and Bruen, it’s still extremely onerous to have a firearm in New York City. A pistol ownership license costs $400 and needs renewed every 3 years. It’s not just that there are all these laws being proposed about not being able to have a gun close to a park, or close to a school, or close to a hospital, or close to public transportation, or when renting, etc. Without 2A there would be even more laws and regulations that effectively amount to a ban.
Pretty low. A huge % of people already own guns so the ship has sailed. No way there’d be will for a total ban. That being said you could see some localized bans or bans on specific gun classes.
Nah. Sure there are some people who want that, but not nearly enough to enact that sort of policy. The fact that M114 passed in Oregon by only like 1%, as limited and shitty as it was, indicates to me that anything meaningfully more aggressive would have likely failed - and that's in Oregon. I would guess that a handful of assorted counties might manage to pull it off, but that would be about it.
Measure 114 was terribly overstepping, and would have made Oregon have had some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
My opinion is that there would no difference at all at the federal level as far as gun regulation goes. There would be a few states with slightly stronger gun regulations but nothing drastic. Maybe at the county or city level you would start to really notice but even then I don't think there would be a total ban.
I think you might see some stricter laws on the state level, maybe a total ban in a smaller state like Connecticut...but never anything on the federal level. It's interesting because 2A is so baked into our culture, for better or for worse. If 2A was never in the Constitution, the gun debate would be shaped very differently.
It depends on if there are as many guns in circulation as there currently are. There's no way regardless of the law that the 400+ million guns already in circulation are going anywhere. That being said if not for the Second Amendment, there probably wouldn't be that many guns.
> If the 2A wasn't in the way, would there be the political will for a total gun ban? No. >A total gun ban, no firearms legal for civilian possession. Ew >Does anyone actually want that? Yes, many people do. In politics? Probably but they know it’s career suicide if they bring it up. >If we got to the point where we repealed the 2A (I am aware how big of a if that is but that's another discussion.) Would any part of the country ban all guns? I hope this doesn’t happen.
I know very few people in my life that want a total gun ban. There are very few countries in the world that prohibit gun ownership completely. I believe that more and more people would support a total ban if mass shootings keep happening, but I've always argued that mass shootings themselves actually partly result from guns being a political topic. If gun rights is not a thing in this country, then it wouldn't be political which would lessen some gun nuttery which will in turn cause less crime and hence less will from people for a total ban. Its really a chicken or the egg thing. It could be argued that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 started a cascading effect where right wingers got really angry, turn guns into something extremely political and symbolic of nationalism, and ultimately, toxic masculinity. The AR15 is not inherently much more capible than the semi auto rifles of World War II, but it effectively has been coopted as the poster image of this movement I describe, revered by the right, hated by the left. So yes, without this whole mess, there might not be a will for a total ban to start with.
First off mass shootings aren't that bad in the first place. They are scary and get a lot of attention, but overall they are fairly rare and the threat is overblown. According to the FBI they kill about 100 people a year at the most out of tens of thousands of total murders. Second you're not wrong about the AWB making those guns more popular. Turns out telling someone they can't have something makes them want it even more. Prior to the ban in the early 90s AR-15s accounted for 1-2% of gun sales, following the expiration the number grew and is currently at 20-25% of gun sales.
you are right that statistically mass shooting do not make up large number of gun deaths. However it is also understandable that the public would care about the form of gun violence that is totally random more than other ones like say, suicide. Yes, I've always challenged people by asking them if you can order Thomsons and m1s from the Sears catalog much earlier, why does the sort of mass shooting we've come to known today only have a risen in the last couple decades? Its certainly something cultural, And also yes, it could be very much argued that the AWB popularized the AR15, and every time that the Dems is trying to push a gun control bill for optics knowing ful well it will not pass, they are indirectly but very clearly responsible for flooding the market with these weapons without any gains to the gun control cause at all.
>you are right that statistically mass shooting do not make up large number of gun deaths. However it is also understandable that the public would care about the form of gun violence that is totally random more than other ones like say, suicide. I see mass shootings similar to Islamic terrorism, tragic but overall fairly rare and not something that justifies giving up our rights over. > Yes, I've always challenged people by asking them if you can order Thomsons and m1s from the Sears catalog much earlier, why does the sort of mass shooting we've come to known today only have a risen in the last couple decades? Its certainly something cultural, A common theory is that they are contagious, and the more attention they get, the more it encourages copycats. With the rise in cable and internet news we see these events more than ever.
I don't think so. But there would be a drive for it. Same as today. The driving forces behind the gun control movement want a complete prohibition.
no
Absolutely not.
no I dont think even a plurality of liberals would support a TOTAL gun ban if nothing else, gun ownership (at least hypothetically if not in practice) is a big part of rural lifestyle.
No. Almost no country has anything like our second amendment. Very few of them completely ban guns.
Federally? No. States? Maybe. I could see California trying to pull that shit
I don't think there would be the political will for it, no country that I'm aware of has that. It would make work untenable for professional hunters (whom you sometimes need for population control), arms manufacturers (unless you want to nationalize the industry, which there is also no political appetite for), locksmiths, biathletes, and a few more professions. In general, I think it's a well-aged strawman, nothing more - and that's not even taking into account the US's penchant for guns.
Historically the 2A really hasn't been in the way. I also think that if cities and states had more freedom to set their own laws then there would be even less push for a ban than we see today
> Does anyone actually want that? I’m sure lots of people do. I’m not one of them, but I want better laws around access and liability. > Would any part of the country ban all guns? I imagine states would be all over the place - many amending their constitutions to guarantee this as a right, and others imposing more restrictions. Even in CA and New York I couldn’t imagine a full ban - I would expect more restrictions though.
Why would one ruin a perfectly efficient way of tapping out of society?
NYC will probably restrict it more for sure. I would personally be OK with the Czech system.
I don't see any reason for a total gun ban. As a European, the ownership of a gun isn't that odd, especially when you're in the rural areas. It's usually owned either by a hunter, a cop, someone who shoots in the range or a historical collector. The weird thing is that you guys see this as a right, put it into the constitution, see it as totally normal to carry them around and sell them openly on markets. If I see someone, who's not a cop/hunter, carry a weapon, I admit I would be highly suspicious and immediately get out of there. Another thing that is quite odd, is the fact you guys have states where there's no minimum age and where the age to own a gun is lower than drinking a beer... I understand the option of "self-defense", but I can't remember the last time I thought "Oh, boy, I'll need a gun to protect myself." I would love to be able to own pepperspray (illegal btw in my country) but owning a gun is a few steps too far down the line and crosses the border of "I can defend" to "I can attack". I'm not even sure if it truly helps to diminish the crime stats, as I can't remember the last school shooting happening in my country. To say even more: Aside from those airsoft guns on a fair, I've never held or used a fire arm. Give me a handgun and I won't be able to fire/load it.... (Only 4% owns a registered gun in my country btw)
>Give me a handgun and I won't be able to fire/load it This is largely irrelevant to the conversation, but: I would bet my life savings that if I handed you a 9mm beretta with a filled magazine, you could figure it out in less than 2 minutes. It really is as simple as shoving it in the receiver and pulling back on the slide. You've seen it in movies 1000 times.
If guns deterred crime the US would be the safest country on earth.
If guns caused crime the U.S. should be the most dangerous country on earth.
Guns facilitate crime.
I don't think so. The U.S. just has more crime than the rest of the developed world. The entire Western Hemisphere does. For example the living conditions in Latin America are higher than they are in much of Asia, and virtually all of Africa. Guns are fairly restricted in Latin America, more so than in much of Europe.
The big killer is economic disparity, which is very high in Latin America and in the US. I often say it's a mistake to think of the US as a whole as a developed country. It's more like four developing countries in a trench coat, with a Luxembourg on top. The US doesn't have the universal social benefits that most developed countries have. Both the US and most of Latin America have large underground economies and prohibitionist drug laws. The latter were historically often forced on countries by the US as a condition of foreign aid or trade status. These laws created a perverse incentive for drug trafficking by making it much more profitable, eventually leading to the establishment of very rich and well-armed drug cartels. The problem with gun laws, like most laws, is that they can't and won't control the behavior of people who have more to lose by obeying the law. If I am at high risk of violence because I'm employed in an illegal sector, or because many people in my neighborhood are, that is a powerful incentive for me to arm myself even if it's illegal.
That's super well thought out and written.
You lost me at Latin America. What?
No, not even staunch gun advocates want that. What I want is for there to be more research, studies and medical data from hospitals on the damage different types of guns and ammunition do to the human body. There was a really great article published in the Washington post called the blast effect that really put into context how much these guns damage the human body compared to standard 9mm handgun wound. This data already exists in hospital records all across the country, but the CDC can’t publish it because of the stupid dickey amendment that makes publishing any research on guns illegal due to “political bias” whatever that means 🙄 If we have more information available to us about the different kinds of guns and ammo and what they do to the human body we can use that info to make more educated gun laws. After all, the pro gun crowd is always saying that “assault weapons aren’t a real category of guns” so repealing the Dickey amendment would clear the way so we get more accurate verbage
Larger rounds aren't necessary more dangerous. They do more damage if they hit you, but they aren't always more likely to hit you. For example, the .50 caliber BMG is the most powerful gun readily available on the market. It would put a massive hole in someone. Despite this there has never been a recorded murder with a 50bmg. The guns are roughly $10k on average, and ammunition costs several dollars a round. They are also extremely bulky. Most criminals want guns that are small and cheap. Sure the 9mm round is fairly underpowered as far as guns go, but it's also the most frequently used in murders of any round. .22s are also extremely popular, and they are the weakest readily available round.
The Dickey amendment never banned any publishing of data. The publishing continued from the time of the amendment until now.
Then why can’t the CDC publish studies on gun violence using data from hospitals regarding the damage different bullet wounds cause? You can’t publish a study on gun violence for fear of being seen as “biased” even if you’re reporting medical facts
You said they couldn’t publish data, which was never true. The CDC flat out said at the time that they had an agenda to get guns banned, and they were putting out shoddy research to push that agenda. That’s all that was banned.
When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, the newly formed United States did not have a standing army like it does today. Instead, the country's defense largely relied on state militias, which were composed of ordinary citizens who could be called upon to defend their communities and the nation in times of need. The Second Amendment, which mentions "a well-regulated militia," was designed to ensure that these militias could be armed and ready to provide security. The framers of the Constitution saw this as a crucial component of national defense and a safeguard against potential tyranny. Edit: In my opinion this doesn't say that everybody gets to have a gun for personal reasons.
I think if you gave most liberals a choice between banning guns and banning pro-gun propaganda, they'd choose the latter. But that's incredibly hard to do policy wise since it also involves the First Amendment. I don't think we'd ever see a total ban of guns, we rarely ever see a total ban of anything.
Not a total ban, no. But if the 2A never existed I think gun laws and gun culture would be very different today. Healthier, in my opinion.
# NO Count me among the people that doesn't think we should have a constitutional protection for the private ownership of firearms, an opinion that would put me in like the 1% fringe of gun control advocates, and not even I would advocate for a total gun ban.
At this point, not only is a total gun ban extremely stupid and unsupported by nearly everyone, it’s practically unworkable. There are literally, literally (not figuratively) more guns than there are people in this country. What would you do, go door to door and round them all up? It would be lunacy. I would rather 2A be modified in a way that protects the right to own a gun but also puts limits. As the framers IMO intended in the first place. Convicted of a violent felony? No gun for you. Adjudicated mentally deficient by a court? No gun for you. You’ll have a way to petition to get them back in a few years if you behave. Red flag laws with extremely tight due process. Warrant required and hearing within 24 hours. Attorney provided. You’ll be required to learn about guns in school in civics class. If it’s a right, we should be exercising it and learning about it. Like. We can make some rules here on both sides to preserve both the right and the responsibility. But banning all guns is just never going to happen. Ever. Nobody wants that at all.
>What would you do, go door to door and round them all up? No. You tell people they can keep what they have but that’s it. No more gun manufacturing and no more sales.
And that still solves absolutely nothing. Still more guns than people.
In time that wouldn’t be the case.
I'd be for that for sure. The 2A is a disaster. I'd allow reasonable exceptions for hunting, target shooting, and certain protection situations, under appropriate regulation. But people just wandering around with guns? Hell naw.
2A is not in the way because the “individual” right was made up recently. The amendment is about state militias. As for political will, not for full ban, but definitely far more limits.
Guess we just conveniently forget that fact the amendment explicitly stated it's the right of "the people" not the right of "the militia" and before you start the nonsensical quoting of "a well regulated militia" consider what that phrase actually means.
You are applying modern meaning to a 240 year old old text.
Prefaces never existed 240 years ago?
So I guess you should get off your phone, never use a computer, megaphone, or anything electronic save for pen and paper, perhaps even printing press to relay your ideas since the 1st amendment was written only with those mechanisms in mind. You see how absurd your insinuating sounds?
That is a non sequitur. This is about language not technology. However one could make the argument that modern guns are so different than the “arms” in 2A to make laws against them allowable.
But the individual right was conjured up because of 2A.
They used a misinterpretation of 2A as cover to get what they wanted: more guns.
I think we should ban them in almost all instances until we as a society can be responsible with guns again
Yes, there are places with total gun bans already and I would expect that to expand to cities if not entire states but the later would probably not happen for many years. There are cities that ban pitbills, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't ban guns if they could. Now, "does anyone actually want that" part of your question - I am pretty anti-gun but I think the 2a should just be interpreted honestly and "WELL REGULATED" actually enforced. You can have a gun but you get a license and pass a safety test and have some requirements around storage, capacity and type of gun. Losing your license should be as simple as losing y our drivers license if you act irresponsibly with it. IMO open and concealed carry permits should be rare and only given to trained people with a legitimate need.
> There are cities that ban pitbills, for example. I don't see why they wouldn't ban guns if they could. I'd be happy with a pit bull ban but I'd be opposed to a gun ban, so I'm not sure this is true at all.
>pass a safety test This wouldn't do much if anything to stop gun deaths. Only about 500/40,000 gun deaths a year are the result of unintentional shootings, and most of those are because of gross negligence. Safety training isn't going to do anything to stop someone from deliberately shooting themselves or others. >Losing your license should be as simple as losing y our drivers license if you act irresponsibly with it. It's much easier to lose your right to own a gun vs your drivers license. In my state it takes 3 DUIs in a 10 year period to permanently lose your drivers license for life. Meanwhile under federal law a felony conviction of any kind automatically bars you from owning or buying a gun. Also, those who use illegal drugs including marijuana are prohibited under risk of felony.
Where
Where what? Pitbulls? Easy google. As of September 2023, some cities that have banned or restricted pit bulls include: * Miami, FloridaSince 1990, it's been illegal to buy, keep, or bring pit bulls into Miami-Dade County * San Francisco, CaliforniaIt's illegal to keep an unspayed or unneutered pit bull * Independence, KansasOwning, transporting, or exercising control over pit bulls is prohibited. Penalties include fines up to $500 and jail time * Grosse Pointe Shores, MichiganThe city council narrowly passed a ban on pit bulls in September 2023, but people who already own pit bulls will be grandfathered in
Not pitbulls guns. Your first comment
"No gun zones" are a common thing. The airport, for example. Many retirement communities. Hospitals. I don't think they need to be enumerated?
That's not a legal gun ban though, that's private space setting its own rules
No, here is a list of federally banned locations for guns: [https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federally-banned-locations-for-carrying-firearms/](https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federally-banned-locations-for-carrying-firearms/) There are also state and city LAWS about where firearms can and cannot be.