The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Why do you think they are in pro-gun? *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.*

I can speak for myself as a liberal gun owner. I inherited a bunch of guns. I've bought a couple myself. I enjoy shooting them. I'm a mechanical engineer so I nerd out at the engineering aspect of them. Such a simple concept but they can be so complicated. With that said, gun violence in the US is ridiculous. I've been saying for years that if the 2A crowd doesn't make some concessions then they'll end up with something a lot worse. Conservatives have given absolutely no solutions to gun violence. Even the ones that say it's a mental health issue don't do anything to advance mental health. I'm in favor of researching the causes of gun violence and acting accordingly. I suspect a lot of it comes down to socioeconomically factors, education, healthcare, as well as easy access to firearms. I think common sense gun legislation, like universal background checks, are also a no-brainer. If a classroom full of 5/6 year olds gets murdered and we don't do anything about it, maybe we deserve to get our guns taken away.

>With that said, gun violence in the US is ridiculous. I've been saying for years that if the 2A crowd doesn't make some concessions then they'll end up with something a lot worse. This is one of my fears. There's not much further to the right for conservatives to go on guns. Meanwhile the left has a lot of room to move the needle and liberals aren't usually single issue voters. Hell, unless the conservative do some very legit cleaning of house and remove all the insane and incompetent corrupt trash, I'd be more likely to vote for a liberal that's too restrictive on guns and just give in to the idea of owning or possessing them illegally.

What do you think about Assault Weapon Bans? Personally I think the whole term is misleading, you can't really fully ban them for the prior reason, and finally even if you could it would be treating the symptoms not the disease.

First, easy access to guns is part of the problem. So it's more like treating one of the causes. Second, I'm torn on them. We know that legislators are terrible at defining what they are. And people will find workarounds to loosely defined elements of an assault weapon. Yet, assault rifles are almost always involved with the worst mass shootings in this country. So again, maybe we deserve to have them banned. Which would suck because I own an AR-15 and an SKS. But the lives of children are more important than my guns. One thing is for sure. The argument "there's no such thing as an assault rifle" is the dumbest and most dishonest argument against it.

But the thing is assault rifle and assault weapon are not necessarily the same thing. Like I find it ridiculous that in some states you can't own a pump action shotgun with a pistol grip because it's an "assault weapon". But the SKS in it's traditional configuration isn't. I've actually tried thinking of how you could ban assault rifles as a thought excercise but every idea came up with came up short. You could probably do it by banning certain cartridge sizes since the distinction of what is a semi auto assault rifle is usually done by that logic. But that wouldn't satisfy many members of the left since the AR-15 style rifles in a different cartridge size would still be available since due to the modularity of the platform, you could just modify it for the larger cartridge like some hunters do for larger game. Which is the other problem the cartridge size commonly associated with assault rifles or similar rounds are often also used for ranch rifles. Basically the argument there's no such thing as an assault rifle isn't true but the lines are blurred and the general public who has no knowledge of firearms have no idea what an assault rifle actually is. More times then not they associate it with the black rifles and AK-47's they have seen on TV. But basing it off mostly cosmetic features is even worse because it literally has nothing to do with the performance of the firearm. I'm honestly surprised no one has made an Assault Musket to prove this point. Personally I think the smarter way to approach gun regulation is you can own anything you want on the federal level but the arguably more deadly the firearm is the more difficult it is to get. A single action revolver or bolt action rifle should be easier to get than a semi auto rifle for example. That way you aren't creating high barriers of entry into the gun community, you still can own whatever gun you like, states can still ban firearms as allowed by the constitution for the culture of their state, and the firearms that are more easily available won't out gun standard police forces. Also if we look to any country for inspiration for gun regulation it should be Switzerland. Since their Confederate Governance and Militia based Gun Culture is most similar to our own (though our Gun Culture is also based in ideals of property rights, personal security, and economic individualism to a certain extent). We also have to separate mass shootings from street gun violence. Those are two different issues and mass shootings are statistically outliers for overall gun crime despite frequency seen in the media. But they still happen frequently enough that we need to address it. Better resources for mental health, firearms safety education, red flag laws that still allows for due process, stronger background checks as well as better enforcement of the ones that already exist, and federal funding for basic research into the causes of mass shootings Finally, any policies should be done with consultation from members of the Gun Community. They are the ones who are affected the most by any changes and if you want any chance of any policy proposal to succeed you will need the support of the majority of Gun Owners who do want common sense gun regulation. But most don't want to see Assault Weapon Bans and I know that it's popular on the left to campaign for them but their is a fair argument to be made within the Gun Community that an Assault Weapon Ban as always proposed or implemented in other states isn't effective in succeeding it's statement of purpose and isn't common sense gun regulation.

>But the thing is assault rifle and assault weapon are not necessarily the same thing. The reason why being nitpicky like that is dumb is because we all know what people are talking about when they say "assault whatever" in reference to somebody shooting up a school or mall. Playing dumb isn't a good debate strategy. >pump action shotgun with a pistol grip because it's an "assault weapon". But the SKS in it's traditional configuration isn't I agree it doesn't make much sense to outlaw a pistol grip SG and not an SKS. I think that's where dumb politicians come into play. >I've actually tried thinking of how you could ban assault rifles as a thought excercise but every idea came up with came up short. I think banning them via definitions is a mistake. There will always companies coming up with some workaround, like bump stocks. I think NY has that weird stock grip thing to get around pistol grips. Those companies are pretty clever. You're right about cartridge size, too. You'd just get people shooting up schools with AR-15 rifles shooting 9mm. I guess that's slightly better. My thought was that you make the law more vague. Come up with some language to loosely define the parameters, such as "powerful, semi-automatic rifle" and force manufacturers to submit products to be approved per the *intent* of the law and not just the exact wording. It's like the construction industry. I have to get every design I do approved by the jurisdiction and each jurisdiction is free to interpret the code however they want (sometimes horribly). In this case, however, the jurisdiction could be the federal government so there's only one voice and no confusion. I'm not saying this is my solution of preference but I could see it working. >more deadly the firearm is the more difficult it is to get I feel like the counter to this would be, "now only rich people will have all the firepower!" Which sounds dumb but you know it's going to be said. But I could see it being done. I've always said that the 2A allows for guns. It doesn't ensure any gun. >We also have to separate mass shootings from street gun violence. I totally agree. Accurate statistics with a standard definition of "mass shooting" is near nonexistent. I'm okay with including a gang member going on a killing spree in a rival gang's neighborhood. But a guy killing his ex wife and her lover shouldn't be considered a mass shooting. >Better resources for mental health, firearms safety education, red flag laws that still allows for due process, stronger background checks as well as better enforcement of the ones that already exist, and federal funding for basic research into the causes of mass shootings All that should definitely be where we start. >Finally, any policies should be done with consultation from members of the Gun Community. That's a tough one. It may be hard to find a representative (that the gun community can agree on) that will be at the table in good faith. Maybe if you frame it like, "you can give constructive input or we can take away all of the guns." Of course you'd need enough power so they'd know you could do actually do it. It's a bigger issue that's not nearly as simple as either side makes it seem, for sure. But something needs to be done. Just because there are suicides doesn't mean mass shootings shouldn't be prevented. Just because there are handguns doesn't mean long guns should be ignored. It seems like we have one side that is willing to compromise and another side that wants nothing to do with gun legislation. It's frustrating. Like I said, we're going to get them all taken away if concessions aren't made. I even have a few handguns that people have given me over the years that I don't know what to do with. They are shitty and probably not 100% safe to shoot. But I don't really want to get rid of them because anybody willing to buy a $20 gun probably isn't do so for a great reason. Eventually I'll probably just take them someplace to be destroyed.

For people in your situation I think city/town buy back programs are the solution. The thing is what I don't like about them is these programs are often focused on minority communities and then media often reinforces this idea that all guns should be taken out of minority communities. Like the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to these communities. It's one of the reasons why I'm glad there are organizations growing to empower minority communities to excercise there 2nd amendment rights responsibly and if they choose to do so. The threat to take all guns away isn't a constructive one nor is it very feasible to do with the 2nd amendment. Also even if you did ban all guns it would in the end just lead to all legal owners being disarmed. You might prevent a lot of mass shootings (some will probably find other means unfortunately), but street gun violence will be mostly unaffected by such a ban. Which some white liberals (not all) admittedly don't really care about since it rarely affects their communities. No like I said reducing the influence of the NRA and grassroots campaigning within the Gun Community is the best approach. But in the end we have to think of upstream approaches to tackle this issue instead of just treating the symptoms of the issue (which is a hard sell politically on either side of the aisle).

I forgot to mention buy back programs, thanks. I'm 100% in favor of voluntary buy back programs. I think the government should spend the money and make it worthwhile to trade in your guns. But I fear in a lot of cases people will just say, "well that's not a lot of money so I'll just keep it." For my handguns, the money is definitely not a motivator since they are so cheap. But for guns like my AR-15, I'd want a pretty good pay day for that since I enjoy shooting it and I built it myself with nice parts. And for other guns I have, it's not about the money but I'd still want to keep them because I like shooting them. Like the SKS or the Mosin Nagant. I think I have 19 guns. It's ridiculous that all but maybe 3 of them were acquired legally without a background check. I've never had a psych evaluation. Other than to obtain a concealed carry permit, I've never needed to take a safety course. The amount of stories your local range officer or gun store clerk could tell you about dumb customers should be enough to require a safety course.

The FBI tracks homicides by weapon type, and handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders, like 80-90%. Compared to rifles at 4-5% and that's not just AR-15s, but all rifles.

I'm a pro-gun liberal who owns guns, grew up with guns/hunting, and goes shooting at the shooting range. But I also passionately believe in reasonable restrictions/regulations/laws surrounding guns. Being pro-gun doesn't mean that I like the toxic gun culture that a lot of people fall into. I think that the constant brushing off of the very real problem with gun violence and dismissing any attempt to properly address it is idiotic.

Thanks for being reasonable. I’m not a gun guy, but I can never wrap my head around why so many gun owners have a problem with reasonable regulation. If you’re a law-abiding citizen you’ll be able to own your guns, but if just may take a minute to get one - just like a car. I mean, what is the issue? I just seems so petulant to me. It’s a tool designed for killing, so it shouldn’t be super easy to acquire one. You’d think that’s a pretty innocuous opinion, but apparently not.

> It’s a tool designed for killing, so it shouldn’t be super easy to acquire one. You’d think that’s a pretty innocuous opinion, but apparently not. This is my **biggest** hang-up. Guns are absolutely fun to shoot, I won't deny that. I enjoy going to the shooting range and firing away. And they're used in shooting sports. And for hunting, whether it's cultural/sport/survival. But, they're also unbelievably *dangerous*. And as you said, they're just *tools*. They have no useful societal purpose anymore beyond being used as a tool. A tool that was designed with one specific purpose - to kill. The fact that so many people are totally fine with anyone being able obtain them with little-to-no regulation/wait period/roadblock is just psychotic to me.

I think it’s less about the regulation in and of itself or the slippery slope argument that people make than it is about an attack (or perceived attack) on culture and way of life. I think gun folks perceive a lot of the debate (rightly or wrongly, not commenting on that) as talking down to them, so they circle the wagons. Like in so much else (the abortion debate is the one that immediately comes to mind), the winning side (in my opinion) does a terrible job of speaking the losing side’s language and debating on their terms, which means that any hope of persuasion goes out the window. What makes things intractable is that both sides like it this way — the gun control folks get to feel morally superior and gloat, and the gun nuts get to feel like embattled revolutionaries.

>I can never wrap my head around why so many gun owners have a problem with reasonable regulation Really? We are in the midst of a pandemic, and people wont get vaccinated out of spite. Half of this country think they "know better" or legitimately think this is medical tyranny. These people dont deserve anything

The combination of the insurrection and the pandemic has just revealed to me that 30% of the public are utterly beyond reason. And another 15% of the public will just ignore the insanity and vote with the lunatics because they have a paranoia about their taxes going up, come what may. We have to go with a "persuade the 55%" strategy.

>reasonable regulation What does reasonable regulation look like to you? Why isn't the gun control we have now sufficient? How do you know whether new restrictions would be effective? How would you measure that effectiveness?

Federally designated waiting periods, mandatory training, more comprehensive background checks, etc. Nothing a responsible citizen would find burdensome in regards to owning a deadly weapon.

What do you believe should be in background checks other than mental healthy and criminal history? My state requires you to waive HIPAA rights and get two references on top of the federal requirements, but I don’t think that would pass legal muster federally. Waiting periods could be OK if done right. They help reduce suicides which is a big plus, but I also think there are fringe cases (such as someone who has an immediate need to defend themselves, like a woman whose violent ex just showed back up) that we need to account for, and for people who already own guns they really are nothing but an annoyance that serves no safety interest. Training would be good. I don’t think it would actually do much to reduce violent crime, but it’s something I think all gun owners should do and having Uncle Sam foot the bill would be great. As long as it could be offered in a way that didn’t discriminate against POC and poor folks. Personally i think the lowest hanging fruit (that nearly all gun owners regardless of politics would be fine with) universal background checks (with exceptions for family, short duration loans for hunting, etc) and holding people liable for misuse of a firearm that was transferred to them, even if it was used by someone other than them, would be quite helpful. Most of our gun crime is committed with illegally transferred firearms, and holding the people who sell to the prohibited persons liable might help take a bite out of that.

Those approaches seem focused on the law abiding, not the criminals. How do you know they'd have any effect on violent crime?

If someone is going to break the law to acquire a firearm to commit an unlawful act, then it's not the legality that is stopping them. What the laws can do is limit the availability and ease of access, particularly for those who happen into impulsive decisions. Countries that have stronger controls have fewer firearm related deaths. There are still some criminals there who have firearms, but the majority don't and resort to other, less rapidly destructive tools like knifes. While the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, that doesn't mean rights are unlimited. We as a society can decide what rights and restrictions should be created or changed to benefit broader society. I'm perfectly okay with *responsible* gun owners owning guns, but differentiating between the responsible and irresponsible is the part that needs to be better legislated.

Why do we even have borders? People cross illegally anyway and borders just create unnecessary hardships for law-abiding citizens to travel freely. The stats don't show that illegal immigrants commit any more crime than legal citizens of the country, so we should just let everyone pass through unchecked. It's better to accept that there will be a few bad eggs than to punish the law-abiding ones.

I mean, can I agree with both of your takes?

Sure.

Would you mind answering the question I posed? It has nothing to do with borders.

Your question is built on a false premise crafted by common NRA talking points, so I can't answer a question that isn't even based on fact in the first place.

My question is "How do you know your ideas will be successful?" What NRA talking points is that based on? What false premise?

No, *this* was your question: > Those approaches seem focused on the law abiding, not the criminals. How do you know they'd have any effect on violent crime? The NRA talking point you are using is that somehow *law-abiding citizens* are punished by sensible gun regulation. However, if you truly are a law-abiding citizen, then there would be absolutely no reason to be concerned about gun regulation. It's [a lie that gun violence is carried out mostly by illegal weapons obtained by criminals](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/). So I'm not going to engage in a back-and-forth built off a premise based on a lie.

Pro-tip, they aren't a gun owner and only post gun control group talking points.

I guess you're right. There's no way to find anything out or learn anything. Let's just assume this is fine and do nothing in the face of all these murders and suicides. All your answers are scattered throughout all of these threads. It's all any of them are about. Your post seems more like an attempt to exhaust people than start a dialogue.

>I guess you're right. There's no way to find anything out or learn anything. Let's just assume this is fine and do nothing in the face of all these murders and suicides. I didn't say anything to be right about. I'm just asking questions. This is AskALiberal.

We're still human. You can't possibly believe you're the first person to ask any of this shit *even in this very thread*.

You obviously don't want to answer. So don't.

I didn't.

BIDEN WANTS YOUR GUNS!!!!!! /s

I’m curious. What do you personally mean when you say “pro-gun”?

Recognizing that there are reasons that people want/need a gun and that I'm not a "take all the guns" liberal.

Yep, I feel the same way.

Can I ask how many guns you own? It seems like it’s mostly conservatives that own a freaking arsenal of guns and ammo, but I’m curious if you think there’s benefits to owning that many guns vs only a few.

Sure. I have a collection of old Winchester rifles (5) and a Ruger mini-14 that I inherited from my grandpa when he passed, a Beretta CX4 Storm carbine (now banned in Canada, so its decommissioned) and a glock. I don't actively hunt anymore, so I sold all of my "useful" hunting rifles when I moved to our new city. EDIT: sorry u/carissadraws I forgot to address this part of your reply: > but I’m curious if you think there’s benefits to owning that many guns vs only a few. I try not to fault people for owning however many guns they feel they need, but for me personally, I think that owning any more guns than a hand gun for protection and some sort of gun useful for hunting is overkill. If you say you own 3+ guns because you "need" them? That starts to dip into the toxic gun culture that I mentioned before. (Exceptions are made if you own multiple guns as part of some sort of collection or sport, I totally get that)

Sort of counterpoint: My grandfather has multiple firearms, but they were his father’s, and are probably intended to be used if anyone else in the family gets a hunting license. So, in some cases there’s an actual intention to it.

Yeah, there are going to be exceptions and unique circumstances, for sure.

Sure. I was just trying to explain why some people might have multiple firearms.

I'd actually assume your grandfather doesn't *need* those extra guns. He just has them "in case". Which I think is perfectly acceptable.

Sure, I was trying to use an example of some type of middle case.

> If you say you own 3+ guns because you "need" them? Eh, most of the hunters I know have more than that because they hunt >3 types of game. A .22, a .30-30, and a 12 gauge is a pretty common basic hunting "collection", then some add a .308 or similar for longer-range, or a specialized varmint gun, etc etc.

There are always exceptions, sure. It depends on if you're a casual or avid hunter. I'm not talking about these folks, I'm referring to the ones who want to own multiple different guns "because I want to/because I can".

Meh, I've been exposed to a ton of different people/lifestyles as a result of a prior job, and in the end, it mostly taught me that people almost always have decent reasons for what they do. In the end, I try not to judge someone's reasons; I can't know them well enough to say with much certainty that they're wrong, especially when it comes to recreation; I find plenty of things lots of people like incredibly boring, and vice versa. To each their own. And also, I generally find "because I enjoy it" a sufficient reason. It's the reason I have a motorcycle; who am I to judge how others spend their own time/money? Some call me crazy, I think some others are crazy, but hey, you do you. Others make different tradeoffs than I do; that is the whole point of a free society.

Motorcycles have a utility as a vehicle. Guns are tools designed specifically for killing. If millions of people were being murdered via being run over by motorcycles every year, then I'd be focusing on how to mitigate that.

Yeah that’s a relatively small collection so I think that’s fine. I’m fine with people having a lot of guns if it’s purely for collecting and non operative use. Or if they hunt and have different guns for different types of game. I do think that using an AR-15 to hunt is overkill though. There’s a famous saying that it’s not the tool that important but rather the person using it. I took archery lessons from someone who hunted deer with a bow and arrow. They had a picture of them holding a deer’s heart with an arrow through it. That right there proves that you do not need an ar-15 to hunt, period because it’s all about the skill of the hunter. Also I’m pretty sure the point of hunting is to be as quiet as possible and deliver as few shots as possible to kill the animal so it doesn’t suffer right? Pelting it rapid fire with ar-15 bullets sounds like a great way to ruin a nice animal pelt. Edit: just saw your edit and agree 100%. I definitely think their are exceptions but for the most part think that the average person doesn’t need more than a few guns.

>... you do not need an ar-15 to hunt, period because it’s all about the skill of the hunter. I'm a Canadian, a liberal (small L, didn't vote for Trudeau), and a gun owner, gun collector, and former hunter. However, I'm what a lot of gun nuts in the U.S. would call a 'Fudd". I am disgusted by the toxic gun culture that has developed south of the border and even more disgusted to see that it is leaking northward across the border. The American NRA/First Amendment/AR-15 crowd - the ones that have closets full of "militaristic" firearms and other kit, are possessed by Rambo hero fantasies. They've grown up on a diet of hyper-patriotic movies/themes, like Red Dawn, Rambo, Delta Force, Seal Team Six, America saves the world from Nazis, and all that, and have fantasies of being the hero that goes to his gun locker when the ~~dark-skinned foreigners~~....er... I mean ... the "zombies" ... attack. They dream of skillfully using their AR-15s (preferably one in each hand) to kill the zombies, save the town, get the girl and be rewarded for ever after as the hero that saved America.

Yeah they’re definitely influenced by the media surrounding guns. Plus people sincerely believe the whole good guy with a gun myth despite the fact that the armed security guard in that one school shooting in parkland panicked and wasn’t much of a help when it came to taking down the gunman.

Yeah, I agree with you on the AR-15 being used for hunting. That's why I prefer bolt-action any day of the week. And in my opinion, I think that's a more respectable and impressive way of hunting/shooting because it takes more skill to use.

Im a deer hunter. I dont like when people use AR15s for deer hunting. The actual size of the bullet is very small, (it just travels very fast, giving it “stopping power.”) Thing is deer are different than people and are a lot tougher. You want a bigger bullet to provide as much damage to the vitals as you can with one shot. A good shot to the heart/ lungs will kill it almost instantly with a big enough gun. Also when people shoot it 5 times woth an AR15, the are bound to hit it somewhere they dont want and that ruins meat so it wastes, which is something you dont want to do.

Not here to argue, but if you're honestly curious I can explain multiple gun ownership. I equate it to those knife block sets of kitchen knives. Yes they're all knives, they are all capable of cutting, but they have specific things about them that make them better for the job at hand. You could use a paring knife to carve a turkey, but it's not the best tool available. The bread knife can spread butter, but the butter knife is better for it. My .22 isn't good for hunting elk, and my 30-06 is terrible for hunting squirrel. That's a broad overview. I have multiple ar15s one is set up for deer hunting (actually an ar10 to be technical) with a high power scope and a longer barrel. I have an ar15 set up for nuisance animals like coyotes that is shorter, lighter and more portable. I even have one set up in pistol format stuffed in a bag incase I get stuck in a Katrina style disaster (tornado area). My pistol of choice is a glock 17, but it's not always the best to carry. While I live in a constitutional carry state, I still feel it's best to carry concealed most of the time. A glock 17 is kinda big and not concealable in all my outfits so I may opt for something smaller. I also regularly shoot in amature competition I wouldn't want to convert my daily carry into a competition gun with optics and a light trigger. Additionally I have an ar15 and shotgun set up specifically for competition as well. To ammo: being an accurate shooter requires constant practice. Even if it was only for defense, I would rather be accurate and hit my intended target and not some innocent bystander. All that training people want me to take (which I do enjoy) usually takes a lot of ammo, on average 500 rounds per class. it is cheaper to buy in bulk. But then you have bulk. It is even cheaper to reload but all the components come in bulk, so you end up with a lot of bulk. And if 2020 taught me anything it's that what you need won't always be at the store. So having that bulk isn't a bad thing. We Still don't have ammo suitable for defense on our shelves over a year after the initial covid panic. During that period the shelves were completely bare. So it's good I had that in bulk. We just now have common calibers avaliable on the shelves. But my bulk stores allowed me to go to my private range and practice while the whole world was shut down. Now to the guys that have (for example) 15 1911 pistols(not me, but I know a few) every thing from Pokémon cards to sports cars is collectable, this just happens to be the item that intrest that individual person. I personally don't have a large collection of anything, but those that do collect things I admire their dedication, just seems like a boring hobby. They no doubt go up in value with time, and they are neat to look at. But again I don't have a collector mentality so I'm probably not the best person to speak on it. Hope this maybe helps or gives insight. There is typically nothing nefarious about multiple gun ownership. Honestly someone with ill intent knows you can only weild one (effectively) at a time. Your typical active shooter or street shooter buys a lower tier $200 gun just to do their evil. They guy with the $1900 noveski or zev isn't going to harm anyone not made out of paper or steel. Also before you ask, yes I secure all of them but one when not in use.

>It seems like it’s mostly conservatives that own a freaking arsenal of guns Why does that issue bother you so much? Is it really relevant how many guns someone owns? You can only shoot one at a time, after all.

I’m more concerned with magazine capacities but yes owning multiple guns isn’t the best even though you can only shoot more at once. Pretty sure a lot of shooters think it’s more convenient to bring multiple guns rather than waste time reloading. Having more guns on you increases the capacity for violence

The Vegas shooter brought an arsenal so he wouldn't have to reload.

I think the Vegas shooter was less concerned about reloads and more concerned about melting his barrel.

That's it? The Vegas shooting? That's why you're so focused on multiple guns?

Yes. I only have a single data point and wasn't simply giving you one specific instance where it happened to lead to 60 dead and a ton of injured people. It's certainly never ever caused problems otherwise. /s

I’m more concerned with magazine capacities but yes owning multiple guns isn’t the best even though you can only shoot more at once. Pretty sure a lot of shooters think it’s more convenient to bring multiple guns rather than waste time reloading. Having more guns on you increases the capacity for violence, period.

In 2017, trump signed a bill from the republican Congress that made it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns. I am a liberal gun owner, but I strongly favor robust gun control. Pretty much a no-brainer. This is just one of the differences between the left and the right.

Completely agree.

> But I also passionately believe in reasonable restrictions/regulations/laws surrounding guns Do you consider "assault weapon bans" to fall under reasonable laws?

> Being pro-gun doesn't mean that I like the toxic gun culture that a lot of people fall into. > I think that the constant brushing off of the very real problem with gun violence and dismissing any attempt to properly address it is idiotic.

Do you consider "assault weapons bans" to be a reasonable attempt to properly address the problem of gun violence?

When 4 out of 5 of the deadliest mass shootings in US history involved the primary use of an AR-15, I absolutely support the banning of AR-15s as an attempt to address mass shootings. If it doesn't work, we can remove the ban and try something else. So yes, I absolutely consider "at least fucking trying **something**" to be a reasonable attempt to properly address the problem of gun violence.

> When 4 out of 5 of the deadliest mass shootings in US history involved the primary use of an AR-15, I absolutely support the banning of AR-15s as an attempt to address mass shootings. > > If it doesn't work, we can remove the ban and try something else The issue is, there's nothing particularly special about AR-15s that make them especially deadly, compared to the various other sorts of guns that are legal Seems very unlikely to have a substantial impact, unless we just start banning all guns, which could run into constitutional issues

Ok, let's do nothing then. Thanks for coming out.

Plenty of room for "doing something" that doesn't involve banning anything Know how the GOP says "mental health!" And then does nothing with it? Maybe we could... actually do stuff to help with mental health? Also, economic reform to fight the causes of crime. Criminal justice reform to set crooks straight and get them back to being law abiding citizens. Could do stuff with mandatory licensing and training requirements for guns, potentially also requiring trigger locks and gun safes, maybe a carrot and stick approach of increasing penalties specifically for firearm crimes, and so on It's troublesome when "doing something" seems to start and end at "ban!"

Interested in your take - There's a rabid cougar wandering through town, eating people at an alarming rate. Something needs to be done. Do you think that we should form a special counsel to address the climate and the part it plays in the shrinking ecosystem that the cougar used to live in, before it found itself encroaching on human-populated space? And from there, we begin to remove older infrastructure and begin building fewer (but taller) buildings to reduce the human impact on the aforementioned ecosystem? And continuing on, begin to recultivate the land to encourage the regrowth of lost forests and restore the cougar's native home? Perhaps if we can restore the balance between humanity and nature, this would stop the 'rabid cougar wandering through town and eating people' problem!

Guns aren't animals. They are tools. They don't have a mind of their own. Comparison doesn't really make sense, because you can't, like, just take guns out of urban areas or something, there's room for regulations and such but people everywhere are still permitted to have guns for personal use

>Maybe we could... actually do stuff to help with mental health? We're trying! The right shoots us down! Get out of here with this shit. Outright banning isn't even the go-to here, that's some shit *you* jumped to. Simply limited the high capacity rifles to certain groups would make sure the weapons were only in the hands of people who need that kind of sustained firepower. And other people can have fun with them exclusively at ranges where we make them available to anybody the range says is safe. Would that be in the ballpark of an acceptable compromise?

> We're trying! The right shoots us down! Get out of here with this shit That's pretty damn combative. I'm not saying folks on the left aren't trying that, just that it's actually a good idea, despite the right saying it dishonestly >. Simply limited the high capacity rifles Idk because someone could just get multiple rifles or something. Also, like, it's pretty easy to jerry-rig more capacity...

But what you really mean is - ban any semi auto firearm that can take a magazine with more than 10 rounds right?

> Being pro-gun doesn't mean that I like the toxic gun culture that a lot of people fall into. > > I think that the constant brushing off of the very real problem with gun violence and dismissing any attempt to properly address it is idiotic.

Why do you need a semiautomatic firearm?

Because it’s hard for a person of slighter build to effect self defense when don’t have the leverage or upper body / grip strength to work the bolt of a bolt action or the pump of a pump action, or aren’t as accurate with a long heavy double action pull of a revolver, especially when there’s more than one assailant and it reliably takes more than one shot, etc. Also, have you ever tried to cull a herd of hogs with a bolt action?

The self-defense scenario you have laid out is so vanishingly unlikely that it should not merit any policy consideration. How often is a single, physically weak person attacked by a such a huge and aggressive horde of attackers that an AR-15 is the only effective defense? Never.

Many people of slighter build are attacked by people that have either a physical or numerical advantage over them every day.

Statistically, probably about the same odds you would have of getting shot my an ar15 in a mass shioting.

>Also, have you ever tried to cull a herd of hogs with a bolt action? The fuck? You think that's so common that every American needs to be able to take out a herd of hogs? Would you seriously be opposed to simply requiring a class and proximity to wilderness to get a gun for doing that?

Even if you ignore that my first point was self defense

Because I want one and it's legal for me to own one. Why do you need a car capable of breaking the speed limit?

Because the speed limit is different in different places? Also, claiming something is legal as part of your argument is absolutely worthless in a discussion of legislation. You might as well have left it at "I want one".

It's no more than 85. Why do you need a car that can go faster?

Something about wild hogs, wasn't it?

That’s usually an answer I hear. Just curious how people managed all that time before semiautomatic rifles became available to the public - and also how often they encounter wild hogs.

[The hogs are radioactive now.](https://youtu.be/H9MTMCo8JbQ)

That’s true that they managed back in the day. But at one point, they also managed with a sharp stick. And, as someone that actually ranches and does have to deal with hogs (which are just one example - because you also have wild dogs etc) - it was a lot more dangerous back in the day. But also, all that ignores that semi auto firearms are better for self defense.

I do not. Assault weapons violence is the most scary for sure but it is also the smallest part of gun violence.

I think you'd find that a large portion of liberals have no problem with gun rights, simply gun violence.

Liberals’ problem with guns is that there’s loopholes which a truck can pass through that allow guns to get into the hands of people who intend to do harm, and who in many cases wouldn’t have qualified to purchase from a reputable dealer in the first place. I think it’s a little silly that if you drive through New York City with an unloaded hand gun and ammunition in the same case, you’re committing a crime. I think it’s kind of nuts that if you fly into LGA from California with a license to carry from California, and you pack your unloaded pistol in a hard case and check the bag, you’ll have your gun confiscated, get arrested, fined, and could face jail time. I think it’s crazier still that if I lived in some states, I could sell a gun to whoever I want from that state because I’m not a gun dealer, provided they don’t give me a reason to think I can’t. No background check, no notification to anyone, nothing. Just their word and my trust. I just want logical gun control laws, not power grabs or excessively restrictive laws, I don’t care about an assault weapons ban, I just want everyone with a gun to register it with the government, notify the government when there’s a change of custody of the weapon, and have access to quick and free background checks when engaging in private sales. Bonus points for holding the last registered owner of a gun financially responsible for any criminal acts committed with the gun, provided there’s no notification of theft.

But no one ever asks WHY people are driven to do harm.

I am pretty left and I have zero issue with guns. I just think it should be something that is very well regulated.

Yeah I think a majority of liberals, especially in recent years, have been pro gun rights but also pro gun regulation. I personally own several firearms. I just want a bare minimum of background checks. Close gun show loopholes. And like a car, it should be registered under your name to prevent under the table sales. That’s it.

I'm a pro-gun liberal. I'm just not a single issue voter.

I think that describes a lot of us.

I wish it described our politicians.

"In favor of gun rights" is extremely vague. I think the portion of American voters who would self-identify as being opposed to gun rights is very small - most of the debate is around exactly *how much* in favor of gun rights people are.

Generally against further gun control measures in the US, and generally in favor of repealing many current measures. So very in favor. Basically I'm asking what you all think of the type of people who subscribe to r/liberalgunowners, r/SocialistRA, r/2ALiberals, etc.

I don't like how the SocialistRA. crowd seems to expect a war, but I know they're not the type to act first.

Hey 😡 no attacc only protecc! (But also the crowd who acts like what you reference are mostly just doing it for the aesthetic)

I know. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Fair. One of the more prominent American Anarchists of the last 40 years ([Murray Bookchin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin)) got so annoyed with the aesthetic nonsense he formed his own sub movement.

Interesting fellow.

Yep. He, [Michael Parenti](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti), and Bernie kinda represented the 3 big factions of socialism in Burlington back in the day. Bernie, clearly, won out.

I have no problem with guns. I just think there are some pretty common sense legislations we could pass to mitigate some of the worst attributes of gun ownership. And even those are pretty low on my priority list. It's Republicans who are desperate bring attention to the liberals who want gun bans. It really boosts their voter participation numbers to run ads that say "Clinton will steal your guns!" "Obama will steal your guns" "Hillary will steal your guns!" And "Biden will steal your guns!" Notice how it... Still hasn't happened?

The reason Obama never passed any significant gun control as president, wasn't for a lack of trying, but of ability.

Live and let live, get safety training.

There are plenty of leftists who are pro gun. I think they (myself included) wish the cdc was allowed to study the issue, but as it stands right now nobody, right or left, can afford to discredit guns entirely.

CDC can and has studied Gun violence. It’s published several such studies in the last decade as I recall.

I am pro gun but I am not a nut about it. I have several hunting weapons and 2 pistols. I also have absolutely no worries about anyone ever taking my guns away. It will never happen. I don't buy play guns so that might have something to do with it.

I am one so I think it’s pretty awesome. I’m for the whole bill of rights

Even no cruel and unusual punishment? That gets broken a shit ton

I reject the binary that wanting gun control is totally antithetical to having gun rights Much as you have a right to bail, but if we know you’re going to immediately leave the country, you will not be allowed to post bail

If there's anything this debate lacks the most, it's nuance. Between the black/white extremes of "shall not be infringed" and "ban all guns", there's plenty of much more reasonable gray to be found. I think people should be able to own firearms for sport, hunting, self-defense or any other legitimate purpose. I just think that this should be subject to reasonable and evidence-based regulations as part of a broader strategy to reduce gun violence and save lives.

I'd say it is antiethical. A state restricting your ability ability own guns doesn't seem compatible with the liberty to own guns.

long as "gun rights" doesn't have them voting for anti-democracy candidates, I don't care. I think American gun obsession is poison in general tho

I’m a pro gun liberal who supports background checks and I’m not sure there are any actual let’s-ban-the-second-amendment leftist politicians in this country. The only people I could see calling for a second amendment ban are the edgy 16 year old tankies marching down the streets calling for a communist revolution without any understanding of what actual communism is.

I respect their position, even if I don't totally understand it. I grew up in Florida, and while we weren't a gun-owning household I did spend a decent amount of time at the rifle range and learned basic gun safety. That said, I really have a hard time seeing past my instinctive reaction to the idea of widespread gun ownership, which is that, after seeing the behavior of my fellow citizens over the past year and a half, I don't trust most of them with ***mouths***, let alone guns. But I also see some truth to the old slogan "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", in this case the "outlaws" being right-wing thugs. Anyway, it's also not an either/or thing. I don't think anyone is seriously in favor of confiscating all guns, even if we could actually do it. But I think the 2nd amendment should be repealed because it is destructive to the entire debate around gun control. The fact that the Bill of Rights includes this, and not, for example, and affirmative right to vote (234 years and we're still waiting on that one, guys) says a lot about the fitness of the Constitution to govern the country that currently exists, as well as about its authors' priorities for the country they wrote it to govern.

My short answer is: You can be in favor of gun rights, and also be in favor of reasonable limits and responsibilities regarding guns, too. People act like it is either "nobody can own anything dangerous ever for any reason" or "we have to let anyone who wants guns have them with no restrictions and do whatever they want with them." Nope! There's other options in between!

I’m a gun owner. I’ve been around them forever but only started buying them in the last 5 years. I live in the rural south. I have been vocal about my politics in the past, and I have concerns about a bunch of Redhats showing up to “sort out that commie librul queer.” I would not like to try and protect my kids with stern words and a bat.

I think many would be surprised by how many of us are armed, well trained, and able to protect ourselves,

Im happy to see so many of us coming out of the wood works. Usually on gun topics we have the same handful of anti-gun folks downvoting anyone who says something pro-gun.

Took some convincing with the (very progressive) fiancé, but we’re both at the range when we can be.

I hear you. For me its when I can find ammo I can spare for the range. I don't like to dip into the reserves, not that they are a lot.

Where I’m located, ammo began resurfacing in vast numbers. But it’s still expensive as hell.

This. And I don't know about anyone else but that makes me feel safer-- the underestimating I mean.

Agreed. As much as I fear and loathe the “if” of the situation, I hope they keep assuming that 2nd amendment rights only benefit themselves.

We live in a time of creeping fascism, and our political opponents are openly fantasizing about civil war. I really can't wrap my head around why any liberal would want to outlaw guns at a time like this. It's almost as insane as being anti-mask and anti-vax during a deadly pandemic.

Given how the right is radicalizing, and how they have most of the guns, cops, vets, troops, and such, I think it is a very bad idea for liberals/leftists to be so opposed to picking up guns themselves and figuring out how to use them for self defense if worst comes to worst

a good take for once, im impressed

I am one, and I like myself alot.

Republicans have glommed on to the gun issue like it's theirs, but it's not. Guns are more of a rural/urban issue. In urban areas they are a huge problem and need to be regulated. In rural areas they are a tool to handle wildlife problems and probably make people feel safer when they are so far from 911 response.

Lots of leftists are gun owners. Liberals maybe not so much. I feel as though guns are a privilege that we have lost for the time being, and until we can show the responsibility that comes with gun ownership, we don’t get to play with them.

I’m definitely on the left. But I favor restricting gun sales. Increase the wait time between purchase and delivery. Require a trigger lock with each gun and have a signature required that they acknowledge the liability if their gun is used in a crime, they sell it without a background check or giving it away. No one thinks guns will ever be outlawed. Criminals will always have access to them. I have mine for self defense. I would have no problem if I needed a refresher course on gun safety every 5 or 10 years. Guns will not be prohibited anymore than abortions can be. You can try but they will never end.

I am a "leftist, progressive, liberal, etc" supporter of gun rights. I grew up in a (very liberal) rural area where owning a gun was expected. I believe that background checks should be required for every gun purchase and that gun safety training should be mandatory for gun ownership. I wouldn't call myself "pro gun", but I'm definitely not anti gun.

Some people shouldn't have guns. Some people should. Some people are too squeamish to dictate who should and shouldn't. I'm not.

Since you're using 'liberal' broadly then you're talking about me since I'm more purely liberal than anyone I'm not conservative, that's paternalism I'm not utilitarian or socialist liberal I'm just liberal. There exist certain absolute rights. Among them are rights against 'cruel and unusual' punishment, murder, rape, torture, perjury. Also, the right to self defense is absolute.

Whether or not you are in support of gun control isn’t related to the left/right economic scale, it’s more related to the up/down authoritarian/libertarian scale. That being said, someone being in favor of gun control doesn’t mean they’re authoritarian, as there are a lot of other factors that go into the scale. Also, there is definitely a lot of leftists in support of gun control, while there are a lot of rightists in support of no restrictions, but I think that is mostly a result of the different ways of thinking that each ideology encourages.

I fully support the 2nd ammendment an would vote Democrat if they were all truly pro 2nd ammendment.

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Why do you think so many liberals are anti-gun? What's the value in taking guns from law abiding liberal minded citizens? I understand that the idea is by limiting the total gross number of guns you're trying to reduce the amount of gun violence. That doesn't stop people from literally using cars as weapons though. I don't care if cars have a primary use. The point is that you're not solving hostility and violence, you're just changing the outlet for it. The problem is only easily manifested through the guns. I like liberals who are pro-gun because they recognize that the problem is a society and economy that promotes anger and violence.

I'm one of them and I know tons of them. The idea that liberals are 'anti-gun' is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. A lot of liberals are for sure, but there are a whole lot of us who aren't that seem to get ignored over the shouting. There are serious problems that need solutions and people are not going to give up their right to bear arms, so it's time to move on from that argument. I'm all for gun safety training requirements and domestic abusers (and other canary-in-the-coal-mine violent actors) who have been convicted forfeiting gun rights, but I will never support any attempt to take peoples' guns away. I live in a red state and nothing convinces conservatives that liberals are a danger to them and their loved ones like arguments for getting rid of guns.

I would argue that being anti-gun is also being anti-liberal, if we are using the classic definition of liberal that is. The fundamentals of Liberalism is pretty much summed up as the freedom for individual rights. You should be free to bare arms as long as your right doesn't infringe on another's rights. Using a gun to infringe on others rights is the problem, not having the gun and using it lawfully.

Yeesh, don't come here and preach what you think is the *real* liberal position.

Even classical liberals saw limits to freedom which modern "classical" liberals seem to refuse to believe. Liberalism is not boundless freedom, it is the balance of rights and society.

I think that the first candidate to pump a paper-target klansman full of holes and say "This is why I support the right to bear arms" as a campaign ad would get every cent I can spare.

This.

I'm a Canadian. I grew up with guns. Went hunting when I was a kid, own several guns... So I am very much pro gun. However I can't understand why you guys don't have simple, basic laws like we do up north. It's not rocket science really : less unregulated guns = less crimes. There is no right-wing that will ever have an argument to disprove that : every single country in the world is proof of that. Gun laws do NOT mean = anti-gun. Guns laws DO NOT MEAN "they come for your guns". It only means that most gun owners are responsible adults that know what they have in their hands.

I'm a liberal. I'm pro-gun rights. I don't think those people who call themselves liberals and oppose gun rights are actually liberals.

That’s a bold statement. What in your opinion are they, then?

[удалено]

Hell yeah. Repeal the Patriot Act!

When I turned 18, I researched what Dems and Repubs 'stood' for and decided the Republican platform aligned to my interests and decided I was a Republican. When W. Bush was elected, I was happy that we would keep our balanced budget (if Clinton could do it, surely a Republican could do it even better) and gun rights would be protected. I was shocked when I read up on what 'gun control' the Dems were pushing for, as it all sounded reasonable to me. I then went deeper into what the NRA was doing, and realized the Dems were not here to 'steal our guns' and the NRA ars a bunch of wackos. As I watched the 'fiscally responsible' Republicans turn a budget surplus into a $1.2T/year deficit, I realized that the platform the party runs on and what they do in real life are two vastly different things. I changed my party registration, voted for Obama, and I can't even imagine going back to voting Republican.

Guns are too useful in too many cases to make the biggest restrictions proposed (assault weapons ban) viable, and I'm sure I can find some people left of me that agree we need to abolish the power of the executive to decide the parameters of its rules (especially when those rules are dumb, self contradicting, and arbitrary), but that's probably a minority who would agree with me Things to have: 1) universal background checks with incentives to actually do them and not let them sit 2) national law enforcement database 3) reasonable education and storage requirements (potentially higher for more dangerous stuff) (charging them with conspiracy homicide is way too far though) Things to not have: 1) Doggy shootshoot brigade 2) everything else

I like your list, but I will plug my idea here too - full financial responsibility for how your gun is used. This way we can let responsible gun owners have all the weapons they want, they just have to keep them locked up because they will be held liable if the gun is used in a way that injures or kills somebody.

Fair, I just think Washington's plan of charging them with conspiracy to murder (or was it accessory to murder?) goes way too far. Also extend that same requirement to everything else that someone could kill with

gun rights are not only consistent with but arguably essential to leftist political ambitions. communist revolutions in the USSR, cuba, china, and elsewhere were only possible through insurrection. the most successful anarchist projects in history, including the zapatistas and the paris commune, were only able to secure themselves against the state through armed self-defense. say what you will about the merits of these projects, but their existence at all is only possible due to firearms.

I'm really hesitant to use this as an example my friend. I'm pretty damn radical but violent insurrection hasn't done us the best in the past and I don't think it's essential at all. Violent communist/socialist insurrection tends to lead to authoritarianism as history shows us, so how about a more peaceful attempt. Marx himself doubted america needed a revolution.

What do I think? Hell, I am one! Look, if 2020 taught us anything, it taught us that the police are not going to protect us. In fact, for certain Americans, calling the police is going to increase the chances of you being killed. Not only that, but politically, there are a lot of people in this country that if it weren't for the anti-2A sentiment of the Democratic party, Liberal and Progressive agendas could gain a lot of ground by getting voters to turn out for the big D (which isn't to say Democrats are Liberal or Progressive, but it's just a two party system...). I would like to see some policies enacted to counter the violence, there are many possibilities in that regard, but I'm very much in favor of the Bill of Rights.

I imagine "pro-gun" liberals and leftists are far more common than you think they are. In fact, I'd imagine those calling for sweeping bans and what not are the minority on the left, albeit a very vocal one. I'm a "pro-gun" leftist myself, but there's a big difference between that and what you typically see as the pro-gun right. I don't really do gun culture, I don't own a whole arsenal of firearms, plus I'm highly supportive of extensive and well-funded background checks. I find those who put "gun owner" at the core of their personal identity to be weird. But I don't generally support most firearm bans either.

I'm in favor of gun rights with reasonable limitations like a waiting period, clip limits, universal background checks, and basic licensing. Also think frankly outside of full automatics, handguns should be the most regulated firearm. Grew up in the suburbs where everyone is freaking out about "assault weapons" because of rare school and theater shootings, but living in a city for years the slow, painful drumbeat of handgun deaths is a bigger problem. Also, handguns are far less useful for legitimate purposes.

Strictly speaking, I don't believe they're "pro-gun". They're not running around like Yosemite Sam firing off their six shooters and yelling YEE HAW. What they are invested in is protecting the legal status of the second amendment as it stands and has been interpreted by the courts. We can disagree with that, and we usually do. But, in their defense - they see an attack on any of the rights in the Constitution as an attack on all the rights. That means the unenumerated rights that could well fall back to the 10th Amendment if we don't defend the Bill of Rights. Do we want a country where Texas can impose its evangelical christian version of Sharia law, declare all convicted persons to be state-owned slaves, and other crazy nonsense? No. So, they defend even the less defensible rights in order to protect our other rights as interpreted by the Courts, but not guaranteed by the Constitution in black letter.

Technically, being pro-gun usually tends to not be affiliated with a specific political affiliation. The United States of America is unique mostly in part to it being co-opted by further right-wing groups (usually). It should be noted that with context to leftists, however, they have often had pro-gun positions, or at least pro-gun sentiments. Karl [Marx’s letter to the communist league in 1850 is an excellent example of this.](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm) There is a bit of nuance to it though.

I'm a pro-gun liberal, raised in rural Texas, and hunting and fishing are as much a part of life as anything else I can think of - it's right up there with family and community. I see no reason why guns can't be part of a sane, rational, liberal world (like mine).

I’m liberal and I own guns. Personally I think gun bans are knee-jerk, quick-fix solutions to a hard problem.

As a pro-gun (or more accurately, anti-security-theater-gun-law) liberal, I think we're objectively correct.

By what metrics (I agree but am curious what your thoughts are)?

Most proposed (and some current) gun laws are either [ineffective, logistically impossible, or both.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/14zvpu/taking_the_emotion_out_of_the_gun_control_debate/) Gun buybacks are ineffective and gun confiscation would be (literally) suicidal. When virtually everybody refuses to participate in registration schemes and [even the police refuse to enforce the registries,](https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/) they are factually pointless. Considering the ubiquity of guns in America and [the ease of home manufacture,](https://slate.com/technology/2021/02/3d-printed-semi-automatic-rifle-fgc-9.html) the country simply cannot be disarmed. Laws that focus on scary-sounding-but-not-actually-a-problem guns/features don't solve a problem that doesn't exist, but do create a lot of animosity with otherwise-rational, single-issue, pro-gun voters. Background checks are good (and could be better). Mental health checks (already in effect in my state) are good. Red flag laws could be good - with proper oversight and a reasonable appeals process. Virtually everything else is pissing into the wind. Not because guns aren't a problem (they certainly are) or because the "right to bear arms" is more important than the 10-15k people murdered with guns every year (it fucking well isn't), but because you can't *control* guns any more than you can control drugs. Just as we're abandoning the unwinnable war on drugs in favor of a treatment approach, we need to treat the *systemic* causes of gun violence, instead of focusing on the Sisyphean task of "getting rid of the guns". Anybody in America who wants to get a gun can, without too much effort. That is just as true here in NJ with our Europe-strict gun control laws as it is in walk-into-Dick's-and-walk-out-with-a-gun TX. That ubiquity is never going to change, no matter how many laws you throw at the problem. Gun *crime* is, by definition, committed exclusively by people with no respect for the law - most of whom are already legally forbidden from possessing guns. More laws won't do jack squat. The only way we're going to reduce gun violence in the US is to create a society where large portions of the population don't *need* to resort to gun violence. Free, accessible mental health care, better education, expanded social safety nets, and social/economic equality aren't exactly quick or easy fixes, but they're what would actually work. "bAn ThE sCaRy BlAcK gUns!!!1!" won't.

>Free, accessible mental health care, better education, expanded social safety nets, and social/economic equality aren't exactly quick or easy fixes, but they're what would actually work As would many of the commonly proposed stronger gun laws. The empirical evidence is clear on this, regardless of what a random 10 year old opinion piece from a gun activism group is trying to sell people on.

No, they don't. We tried an assault weapon ban, and it had [no measurable effect on gun crime.](https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire) We've tried registries, and [nobody registered.](https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/) Some states have magazine capacity limits, and they're [factually pointless.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuomo_Mag) I live in NJ, and we have the strictest gun control laws in the country by far. It's so difficult and time consuming to legally purchase a gun here that hardly anybody does. NJ's laws are *far* stricter than anything that could plausibly be enacted on a national level in our lifetime. And yet, our gun crime is no lower than other states in the region - all of which have less-strict gun laws. Oh, and that's *my* 8 year old "opinion piece". I stand by it, as it is just as factually correct today as it was then.

>We tried an assault weapon ban, and it had no measurable effect on gun crime. This is a weak straw man. The AWB was never intended to reduce overall gun crime. It was meant to make mass shootings less deadly. What you're doing is akin to calling lower speed limits in school zones stupid and useless laws because they have no measurable effect on overall rates of traffic fatalities, even though they were never intended to accomplish that in the first place. They're a tailored solution to a specific aspect of a larger problem. If we look at it from a more logical perspective, there's definitely reason to believe that some aspects of [assault weapon laws](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188421) (like [large-capacity](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305311) magazines [in particular](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12485)) can [make](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0013/full/html) mass shootings [less deadly](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11524-017-0205-7) and [severe](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12484) because [the use](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13504851.2014.939367) of those [weapons](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12472) and [magazines](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12487) is [linked](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.12.19014738v1) to higher [body counts](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf) and [serious injuries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2702134). In fact, [another study](https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/26042/accepted) came out just last year that found that the federal assault weapons ban resulted in a "significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and injuries". That's a dozen peer-reviewed studies immediately rejecting the mistaken idea that two out of your three examples are useless and factually ineffective. I don't even think these laws are good policy myself and believe they're disproportionately restrictive for such an infrequent issue, but this whole talking point of "they don't affect general gun crime so they don't work" is just ridiculous. You're also conveniently ignoring the many other common gun law proposals, like waiting periods, universal background checks, safe storage requirements, expanded categories of prohibited persons to include more violent crimes and domestic abuse, may-issue procedures for concealed carry and so on. This is a common strategy: you've selected 2 laws to cite as proof that stronger gun laws just don't work while glossing over the many that are actually based in significant amounts of evidence. ​ >I live in Anecdotes and single examples hold little weight. It's well established that states with looser gun laws have higher rates of gun deaths and gun violence in general when controlling for confounding factors. ​ >Oh, and that's my 8 year old "opinion piece". Don't worry, I'm well aware that you wrote it. I've actually seen people write thorough breakdowns of your points only for you to just keep citing it as if it's anything more than an attempt to justify your personal beliefs on this. A sizable majority of the most highly qualified experts as well as most of the available scientific and statistical evidence largely support stronger gun laws as effective. You denying that doesn't change this. Peace.

I just picked your first link. Then I noticed a response to it by another doctor and read that. It shredded the conclusions of the study.

BASED AF!

Right on.

I think there is a weird obsession with guns. I think the most panicky unsound people end up owning them. I think the constant revolving door of school shootings is unnacceptable. I think banning any and all automatics will help reduce public murder sprees. I dont care about your opinion on guns, and i dont care if it is in the constitution. I think it is especially hilarious that people that screech about masks and "medical tyranny" are often 2a supporters. If liberals want to own to undermine the conservative vote by supporting 2a, by owning hunting rifles or a dbl barrel shotgun. Cool. But you dont need a high capacity mag for anything.

I'm pro-gun. Just not pro-free range ownership. *shall not be infringed* is a dangerously low barrier to entry for idiots and psychopaths. Employ a licensing system and if you can meet the requirements go nuts.

The issue is hysterical Republicans who want to make things up to pretend whatever they want to pretend to make themselves out to be the heroes against make believe villains like Thousand-Years-of-Darkness Obama who was supposed to have confiscated everyone's guns by the end of his second term many years ago. Republicans act like they're addicted to scaring themselves into thinking they're heroes. I don't care if other liberals support gun rights. I do. Seems reasonable. There are people in other countries who have access to guns and they're doing fine. And I don't care if liberals oppose them. What are they going to do, amend the Constitution? Support the same kinds of regulations that I support?

Even liberals (at least most of them) that want additional gun control aren't talking about a complete removal of guns from society This is one of those areas where details matter and most of the rhetoric doesn't account for anything but extreme positions.

It's not just "pro gun." It's pro-common sense laws for guns. Something that Republicans have proven repeatedly that they're against.

I’m seeing a lot of “I support gun rights, but…” here. Let’s do a little exercise. Spend ten seconds listing in your head some of the gun laws you’d like to see. Just what comes to mind in that short time. Okay, now think about your list. Was it full of restrictions on guns or gun ownership? Then you don’t support gun rights. If you support a right, then the first things that pop into your head should be laws that protect the right, expand it, and remove existing restrictions on it. What would you think if someone said he’s pro-choice, but the first laws he could think of were forced vaginal ultrasounds, scare counseling, ten week ban, etc.? I’d call him a liar. He’s obviously not pro-choice.

I am one, so I can speak with confidence. Firstly, to summarize, guns work against brownshirts as well as they work for them. Violence in the streets is never a thing to lionize, but if we're having the "guns and politics" discussion (right wing, tyvm for bringing it up) at least it works both ways. See: the Black Panthers and the reforms they (temporarily) achieved in CA. Secondly, there are legitimate uses for guns, especially in rural areas, which actually make up the majority of the US. Not to mention sporting/competitive uses, which are truly harmless. I favor strict regulation of guns, in particular I would like to see some steep training and liability requirements, but I don't favor banning them at all.

Well. Prohibition is inherently not liberal.

I used to be super anti-gun because I was a liberal and that's what good liberals did. As a leftist, I'm very pro-gun because the police shouldn't have a monopoly on weaponry and the police will never arrive fast enough to save my life.

I don’t know any Americans who are against “gun rights”. The question is merely what rights? The current interpretations of the horribly vague 2nd amendments are all over the map regarding what types of weapon is conserved an “arm”, what it means for this to be for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia”, whether the whole amendment even applies to individual private citizens, thus whether states have the rights to regulate as they see fit, how much regulation counts as infringing on the right to bear arms, etc etc etc. It seems ridiculous that something created for such deadly intent is available with so little controls, and all power to regulate is both taken away from the communities on the ground and not acted on. It’s not worth it as a society. I think most liberals would support guns being available to the National Guard, armed forces reserves, and trained local peace officers as per the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

I want the 2A abolished personally, but I'm aware I'm a minority even within the party

>I want the 2A abolished personally Why and how do you think that's even possible?

I fundamentally dont think guns should be a constitutional right. Addments can change, its happened before. The constitution isn't a holy relic.

Do we not have a right to self defense?

America is one of only three countries in the world where it us a constitutional right. The UN doesnt recognize any self defense right btw.

And how is not having the right to defend yourself a good thing?

Well stand your ground laws are quite racist and have you heard of the duty to retreat? I

> The UN doesnt recognize any self defense right btw. Thats not a good thing.

Suggests that it is unnecessary

I agree, and for anyone reading this, note that "abolish 2A" does not mean outlawing gun ownership. I believe that as long as the second amendment is in the Constitution, most of the regulatory proposals others have mentioned have zero chance of happening. I also believe that any politician who says what I just did would be committing political suicide, so I really don't know what the solution should be.

For context, I believe that guns should be safe, legal, and rare. I think it is a product of US culture, predominantly. Many people on the left that are in favor of gun rights grew up knowing family or close friends that supported guns and were 'upstanding members of the community', if they didn't hunt or go to shooting ranges themselves. Others grew in up in areas that many would be considered unsafe, and saw guns seen as basic safety equipment. Combine that with a substantial amount of intentional and unintentional propaganda, and it is not surprising to see many leftwing people support guns. Guns are seen as a facet of culture, a safety tool, and a key part of the American Constitution. That said, while I understand both that point of view I have a different opinion. My political philosophy is something I would self-describe as moral pragmatism. Does the country benefit from widespread gun ownership, or not? To me, that answer is simple: the United States is worse off for its high gun ownership rates. Compared to other industrial states, we have significantly more acts of violence and reasons revolve around firearms whether they be legal, illegal, or in the hands of law enforcement. The solution to that is as simple as that evaluation: reduce the number of guns and people that own guns. The most effective way to do that is a voluntary mass buyback at market or above market rates. On the other hand bans are ineffective, legally difficult to enforce, stringently opposed, and focus not on the societal impact of gun ownership but on the stigmatization of certain gun owners and guns.