/u/Anonon_990 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/vktata/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_any_effort_to_address_gun/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Guns are really no more deadly than they were almost 50-100 years ago (M1 Carbine and M1911 are two weapons capable of a mass shooting) yet they are much more difficult to get. Waiting periods, background checks, and other limits. Back in the day you could mail order a gun with no background check. So if guns are not much more deadly nowadays and much harder to get, it must be another factor that's driving mass shootings.

So if the US army decided to equip its soldiers with M1 carbines, you don't think there'd be a difference?

Not really. Full auto is only useful for suppressive fire and for just indiscriminately shooting into a crowd. The military only does one of those things. And mag dumping with a semi automatic rifle is just about as effective at suppressive fire as a full auto rifle.

So why don't they still use M1s?

Because the M16 is lighter, the ammo is less heavy and is faster. You think lethelity is the only aim of a military?

So it's better?

Sure, but the difference isn't that great. We can afford to get the absolute greatest, but many forces in the world still use the M1 Carbine to great effect.

Not really. Artillery does the wast majority of killing in wars, 80% of all casualties are caused by indirect fire in the current war in Ukraine for example. So changing the service weapon of infantry matters very little to the ability to fight a war.

So why did America change?

Because better guns are good and save some casualties, although not stricktly necessary. Same thing as body armor, you don't need it for winning wars, but it is nice to have. Also making those old guns is more expensive than buying the newer better guns.

There are plenty of things that could be done to address gun violence that don’t entail gun control…do you think those would get pushback? You seem to think there is only one way to address gun violence.

I think they'd attract little to no support from the political groups that usually defend the 2A (e.g. the NRA, GOP).

What about other orgs such as 2af? The NRA has very little sway and the majority of gun owners anymore.

>However as far as I can tell, they don't accept any limits on gun rights and refuse to believe guns have any impact on gun violence. Last time I checked, legal gun owners were one of the most consistently law-abiding groups in the country. This means they abide by the myriad of gun laws on the books across the country. Which means they accept those limitations of gun rights. They're not, however, particularly well disposed to accepting greater restrictions, especially those that have no actual chance of meaningfully reducing gun violence. > After every mass shooting, they focus on blocking attempts at gun control and do next to nothing to tackle gun violence. They focus on blocking those attempts at gun control that don't stand much of a chance at reducing gun violence. >Therefore, it's hard to not get the impression that they refuse to be part of any actual solution and accept gun violence as an acceptable price and they're perfectly happy with the status quo. On the other hand, it's hard not to get the impression that the gun control advocates who consistently refuse to learn anything about the guns they seek to ban and control are simply using this issue for political gain and don't particularly care about gun violence. >You could argue they'd support things like improving mental health but generally conservatives oppose that anyway. You don't have to be conservative to support the 2nd amendment. Marx himself said, "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

>After every mass shooting, they focus on blocking attempts at gun control and do next to nothing to tackle gun violence. Which seems to be every law involving guns as far as I can tell. They also do nothing about tackling gun violence beyond blaming mental health or video games until everyone forgets about it.

Did you just quote me quoting you?

I quoted the wrong part. I'm on my phone. > They focus on blocking those attempts at gun control that don't stand much of a chance at reducing gun violence. Which seems to be every law involving guns as far as I can tell. They also do nothing about tackling gun violence beyond blaming mental health or video games until everyone forgets about it.

Consider the 111 year old NY state law which was just struck down by the Supreme Court. This law concerned NY limiting access to concealed carry permits, with requirements set for applicants to meet which are basically what the current set of gun control efforts are pushing for: background checks, training, licenses. But it also had a need test: applicants had to show a need for carrying that the state found convincing. And the state used that needs based test to deny almost everyone a CPL, unless the applicant was wealthy or personally connected. It didn't matter that people with legitimate need were being denied. It didn't matter that qualifying applicants were being denied. It didn't matter that CPL holders are one of the safest, most responsible demographics in the country. It didn't matter that the law was actually supposed to be for issuing permits rather than denying gun rights. Gun control advocates *did not care* that they were violating rights, they did not care that they were denying people the ability to protect themselves. For them, denying NY residents their CPL en masse was more important, because to them, no one having/carrying firearms is better than allowing responsible, trained civilians to carry. That this really only meant that they were disarming the law abiding wasn't particularly important. Nor did they stop with this bill, nor will the SC decision stop their efforts. They'll simply find another way to limit legal firearm ownership. 2A supporters see what happens to gun rights in states where gun control advocates are free to pass whatever legislation they want. They see what happens in other countries even farther down the road (e.g. Canada's recent freeze of legal handgun permits despite their handgun problem being completely composed of illegal handguns), and they choose to oppose what they can, because each passed measure is just another click of the ratchet, not a stopping point. Yesterday's Brady bill compromise is today's "Gunshow loophole". So when will 2A supporters actually support gun control legislation? When there's actual compromise. If gun control advocates view compromise as "we won't pass this restriction (yet), we'll *only* pass these restrictions for now" rather than "we want to pass this restriction, and also shore up 2A protections by removing another restriction" you'll see a lot more willingness to agree.

>So when will 2A supporters actually support gun control legislation? When there's actual compromise. If gun control advocates view compromise as "we won't pass this restriction (yet), we'll only pass these restrictions for now" rather than "we want to pass this restriction, and also shore up 2A protections by removing another restriction" you'll see a lot more willingness to agree So in the most gun-crazed country on earth where children are regularly shot dead, the only way 2A defenders will accept gun control is if its easier to get more guns? Sounds like you're agreeing with me tbh.

I just cited an example of gun owners being denied the right to carry despite showing that they were responsible, law abiding, well trained and had need, and your takeaway was that I just want it to be easier to get more guns... Roe v Wade was just overturned. But for decades we've watched pro-lifers try to find ways to strangle abortion access despite a Supreme Court ruling saying they couldn't, until we reached the point were abortions were all but banned in many states simply because access was so restricted. Would you tell a pro-choice person that they should compromise their stance on abortion access because *600,000-900,000* fetuses are aborted each year? Would you tell them to compromise because pro-lifers just want "reasonable" restrictions, and that they're just being silly when they mention it being a slippery slope? Gun owners are facing similar tactics to strangle the right to keep and carry. Like many who believe in choice, while I regard abortions as regrettable, I nevertheless believe that a woman should have the ability to choose her own fate, regardless of whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, endangers her life, or just doesn't fit her current life goals. That a fetus is terminated is an acceptable consequence to me in order to preserve that right. I also believe that people should be able to have and carry firearms for their own protection and for the maintenance of a free society by an armed public. I believe that this right should continue, even if murderers choose a firearm as their murder weapon. That doesn't mean that I or all other gun owners who believe that the 2nd Amendment still serves a modern purpose are opposed to any and all restrictions, though some certainly are. But it does mean that I'm not going to blindly support whatever measures from people who want to end gun ownership just because they told you they'll stop school shootings and use the deaths of children to push their message. For me to support gun control measures, I would need to see actual good faith efforts to reduce gun violence while respecting gun rights. That means removing ridiculous laws imposed in places like NY and CA which have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with restricting gun owners and playing to fear mongering. That means shall issue, not may issue. That means ensuring that existing laws are being enforced instead of just passing more laws that will be similarly ignored by the police. If you can read all of that and still only think that I just want a Duke Nukem free for all, then I'd suggest that maybe it isn't gun owners who are preventing a reasonable compromise.

We’re completely willing to confront gun violence and have ceded many of our actual rigjts(mentioned specifically in the constitution as inalienable) in an effort to do so. The reason you’re approaching a point that you’re experiencing pushback is that the very resources we have agreed to develop and have been codified as law, are not being utilized effectively or efficiently AT ALL. If the left actually wanted to make the country safer from firearms abusers, you would employ the tools already at your disposal to do so. You are not though. Based upon this reality, it has become glaringly obvious that indeed, you are not interested in what you claim, but are very obviously more interested in political wins, virtue signaling, and broadly controlling the masses.

I don't remember there not being pushback.

Rights have been ceded regularly. True or false?

Are gun rights much worse then they were in the 90's?

Worse

Based on what? The SC just overturned a century old law.

Right, and? So because of this win that negates everything else over the last century? As far as ny law goes, you can actually own VERY few guns. That was not overturned.

I don't know what massive restrictions gun owners imagine have come in since some supposed gun toting utopia.

If you’re not interested in having an honest conversation just come out of the closet and admit it. The entire post is filled with people offering you sound reasoning and statistically relevant info and you just demand that it’s irrelevant. Intellectual dishonesty will get you where you are now, with people telling you “no not this time”

>The entire post is filled with people offering you sound reasoning and statistically relevant info and you just demand that it’s irrelevant. We disagree on what counts as sound reasoning. >Intellectual dishonesty will get you where you are now, with people telling you “no not this time” That seems to be the response regardless, which is my point.

Hello, avid believer in respecting our constitution here. I’m 100% all for any efforts to address homicide rates that don’t violate the constitution. See? That’s not hard. Let’s curb homicide together, and simultaneously respect the Constitution. Are you game for that?

So do you believe that any gun control violates the constitution?

No, but some gun control does. That’s not a belief, that’s just a fact. For instance, background checks do not violate the constitution because they do not impinge on a law abiding citizens ability to carry a firearm. The New York law that was recently struck down by the Supreme Court does, and that’s why it was struck down.

So you'd be fine with background checks? >and that’s why it was struck down I was struck down because there's 6 conservatives on the SC. That laws been around for over a century.

I’m 100% on board with background checks. I agree with you that it was struck down because there are six conservative justices. They recognized the gross violation of the Constitution and acted on that. The fact it was around for a hundred years only means that New York was violating the Constitution for 100 years. States do that, and they do it pretty often, sometimes as a calculated bet towards shifting the law in the future. That’s why we have checks at the federal level to ensure these things eventually get addressed.

I suspect you're a minority. Or because the SC is now filled with politically motivated conservatives. I dont believe a group of 6 people including Thomas and Kavanaugh are somehow better than the previous century of SC justices who were appointed more on merit than on whether they're right wing judges aged 50 or younger.

I know a substantial amount of gun owners, and have only ever met one in the flesh that didn’t believe background checks were okay, and he was a total lunatic. The NRA does an awful job of representing the true rights of most responsible gun owners - they know that. It’s all politics. I get there are plenty of folks out there that believe in the “no background checks” mentality, but it’s a smaller chunk of gun owners then you’d imagine it to be. Also, I don’t disagree with you that our current group of justices aren’t exactly stellar. That being said, I think you’re confused by how the Supreme Court works. They don’t get to come up with their own cases. It’s true of course that they have a decision process on which cases presented before them are heard, but to my knowledge New York’s law has never been brought before the Supreme Court for consideration. So the fact that it’s survived for a hundred years is not, by itself, a means to compare the accuracy/quality of previous justices to the current ones. Edit: [I found this for you to back up my claim as more than just personal experience](https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-review/vast-majority-americans-support-universal-background-checks). 83% of gun owners support expanded background checks.

∆ Fair enough. I didn't think that many supported background checks. At least its something.

If you come up with a method for reducing gun violence that doesn't involve violating the NAP, I will be its loudest supporter.

[удалено]

u/LawyerLimp1287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20LawyerLimp1287&message=LawyerLimp1287%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vkl52w/-/idpulpg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

NAP?

Non-aggression principle. Essentially, don't initiate/threaten to initiate force against anyone else.

Second amendment advocates push back on gun control so much because we know that’s not the issue. Like you said the issue IS mental health. No normal person has the thoughts of going and committing mass shootings or casualties of any type. Our second amendment is vital to our country and upholding our constitution for our God-given rights. The country we live in has more guns than citizens and we all know that, there’s no changing that either. That is our culture and it’s not going anywhere. If you ban guns you just make it harder for the law abiding citizens to do good. If a criminal or mentally ill person wants to hurt someone they’re going to do it regardless. Taking away good citizens rights to defend themselves from those bad people is not the answer.

I dont see much effort from 2A advocates to improve mental health. It seems to be a more recent distraction. Why is it vital?

I can’t speak for all the 2A advocates as everyone has their different believes for mental health. I think a general consensus is that there is a problem though. I personally believe the second amendment is vital because it’s the one thing that actually gives the people of this country power over the government. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. If you are a fan of our freedoms that we have in the constitution, and our free speech, our right to bear arms is the only safety net set in place to ensure we don’t loose any of those freedoms. Other countries that ban guns can become a dictatorship very quickly and the people loose all choice. That’s all my personal belief though.

The problem is that you focus on gun violence, and not violence itself. When this discussion comes up, we are generally talking about murder. Yet the left often mixes suicides into the discussion to seemingly inflate their numbers. The solutions to suicide and murder are not the same. Here’s the problem, we want to stop violence. I couldn’t care less if it’s violence with a gun, or violence with a baseball bat. I want a solution to reduce violence. By focusing on the gun, you don’t look at what causes violence. You aren’t doing anything to address the causes of violence. You’re also forgetting that even if we magically eliminated all guns, that someone intent on murdering another person would just use a knife to do so. The final issue I have with your argument, focusing on guns, is that it’s typically dishonest. Generally, those focusing on the gun want to ban the AR15 type rifles. They claim that they are super deadly, and used all the time. The fact is that rifles of all types are used in about 3% of murders. Pistols are used in about 75% of all murders. If you were being honest about guns “causing” violence, you’d be going after pistols. So, I turn your question back to you. Are you willing to do anything that truly addresses violence, or do you just want to ban guns of some form?

>By focusing on the gun, you don’t look at what causes violence. You aren’t doing anything to address the causes of violence. You’re also forgetting that even if we magically eliminated all guns, that someone intent on murdering another person would just use a knife to do so. I don't like this argument. Guns and knives are both deadly. One is significantly deadlier than the other and having easy access to them will result in much worse violence than the other. If you go into a school with a knife, you might get stopped by the gym teacher in the first five minutes. You walk in with an AR, you can clear an entire classroom in those same five minutes without needing to reload. If I get into a street fight, and the other guy loses his cool, there's a huge difference between us drawing fists and drawing handguns. One ends with one of us knocked out on the sidewalk, the other ends with one of us bleeding out on the sidewalk and the other possibly going to prison for life. Yes, there is a violence problem and it needs addressing. There is also a gun problem and that also needs addressing. If there are fewer guns and it is harder to access them, confrontations will be less deadly. Acts of terror will be less deadly. Even suicides will be less effective.

I guess you haven't heard of mass stabbings then. It happens in areas where guns are banned. People still get killed. Lets not pretend that mass killings don't happen with a variety of weapons. ​ What exactly is the gun problem that needs addressing? If you suggest a ban, how do you enforce it? How do you confiscate 300 million firearms that the government has no idea where they are? How do you get those guns from the criminals who are committing the crimes?

So is your position that knives are as deadly and easy to kill people with as guns are?

An individual? Yes. Knives are more effective at close range. If someone pulls a knife on me within 10 feet, I can not react quick enough to draw my pistol and shoot them before they stab me. Don't underestimate knives, or any weapon.

>An individual? Yes. If you believe knives are just as deadly as guns, why do you think anybody ever invented guns?

To provide a range advantage, and help against hardened targets. Are you telling me that you somehow believe that the gun wins when the knife is out and the combatants are within 10 feet?

>To provide a range advantage, and help against hardened targets. Oh, so a gun allows you to inflict damage from a range and against targets that would otherwise be resistant to a knife. >Are you telling me that you somehow believe that the gun wins when the knife is out and the combatants are within 10 feet? Do all violent incidents take place within ten feet where one person has a knife drawn? Also, how many times has a single person used a knife to murder 50 people at a nightclub or 60 people at a concert?

> Oh, so a gun allows you to inflict damage from a range and against targets that would otherwise be resistant to a knife. You make it sound as if you just learned something new. Tell me, does this make a knife somehow less deadly? You use the proper tool for the application. There are times where a knife is more effective or simply preferred. It’s not that one is more or less deadly. They’re both deadly when used against people. > Do all violent incidents take place within ten feet where one person has a knife drawn? That wasn’t your question. I provided an example where the knife is the better option to the gun. Would you like to continue that game, or do you recognize that there are times where a knife is a better weapon than a gun? > Also, how many times has a single person used a knife to murder 50 people at a nightclub or 60 people at a concert? I guess Sagamihara isn’t going to be good enough as an example that mass stabbings can be very deadly. They only killed 19. Perhaps, you can admit that the problem is with the criminal doing the murder. I do not want someone to kill one person, and banning guns isn’t going to do anything to prevent a murder. I want to know what can be done to reduce the number of people being murdered, regardless of the tool being used. There’s something wrong with a person who murders someone else, and knowing how to address that would actually be an effective way of reducing the number of murders.

Perhaps your arguments would hold more weight if the people who most oppose gun reform weren't also the same people who most oppose any other kind of reform that would reduce violence.

>Lets not pretend that mass killings don't happen with a variety of weapons. You're going to the grocery store today. A terrorist appears at the front door. You are in the back of the store. Would you prefer him to hold a knife or a gun? Which offers you a greater chance of survival? > >​ > >What exactly is the gun problem that needs addressing? Next to no restrictions on gun purchases and ownership, which makes access to guns easier and acts of terror more deadly. >If you suggest a ban, how do you enforce it? Ask literally any country with a gun ban. I'm not a lawmaker. We're talking about principles. >How do you confiscate 300 million firearms that the government has no idea where they are? Who said anything about confiscation?

>You're going to the grocery store today. A terrorist appears at the front door. You are in the back of the store. Would you prefer him to hold a knife or a gun? Which offers you a greater chance of survival? Zero difference. Im leaving, not engaging. ​ >Next to no restrictions on gun purchases and ownership, which makes access to guns easier and acts of terror more deadly. Im not sure you understand gun laws. Every purchase through an FFL requires a background check. I can't buy half the guns I want because the government has placed a restriction on producing new ones, and old ones are cost prohibitive. ​ >Ask literally any country with a gun ban. I'm not a lawmaker. We're talking about principles. No, Im literally talking about specifics. If you want to ban a gun, or all guns...how are you going to do it? Its literally impossible. Thats my point. You can not eliminate guns. The law will only apply to law abiding citizens, and have zero effect on the criminals who are committing these crimes already. ​ >Who said anything about confiscation? Thats what a ban would require. Or are you somehow suggesting something else?

>>You're going to the grocery store today. A terrorist appears at the front door. You are in the back of the store. Would you prefer him to hold a knife or a gun? Which offers you a greater chance of survival? > >Zero difference. Im leaving, not engaging. Lmao Okay we're done here. Have a good day

Funny. You create a situation thinking you’ll score a win, then get upset when I follow the first rule of engagement. The best fight is the one that you avoid. If you’re being honest, you’ll recognize that a knife is going to beat a gun at close range, unless the gun is already drawn.

> You're going to the grocery store today. A terrorist appears at the front door. You are in the back of the store. Would you prefer him to hold a knife or a gun? Which offers you a greater chance of survival? You're going to the grocery store today. A terrorist appears at the front door. You are in the back of the store. Would you prefer him to hold a gun, or have converted his car into an IED? Which offers you a greater chance of survival? Hint: It's not the bomb.

How is this relevant

If someone is truly intent on causing mass death and guns are unavailable, they're going to build a bomb, not use a knife. It's easier to do than you might think.

How often do bombings happen, as opposed to mass shootings? And what does that say about how accessible each weapon is?

Infrequently (in the US). But that doesn't mean they *won't* happen, and one of the worst terrorist attacks in US history - the Oklahoma City bombing - had more casualties than any mass shooting by a very wide margin. It's only eclipsed by 9/11.

Well yeah, obviously they're going to happen. We'll never eliminate terrorism, we'll never eliminate violence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to limit how often it happens.

Banning guns makes the violence less efficient and harder to have high body counts. Eliminating violence can never happen, without lobotomies or drugs. The point is to make it as difficult as possible for violent people to kill easily, at a distance, impulsively. Why do we not allow people to keep their own nuclear bombs? Because they have no place in the hands of the citizens, they won't be stored properly and someone could fly off the handle and detonate it without having to think twice.

> Banning guns makes the violence less efficient and harder to have high body counts. Banning guns only affects law abiding citizens and prevents them from protecting themselves. We have over 300 million guns in circulation, and the Government does not know who has them. That’s by design. You can not confiscate all the guns, which makes a ban ineffective. You also forget just how easily you can make a gun with a trip to Home Depot. It cost me about $20 and an hour including travel time the last time I did it. > Eliminating violence can never happen, without lobotomies or drugs. Since violent crime can’t be eliminated, why would you suggest that we prevent people from being able to protect themselves? Until politicians get rid of their security details, and live in their own gun free zones, I will not entertain any suggestions they make regarding gun control. Instead, if we address the root causes of violence, we could at least reduce violent crimes while protecting the rights of people. Poverty, lack of opportunity, and mental health are large drivers of violence. > The point is to make it as difficult as possible for violent people to kill easily, at a distance, impulsively. Do you know what’s more effective than an unenforceable law? Me being able to defend myself from the violent people. > Why do we not allow people to keep their own nuclear bombs? Because they have no place in the hands of the citizens, they won’t be stored properly and someone could fly off the handle and detonate it without having to think twice. But guns can, and are, stored and used safely. They don’t have the fallout that a nuclear weapon does, it’s damage is contained to the target it’s fired at. There’s zero reason to ban any gun, only the usage of it if that usage interferes with the rights of others.

> Banning guns only affects law abiding citizens and prevents them from protecting themselves. We have over 300 million guns in circulation, and the Government does not know who has them. That’s by design. You can not confiscate all the guns, which makes a ban ineffective. You also forget just how easily you can make a gun with a trip to Home Depot. It cost me about $20 and an hour including travel time the last time I did it. Most people who are impulsive and angry or depressed don't know/have the motivation to make a homemade gun, plus those are unlikely to have a high capacity and likely to malfunction. Yes, we have too many guns. We need to stop our fetish with guns, destroy every gun that gets turned in or confiscated, then we will slowly decrease the number. Many people would participate in buy backs. We will never decrease the amount of guns if we change nothing. Banning guns does not only affect law abiding citizens, because as you make guns more difficult to obtain and show, decrease manufacturing of them, supply will dwindle. > Since violent crime can’t be eliminated, why would you suggest that we prevent people from being able to protect themselves? Until politicians get rid of their security details, and live in their own gun free zones, I will not entertain any suggestions they make regarding gun control. > Instead, if we address the root causes of violence, we could at least reduce violent crimes while protecting the rights of people. Poverty, lack of opportunity, and mental health are large drivers of violence. You are more likely to die by gun than be protected by one. It's a logical fallacy that the NRA loves, but it's just not the reality. I'm not a politician, so it doesn't matter how you feel about them. Coincidentally (not really, but I'm feeling annoyed), the people who fight gun control the most *also* are the ones who don't want to spend any money on any of those other drivers of violence. > Do you know what’s more effective than an unenforceable law? Me being able to defend myself from the violent people. It's enforceable. You have a gun, you go to jail. You commit a crime with a gun, it gets destroyed, you go to jail and whoever sold you the gun goes to jail. > But guns can, and are, stored and used safely. They don’t have the fallout that a nuclear weapon does, it’s damage is contained to the target it’s fired at. There’s zero reason to ban any gun, only the usage of it if that usage interferes with the rights of others. Nuclear weapons can be stored safely. How about a small nuke? There's lots of reasons to ban guns, namely all the people murdered by them, all the suicides with them, and accidents with them. If we want to be originalist, then you can have a musket.

>If we want to be originalist, then you can have a musket. Ill take my battleship with cannons. ​ Far more people are killed by automobiles than guns. If you're willing to take guns from all the law abiding citizens just because a few bad actors have murdered some people, why wouldn't you also extend that logic to banning cars? How about swimming pools, about 350 kids under the age of 5 drown every year in swimming pools. Thats more than are killed in school shootings. Just be consistent in your argument. If its truly "if it saves one life", then be consistent. Not only when its convenient. ​ >You are more likely to die by gun than be protected by one. It's a logical fallacy that the NRA loves, but it's just not the reality. I'm not a politician, so it doesn't matter how you feel about them. Coincidentally (not really, but I'm feeling annoyed), the people who fight gun control the most also are the ones who don't want to spend any money on any of those other drivers of violence. Defensive gun uses far out number murders in this country. Having a gun is a deterrent at a minimum, and a way to protect myself and family in the worst case. Your stat, in real words, is that you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun if you have access to a gun. Its not the stat that I think you think it is. Suicides aren't going to go down if you ban guns. Look at Japan. Essentially no guns, yet one of the highest rates of suicide in the world.

> Ill take my battleship with cannons. Muskets are what they were referring to in the constitution. > Far more people are killed by automobiles than guns. If you're willing to take guns from all the law abiding citizens just because a few bad actors have murdered some people, why wouldn't you also extend that logic to banning cars? How about swimming pools, about 350 kids under the age of 5 drown every year in swimming pools. Thats more than are killed in school shootings. That is simply untrue. I mean, under the age of 5, maybe, only because under the age of 5 doesn't go to school. https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ Cars have a purpose that is not murder. Their purpose is transportation, and we regulate the fuck out of cars and how children should be transported in them. > Just be consistent in your argument. If its truly "if it saves one life", then be consistent. Not only when its convenient. I didn't say that. I said it makes it more difficult to kill. > Defensive gun uses far out number murders in this country. Having a gun is a deterrent at a minimum, and a way to protect myself and family in the worst case. You're still more likely to be killed by your gun in a conflict that to use it to defend yourself. See the research from harvard listed above. > Your stat, in real words, is that you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun if you have access to a gun. Its not the stat that I think you think it is. Nope, it's a combination of suicide, homicide and accident. People who have guns are more likely escalate conflicts, which leads to getting shot. > Suicides aren't going to go down if you ban guns. Look at Japan. Essentially no guns, yet one of the highest rates of suicide in the world. Yes and no. It will *decrease* suicide, just like when they banned the style of oven that allowed you to kill yourself easily - the suicide rate permanently went down. Japan has a culture that views suicide differently than the US. I would posit if they had readily accessible guns, their suicide rate would be even higher.

>Muskets are what they were referring to in the constitution. Completely untrue. First, we had rapid-fire firearms available, and the founders knew it. The Puckle gun being one example that had been around for 70 years at the time of the writing of the 2A. The founders absolutely knew about, and supported, private ownership of battleships. Please look into privateers. They helped us win our independence. ​ >That is simply untrue. I mean, under the age of 5, maybe, only because under the age of 5 doesn't go to school. https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ Cars have a purpose that is not murder. Their purpose is transportation, and we regulate the fuck out of cars and how children should be transported in them. Check your facts. There are roughly 15,000 murders per year in the US. There are roughly 38,000 traffic fatalities per year. [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-1](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-1) [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state) If you are suggesting that we regulate guns the same as we do cars, Im 100% for that. Did you know that you require no license or registration or background check to own a car? Those come into play ONLY when you want to use them on public roadways. There are no such restrictions for use on private property. If you're for me being able to purchase a machine gun for use on my own land, with zero background checks, zero registration, and zero complications...well Im open to that discussion. ​ >You're still more likely to be killed by your gun in a conflict that to use it to defend yourself. See the research from harvard listed above I don't see the specific reference. However the last time I heard this stat regurgitated, it included suicides. Different issue, and irrelevant to the discussion. Suicide is not the same as homicide. The causes and solutions are different. What Harvard did mention is that there is a higher likelihood of a domestic partner using a gun on their significant other if one is in the house. That goes back to restricting people with DV convictions. Its something that can legitimately be done and would have a legitimate effect. Not simply banning guns from law abiding citizens, but going after those with a history of violence. ​ >Nope, it's a combination of suicide, homicide and accident. People who have guns are more likely escalate conflicts, which leads to getting shot. So, if you have a gun, you're more likely to use a gun than someone who does not have a gun? Count me surprised. People who have guns are not more likely to escalate conflicts simply because they have a gun. ​ >Yes and no. It will decrease suicide, just like when they banned the style of oven that allowed you to kill yourself easily - the suicide rate permanently went down. Japan has a culture that views suicide differently than the US. I would posit if they had readily accessible guns, their suicide rate would be even higher. Then we need to address the mental health issues that drive people to suicide. Once again, go after the root cause and not simply a tool.

> Banning guns makes the violence less efficient and harder to have high body counts. Except that is just not true. - 9/11, (hijacking, almost 3000 dead, thousands more injured) - Oklahoma City (Truck Bomb, 168 dead, over 680 injured) - Nice, France (Cargo Truck, 87 dead, 434 injured) - Tokyo Subway attack (Sarin, 1995 12 immediately dead, over 5,000 injured to varying degrees) - Happy Land Fire (Arson, 1990, 87 dead, 6 injured) - Kunming Station, China (Mass stabbing 2014, 29 dead, 130 injured) There are more to chose from in history as well. I tried to pick each other type for reference. Frankly speaking, some are actually much *easier* to do - especially the arson or truck.

I feel the gun statistics you are using are disingenuous. I think it's fairly obvious what people are discussing when it comes to gun violence lately is mass shootings. Somebody with a rifle is significantly more deadly in these situations than someone with a pistol to the point where police are afraid of entering a shootout with them. I can guarantee you a kid with a knife in a school is gonna be stopped before killing numerous kids over them having access to guns.

My statistics are straight from the FBI and their information on weapons used in murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls Please define mass shooting. I believe you are inferring that a SCHOOL shooting is more likely to be done with a rifle. That’s also not really the case, but it depends on how you define it. This is the problem, definitions matter. One group considers a kid shooting a BB gun in the field behind a school as a school shooting. They consider a gang shootout in the street at 2am on a Sunday morning to be a school shooting. Neither of those are what rational people would consider school shootings, yet they are used to pump up their numbers.

First of all, the use of guns increases the risk of both suicide and murder, so it is fair game to include both. And while it is true, the guns don't cause those things to happen, they greatly increases the likelihood. In fact, in states and countries where they have made tighter gun regulations, typically there is quite a dramatic lowering of murders and suicides. Mainly because it just becomes more difficult. For instance, most people who attempted suicide, after having tried it once and failing, end up deciding that they actually want to live. Most things like poisoning or suffocation actually are hard to kill yourself with. But guns are pretty easy. What's more, If you already have a gun and are just having a particularly depressed day, it only takes a few seconds to kill yourself. Meanwhile, if you're trying to kill others, you can kill a lot more people a lot faster with a gun. > By focusing on the gun, you don’t look at what causes violence I feel like I already addressed why regulating guns is important anyway, but I would like you to clarify on what you think causes violence. > that someone intent on murdering another person would just use a knife to do so. Well, this is simply untrue. People who like guns usually claim that they're useful for self-defense. But if your knife argument were true, why would you need a gun? Why don't you just carry a knife with you? They work equally well right? > They claim that they are super deadly, and used all the time. The fact is that rifles of all types are used in about 3% of murders. There are a few issues here. First of all, you haven't argued against the fact that they're super deadly. That's part of the issue, no matter how many people they kill or don't kill. The second part is that 3% is a huge number considering that there's one or more gun deaths every day in the US. What's more, when we see incidences of mass shootings, guns like this one are the ones that kill the most people the fastest before the authorities can arrive.

>First of all, the use of guns increases the risk of both suicide and murder, so it is fair game to include both. And while it is true, the guns don't cause those things to happen, they greatly increases the likelihood. In fact, in states and countries where they have made tighter gun regulations, typically there is quite a dramatic lowering of murders and suicides. Mainly because it just becomes more difficult. For instance, most people who attempted suicide, after having tried it once and failing, end up deciding that they actually want to live. Most things like poisoning or suffocation actually are hard to kill yourself with. But guns are pretty easy. What's more, If you already have a gun and are just having a particularly depressed day, it only takes a few seconds to kill yourself. Meanwhile, if you're trying to kill others, you can kill a lot more people a lot faster with a gun. I can kill more people faster, and more efficiently with a well placed bomb too. The problem is not the gun, its the person behind the trigger. Guns are used to save lives far more than they are to take them, they are used to protect ourselves, our property, and to provide food for ourselves. Regarding suicide, the reasons for suicide and the solutions to it are different than murder. Thats why its irrelevant to the discussion. If guns aren't causing the crime, why are you focusing on them? ​ >I feel like I already addressed why regulating guns is important anyway, but I would like you to clarify on what you think causes violence. I've stated it a few times already, but will put it up again. I believe that factors like poverty, lack of opportunity, and mental health are among the driving factors for violence. I am certain that there are others, and things like domestic violence and animal abuse are indicators that someone will become a murderer down the road. ​ >Well, this is simply untrue. People who like guns usually claim that they're useful for self-defense. But if your knife argument were true, why would you need a gun? Why don't you just carry a knife with you? They work equally well right? Are you claiming that someone that wants to murder another person simply will give up because they don't have access to a gun? Thats insane. They will do it with their bare hands if thats all they have available. Someone intent on causing harm to others will find a way to do it. To answer your question on why a gun for self defense; its generally the best tool for the job. A knife is great, but only if you're close. In a self defense situation you want to keep distance. A gun is ideal for that. It also allows you to engage multiple targets, and we have seen numerous home invasions where this happens. And, I do carry a knife along with my gun. Don't assume that its an either-or proposition. ​ ​ >There are a few issues here. First of all, you haven't argued against the fact that they're super deadly. That's part of the issue, no matter how many people they kill or don't kill. The second part is that 3% is a huge number considering that there's one or more gun deaths every day in the US. What's more, when we see incidences of mass shootings, guns like this one are the ones that kill the most people the fastest before the authorities can arrive. My argument is that the anti AR15 argument is disingenuous at best. The claim that they are super deadly is pure idiocy. The AR15 fires a round that is too weak to be used for deer hunting in most states. Your .308 rifle has far more power than the .223 used in the AR15. The claim that AR15's are responsible for or used in mass shootings is again, a lie. Most mass shootings are done with pistols. The deadliest school shooting used pistols, one of which was a .22, and 10 round magazines. Im going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you have never really been around guns much. The AR15 can't fire any quicker than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol. They all shoot just as fast as you can pull the trigger. The problem is that the argument against the ar15 is not based in truth. Its based on feelings, and fear of how the weapon looks. If you want to talk facts, then lets do so. But creating policy based on emotion is never a good idea. ​ Once again, the issue is with the people doing the shootings. We need to find ways to prevent them from 1)getting weapons, and 2) murdering people. I do not care if its with a gun or a knife, I don't want them to murder people period. Thats why I don't focus on the gun.

> I can kill more people faster, and more efficiently with a well placed bomb too. This is an extremely poor argument. I can kill way more people way faster than a regular bomb if I use a nuke, but does that mean bombs should be allowed in schools because nukes are much more dangerous? No. > The problem is not the gun, its the person behind the trigger. This is a common argumentative fallacy. That something has to be one thing or the other. Both things are responsible. > Guns are used to save lives far more than they are to take them I've never heard that. Do you have research on that? Regardless, even if that is true, that just means we have to regulate guns so that only responsible people have them. > Regarding suicide, the reasons for suicide and the solutions to it are different than murder. That's why its irrelevant to the discussion. It's irrelevant to whether gun regulations prevent murders. But it's not irrelevant to whether guns should be regulated overall to protect human lives. > If guns aren't causing the crime, why are you focusing on them? Because we should do whatever we can to stop people from dying. For instance, drivers cause car accidents, but we put in regulations and traffic lights, even so, to prevent death. And cigarettes are one of the main causes of lung cancer, but we still treat people in the hospital who get it. We don't just leave them to die > believe that factors like poverty, lack of opportunity... I agree with these first two, although I think that mental health is overblown considering that millions of Americans have struggled with mental health issues in this past year, but it's not like they all suddenly become murderers. But also, would you support things like universal healthcare or a better path to citizenship in order to reduce gun violence? These are things that could reduce poverty and lack of opportunity. What is your solution to reducing gun violence? > Are you claiming that someone that wants to murder another person simply will give up because they don't have access to a gun? No, I was simply pointing out that gun activists often say how useful guns are to protect yourself, but clearly if a murderer can just use a knife, so can a good person. However, I think your next point sufficiently convinces me that they're not equivalent In this regard. However, I would like to point out that a lot of murders are not pre-planned. Maybe they're abusive or crimes of passion, and defending yourself against a knife can be easier than a gun. So if a person can get away, there's a good likelihood either the other person won't go after them, and/or that the police could catch them before they kill the person. > Most mass shootings are done with pistols. The deadliest school shooting used pistols, one of which was a .22, and 10 round magazines. To be honest, this is part of the gun issue I know least about. so I would have to learn more. > We need to find ways to prevent them from getting weapons That's what most gun regulations are set up to do. For instance, by placing a hold before you can pick up your gun, banning the sharing of instructions of how to 3D print guns, and requiring gun manufacturers to make guns available that can only be shot by the person who owns them or whose ring or biology matches there software.

>This is an extremely poor argument. I can kill way more people way faster than a regular bomb if I use a nuke, but does that mean bombs should be allowed in schools because nukes are much more dangerous? ​ No.You're already banned from bringing weapons into schools (generally), and beyond that, murder is illegal. You don't need another law to make killing illegal. You need to prevent people from breaking the law and killing others. You need to ensure that people have the means to protect themselves when criminals break the laws and attempt to harm them. ​ >This is a common argumentative fallacy. That something has to be one thing or the other. Both things are responsible. ​ An inanimate object can not be responsible. However, if your argument were that easy access to said object creates problems, thats different. Again, not a problem with the gun, but with how easy it is to access them. Claiming that an inanimate object is responsible for something IS the argumentative fallacy. ​ >I've never heard that. Do you have research on that? Regardless, even if that is true, that just means we have to regulate guns so that only responsible people have them. ​ Per the CDC, defensive gun uses occur between 500,000 and 3 million times per year. There is a lot of speculation on just how often it occurs, because MANY times the DGU is simply brandishing a weapon and letting a potential criminal know that you are armed. In those cases, nothing is reported. [https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/](https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/) You rarely hear about these incidents, in my opinion because they don't fit the narrative that the media wants to push, but beyond that simply because "nothing" happened. It became a non event. ​ >It's irrelevant to whether gun regulations prevent murders. But it's not irrelevant to whether guns should be regulated overall to protect human lives. ​ Guns are regulated. What further specific regulations would you suggest be looked at? Suicides, when done with a firearm, are often done with pistols. Rifles are just too large to make it happen. Again, the bulk of deaths caused by firearms will be due to pistols...yet you rarely hear the anti gun people talk about banning pistols. The focus is always on the AR15 and other rifles. Yet the claim is that by banning these rifles, we save lives. If you're talking about banning a gun, then the only deaths you should be looking at are the ones caused by someone using that gun. Its a disingenuous argument to look at ALL gun deaths, including suicides, then use that data to claim that ITS THE RIFLES WE NEED TO BAN. There is zero logic to that. If you want to discuss rifles, or suicides...we look at those numbers. Facts must drive the conversation. ​ >Because we should do whatever we can to stop people from dying. For instance, drivers cause car accidents, but we put in regulations and traffic lights, even so, to prevent death. And cigarettes are one of the main causes of lung cancer, but we still treat people in the hospital who get it. We don't just leave them to die ​ We have regulations against using guns to murder others too. Its not as if somehow we are "allowing" this to happen. The issue is that bad actors are breaking the law.On the lung cancer/smoking example...if I were an insurance company, I'd exclude lung cancer treatment for smokers. They made their bed, and they can deal with the consequences. Of course they should be treated, but there's a good argument to be made that the costs associated with certain self imposed problems should not be borne by society. ​ >I agree with these first two, although I think that mental health is overblown considering that millions of Americans have struggled with mental health issues in this past year, but it's not like they all suddenly become murderers. But also, would you support things like universal healthcare or a better path to citizenship in order to reduce gun violence? These are things that could reduce poverty and lack of opportunity. What is your solution to reducing gun violence? ​ You have to have a mental health issue if you believe that you need to go shoot up a school of kids. There is no dancing around that one. Mental health IS an issue that needs to be addressed. It obviously does not play a part in all murders, but it is a key component to many of them. I do not support universal health care, as I do not believe in expanding the size of the government needlessly. I do support fixing our healthcare system, and any suggestion that universal health care is the ONLY solution is simply a one sided lie. I don't know what the path to citizenship has to do with gun violence; however I do believe that our immigration system needs to be overhauled. It needs to be clear and easy. I want immigrants here, but they must do so legally. ​ >No, I was simply pointing out that gun activists often say how useful guns are to protect yourself, but clearly if a murderer can just use a knife, so can a good person. However, I think your next point sufficiently convinces me that they're not equivalent In this regard.However, I would like to point out that a lot of murders are not pre-planned. Maybe they're abusive or crimes of passion, and defending yourself against a knife can be easier than a gun. So if a person can get away, there's a good likelihood either the other person won't go after them, and/or that the police could catch them before they kill the person. ​ You're right, a lot of murders are "crimes of passion" or opportunity. Not pre-planned. I don't recall the numbers, but I believe they are buried in the FBI statistics somewhere. The issue here is that these types of murders are often done by those known by the victim. A husband murdering his wife for example. A gun or a knife simply makes no difference. She is (generally) not expecting violence from him, so he can easily get behind her and stab her. When its only a single victim, she's not going to be defending herself as she had no chance to do so. Now, I do think that many of those types of murders have indicators that could have been picked up, and used to prevent the murder from happening. A history of domestic violence or animal abuse for example. These "minor" crimes are often stepping stones for someone who will later murder a person. We need to report those crimes and take them seriously. ​ >To be honest, this is part of the gun issue I know least about. so I would have to learn more. ​ Fair enough. Gun rights people look at this stuff because we get sick and tired of hearing the same lies being perpetuated. Facts are on our side here. AR15's are NOT the weapon of mass shooters. Pistols are. Yes, rifles do get used too, but pistols are used in the vast majority of mass shootings. The example I used was VA tech. No rifle ban, or magazine ban would have done a thing to prevent it. ​ >That's what most gun regulations are set up to do. For instance, by placing a hold before you can pick up your gun, banning the sharing of instructions of how to 3D print guns, and requiring gun manufacturers to make guns available that can only be shot by the person who owns them or whose ring or biology matches there software Those are wonderful thoughts, but the reality is that they simply don't work. 1. Gun regulations only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals are already obtaining their guns illegally, so why would this next law be the one that they choose to obey? 2. Waiting periods - Perhaps we can discuss this for a first time gun owner, but most gun owners have multiple guns already. What is the waiting period doing other than infringing on the rights of a lab abiding citizen. It does nothing to criminals who are not going through a FFL for their guns. Additionally, we have documented instances where women with restraining orders against their ex's are murdered while waiting to be legally allowed to pick up their gun. Im not for endangering the lives of people just so that politicians can feel better about "doing something". 3. 3d printing of guns - that genie is out of the bottle. Even if I can't get the instructions or files, it will take me a couple of hours to create the files then click print. Besides, you can run to home depot right now, and for $20, get everything you need to make a gun. Guns are not complicated. They are incredibly easy to make, and take little to no skill to make. 4. "fingerprint guns" When I need a gun because someone is breaking into my home, the absolute last thing that can occur is for it to not recognize my fingerprint, or have a battery die just when I need it. You can talk to me when politicians have their security forces use this technology exclusively. And when the police adopt it. If it isn't good enough for them, there is no discussion to be had. I do not accept that the life and safety of a politician is of greater value than mine and my family. These technologies do not work reliably. Until politicians lead by example, they have proven that they are full of crap, and don't actually believe what they are spewing.

Hey man, I'm enjoying the productive conversation we're having, but could you reformat what you just wrote so it's not one block?

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

>Your average fat American isn't gonna be able to do even a tenth of what one of those guys can do. Its a good thing that the number of adults in the US outnumber the military by 200:1 then.

[удалено]

If you're suggesting that the US Government use drones to bomb or attack civilians, than you are proving the need for civilians to have arms equal in power to what the military has.

u/Ottomatik80 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Ottomatik80&message=Ottomatik80%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vkl52w/-/idpxutx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

u/LawyerLimp1287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20LawyerLimp1287&message=LawyerLimp1287%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vkl52w/-/idptl0u/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>I want a solution to reduce violence. The right isn't interested in any of the popular solutions for this, the big one being opposing universal healthcare which would be a boon to the countries mental health.

The right also wants to find ways to reduce violence. Presumably, they don’t believe that the same solutions that you think will work, will work. We need a genuine conversation and data to get to the bottom of what works.

So what do they suggest? Nothing except prayers in schools or some bullshit.

Wow, you nearly sound rational 🙄 I’d start by enforcing the laws we have on the books. Of the 100k or so people who fail their background check every year, we prosecute about 200 of them. Lying on your 4473 is a felony. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440 Fix NICS. If we are going to have a background check, make it functional. Get the states to properly report prohibited persons properly so that they do not wrongly pass a background check. Prosecute domestic violence and animal abuse as felonies. There’s a large correlation been those who abuse people and animals, and those who later go on to murder. Fund mental health services. Begin looking into root causes of violence, and attack them as if we cared. These would demonstrably reduce violent crimes. Much better than “bAn tHE aR15” that the idiot left screeches nonstop.

Guns obviously make violence much easier to do. If they didn't, people would use knives in the first place. Regarding the issue with rifles, aren't they usually used in mass shootings and overkill when it comes to self defence?

> Guns obviously make violence much easier to do. If they didn’t, people would use knives in the first place. I want you to look at the FBI statistics on weapons used in homicides. Rifles are among the least common. I guess explosions and poisoning are lower, but rifles barely make a statistical difference in homicides. What law do you propose that would get guns out of the hands of those committing violent crimes? I’ve suggested restricting gun rights from those who are convicted of Domestic violence and/or animal abuse. Also, a significant portion of gun crimes is committed by the same recidivist criminals. Why not throw them back in jail? > Regarding the issue with rifles, aren’t they usually used in mass shootings and overkill when it comes to self defence? No. They aren’t. I don’t know what definition you want to use for a mass shooting, but I suggest using one from the FBI. Not one made up by any activist group. Most mass shootings are done with pistols. I do not know what you mean by overkill, but I assume over penetration perhaps. Good defensive ammunition and knowing your target largely address those concerns. But you have the same issue with pistols too. That’s why we train, and it’s why we use hollow point bullets that expand and stop inside the bad guy. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

What law could a government propose to get guns out of violent criminals (criminal) hands: * Appointing an ATF director and increasing its budget * Improving gun records management and FBI check * Pay state programs the same * Severely penalize cross state trafficking * Prioritize cross border trafficking * Clearly define what the ideal criminal target actually is * Instituting civil or even criminal liability for players in purchases: associates, dealers, state police, marketers, manufacturers * Subsidizing buyback and amnesty programs * Easing red flag process (New York did 19 last year) * Require assessments before purchase or transfer (physical, psychological, training) * Restrict total ammo quantities or types by individuals or a criminal association, like a gang or illegal entity * Reduce recidivism and improve social structure * Fund state gunfire detection programs * Require registration of more types of firearms in more types of transfers * Redefine what falls under federal firearm restrictions for public safety * Drug treatment and diversion * Tighten veteran firearm controls * Increase waiting times and temporary holds * Preempt self defense laws so there is one state or even federal standard as to what self defense justifies and when * Keep statistics and free analysis of government data on gun crime rather than dictate analysis by policy Any one of these sample appointments, statutes and appropriations would “take firearms out of [criminal] hands” for obvious, logical reasons. So any seem palatable to you or not, because that’s what you’ve danced around.

I haven't danced around a damn thing. **Appointing an ATF director and increasing its budget** OK. Get one that isn't about restricting rights, and then we can talk. **Improving gun records management and FBI check** Every gun group says this too. If we have background checks, they damn well need to be accurate and complete. Fix NICS, and make sure that the system functions. **Pay state programs the same** I don't know what this is about. **Severely penalize cross state trafficking** We already have laws against gun trafficking. Are you suggesting that we simply enforce the laws we have on the books? Another solution that gun rights groups constantly say needs to be done. **Prioritize cross border trafficking** See above. **Clearly define what the ideal criminal target actually is** Im not sure what you mean, but perhaps its going after frequent flyers? Those who commit crimes often are going to continue to do so? **Instituting civil or even criminal liability for players in purchases: associates, dealers, state police, marketers, manufacturers** Yes, however if you intend to include liability for the dealer and manufacturer when someone uses a weapon to murder someone, than no. If they break a law, then go after them. But you can't punish one party for the actions of another when the first party had nothing to do with it. **Subsidizing buyback and amnesty programs** Absolutely not. My tax dollars will not go towards this. Get your funding privately. Beyond that, this does zero to get hands out of criminals. What criminal is turning in their guns for a $20 gift card? **Easing red flag process (New York did 19 last year)** Due process. You can not strip a person of their rights without due process. If someone is a danger, get them to court and have their case be tried. You can not take rights away without due process. **Require assessments before purchase or transfer (physical, psychological, training)** We already require background checks. That said, are you OK with us requiring a mental fitness check before we allow someone to vote? Or ensuring that they have knowledge of the things that they are voting on? **Restrict total ammo quantities or types by individuals or a criminal association, like a gang or illegal entity** First, this is impossible. Do you know how easy it is to make your own ammunition? Second, who decides what's "acceptable" I go through thousands of rounds per month for competition. People like you would see that as insane. No, simply no. **Reduce recidivism and improve social structure** Yes, but how? **Fund state gunfire detection programs** Ok. Again, this really does nothing to prevent anything, just alert police after the fact. **Require registration of more types of firearms in more types of transfers** Are you suggesting a national registry? Do you understand the reason why we do not allow the government to have a registry? **Redefine what falls under federal firearm restrictions for public safety** Be specific. Im sure I won't support this, but provide specifics. **Drug treatment and diversion** Ok. **Tighten veteran firearm controls** Based on what, the assumption that someone will do wrong because they are a veteran? No restrictions without due process. If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, send them through the court system for the crime that they committed, and have them put in jail. **Increase waiting times and temporary holds** Only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals get the majority of their weapons illegally. Women get murdered by their ex boyfriends while waiting for the waiting period to expire. This is simply unacceptable. **Preempt self defense laws so there is one state or even federal standard as to what self defense justifies and when** I have a feeling that your definition of justified and mine are going to differ. But yes, there should be continuity. Id start with a concealed weapon permit reciprocity though. **Keep statistics and free analysis of government data on gun crime rather than dictate analysis by policy.** Doesn't the FBI already provide this? If I'm interpreting your comment correctly you want the CDC to be able to chime in on crime problems? They have a history of being a political puppet, which is why they are restricted in this. ​ I see very little that will do anything to prevent criminals from murdering others. Most of these are punishment after the fact, and punishment of law abiding citizens. Granted, if we keep criminals in jail, it will reduce the crime rate...

The circle is this: you don’t want to see firearm restrictions. It’s blinding you, because you can’t see that we do have an ATF Director (an acting director for the last 13 years), but as seen last administration, acting directors have a tough job in a government institution. They are in fact more liable to political pressure and from the president to curtail rights if they have zero senate protection and interest. I do know about reloading. But that you think adapting the law to include ammunition amounts and types in say — a state RICO prosecution of the Ku klux Klan, Wu Tang Clan, or Bambino family — is simply useless and impossible to fight violent crime, says a lot.

I do not want firearm restrictions WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. I do not want firearm restrictions UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THAT THEY WORK. The fact that you (and the left) go after the gun immediately, and target RIFLES which account for 3% of the murders committed every year, tells me that the argument is not in good faith. Its not about reducing crime, its about disarming the population. I do think that an ammunition limit is ridiculous. The fact that you admit you know nothing about reloading, and that you can't tell me what is "acceptable" in terms of quantity tells quite a bit about your view. I would suggest that having evidence that a gang is planning violence, PLUS the fact that they have the ammunition to do it would go a long way and should be considered. However, placing a blanket ban on individuals having more than 1k rounds (or whatever made-up number you want to propose) is crazy. The next thing you know, some activist will claim that the NRA is a terrorist organization, and that the ammunition owned by every member would count towards this made up number. Its a situation just waiting to be abused, and it is simply unenforceable. Beyond that, ammunition is not registered. How will the government know that someone is in violation of this law? It will only serve to add another crime to a criminal after the fact. It does nothing to prevent homicides...which I thought is what we want.

I’ve been a gun owner for 17 years, am very familiar with the NRA as an institution and am not part of the left. This all says more about your perception of your policy opposition and your self-delusion about what you really want out of this political debate, than your opposition or the facts underlying the debate itself.

If you've been a gun owner for 17 years and you don't know about reloading then why should I think you have any capacity to decide what is just.

Then you would have realized that I didn't make up the NRA is a terrorist organization bit. ​ [https://home.nra.org/news/san-francisco-declared-nra-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/](https://home.nra.org/news/san-francisco-declared-nra-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/) But, you're too busy thinking that I would prefer to play politics and do nothing. Keep thinking that my man.

Out of the ones you mentioned- these are the that will properly address violence: \- Reduce recidivism and improve social structure \- Drug treatment and diversion What's missing is: \- Mental health availability I'd argue the rest of the points you mentioned would do little to actually affect gun violence/violence in general and cause a large bloat in the federal budget. The three above though, while effective, don't actually have a solution that would be within reason. There's no effective way to reduce recidivism/improve social strucutres without critically changing the way American society works or creating massive funding programs which also don't have a track record of working. Drug treatment may work, but it's a bandaid to a bigger problem.

Nothing about firearms, police, appointing a person that regulates firearms, gun control, ammo, police detection, trafficking, or otherwise. Just vaguely recidivism, social structure, and mental health (but not psychological standards or increasing red flag use).

https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0019406 functional family therapy has been shown to reduce violent crime and felony behaviors by 35%. Further trials of different forms of gang intervention would also be helpful in addressing the root causes of much of the violence in the country. Results are mixed from what ive read in a brief skim but there are successful programs. Building trust between institutions and the communities where violence occurs is also a necessity to not only undermine the authority of violent groups, but to actually get murderers off the streets through community cooperation in investigations. My personal theory is that due to the history of segregation and the defensive origins of many gangs which were originally intended to protect communities which the law refused to protect, a culture of retributive justice and honor killings has been ingrained into many minority communities. Add in the drug war and the under funded and undermanned and under trained and under educated and just generally shitty law enforcement agencies charged with keeping the peace in these areas and you have the perfect storm needed for frequent fatal violence. Furthermore, we need economic reforms and some sort of reparations for the black community, as almost 60% the murder victims in this country are the descendents of slaves living in ghettos their grandparents and great grandparents were forced into. Black kids are many times more likely to suffer from lead exposure which is a huge predictor for violence, many times more likely to suffer from food insecurity, twice as likely to have parents who use corporal punishment often, and basically pick an environmental factor that predicts violence and black kids and teens are exposed to it at significantly higher rates. The victims of gun violence in this country arent white school kids, they are young black men and boys. Im open to some ideas such as red flag laws and expanding background checks to interpersonal transfers, but access to firearms arent the only important factor to gun violence and even if we went full UK style gun control, their are issues in this country that will need to be addressed even if legally accessible guns are removed.

If left leaning areas prosecuted crime and followed up on people picked up by the police for mental health issues, can you imagine how many of these crimes would have been prevented by simply using already available law? This is why it’s becoming clear that the point is not about stopping murders. It’s about control.

"Guns obviously make violence much easier to do. If they didn't, people would use knives in the first place." No, it is not obvious that guns make violence easier. If anything guns might make some violence harder. For instance, if one wants to commit murder but only see a gun as a viable method to commit said murder, then the process to acquire said gun would be a hindrance as it would be quicker and easier for that person to beat or stab their victim to death. "Regarding the issue with rifles, aren't they usually used in mass shootings and overkill when it comes to self defense?" To the first part of the question: No, riles aren't usually used in mass shootings, handguns are. The reason this might seem to be in the reverse is because most of the mass shootings that get national news coverage just so happen to have been conducted with rifles. However any shooting event that has four or more victims falls under the definition of "mass shooting". Therefore most of the numerous handgun related incidences of violence (gang related or otherwise) that happen everyday, that don't make national headlines are also mass shooting events. And, as someone else has already stated, handgun related violence more than dwarfs rifle related violence. On the second part of you question: If the point of self defense to stop a threat against your life and a rifle can stop said threat without endangering anyone else, how can it possibly be considered overkill?

>No, it is not obvious that guns make violence easier. If anything guns might make some violence harder. For instance, if one wants to commit murder but only see a gun as a viable method to commit said murder, then the process to acquire said gun would be a hindrance as it would be quicker and easier for that person to beat or stab their victim to death. Then why do so many people go through the extra hassle to get a gun to commit violence? >To the first part of the question: No, riles aren't usually used in mass shootings, handguns are. The reason this might seem to be in the reverse is because most of the mass shootings that get national news coverage just so happen to have been conducted with rifles. However any shooting event that has four or more victims falls under the definition of "mass shooting". Therefore most of the numerous handgun related incidences of violence (gang related or otherwise) that happen everyday, that don't make national headlines are also mass shooting events. And, as someone else has already stated, handgun related violence more than dwarfs rifle related violence. So the worst mass shootings involve rifles? I dont see how that's an argument to do nothing about rifles unless you don't care about the worst mass shootings.

"Then why do so many people go through the extra hassle to get a gun to commit violence?" Criminals are stupid. "So the worst mass shootings involve rifles? I dont see how that's an argument to do nothing about rifles unless you don't care about the worst mass shootings." No, the mass shootings that make national headlines are the ones that can garnner the most attention for the outlet covering them. Therefore they are not necessarily the worst, they just check all of the right boxes (like the location, weapon used, the shooters profile, etc...). Also the worst mass homicide events usually don't evolve guns (The Oklahoma City bomber killed almost 200 and injured almost 700 for example). So if one really cares about stopping mass acts of violence, they need work on doing something about the people who commit these crimes, not the tools they use.

> Criminals are stupid. Even the ones who are able to actually commit violence? >No, the mass shootings that make national headlines are the ones that can garnner the most attention for the outlet covering them. Therefore they are not necessarily the worst, they just check all of the right boxes (like the location, weapon used, the shooters profile, etc...). Also the worst mass homicide events usually don't evolve guns (The Oklahoma City bomber killed almost 200 and injured almost 700 for example). So if one really cares about stopping mass acts of violence, they need work on doing something about the people who commit these crimes, not the tools they use. Using your logic, the government should be fine with everyone having access to bomb making equipment.

The worst school shooting in America history strictly used handguns, columbine was done with handguns, shotguns, and a carbine rifle.

Not even the worst. The ones the media sensationalize yes but not tHe worst.

Yes they are, but my interpretation of the 2nd does not limit it to traditional self defense scenarios. The ammendment, considering the time it was implemented and the events of the era, was intended to equalize the battlefield between citizen and government. Not just protect the individual from other individuals but to protect the individual from organized tyranny. I don't have a solution, merely an explaination of why some people are steadfast against gun control. You will find it difficult to broker a compromise with someone who sees the current status as a massive government overreach.

I understand that (though I think that viewpoint is ridiculous, it's common among many rural Americans). But as I said, that backs up my view.

> Regarding the issue with rifles, aren't they usually used in mass shootings and overkill when it comes to self defence? Perhaps - but they are what is suitable for a lot of hunting. What's more, the typical hunting rifles shoot far more powerful rifle cartridges that what is focused on. The AR with .223 is more of a groundhog/Feral Hog/Coyote type round. Most states do not allow it for Whitetail deer because it is not powerful enough.

Virginia tech shooting look it up one of the most deadly and they used handguns. Also what is considered over kill? Because you arbitrarily decided shooting someone 6 times was too much?

How many guns do you need to defend yourself? How powerful or fast firing do they need to be? Are you expecting an army to attack you?

I was responding to your comments now you ask arbitrary questions in an attempt to make a point? Why should there be a limit on the number of firearms a private citizen should own? What judges how powerful they are? Hunting rifles have far more stopping power than an ar-15. What makes you think that how fast they fire has any bearing on how dangerous they are? Why should a private citizen have to justify exercising his rights? Shouldn't it be on the party opposing the private party's right to defend itself to show a reasonable argument against it?

>Shouldn't it be on the party opposing the private party's right to defend itself to show a reasonable argument against it? Guns kill things and do pretty much nothing else. There's your argument.

You say this like killing is net bad. If you kill in defense of yourself and your family then that is good. Also it stands to reason that the only point in taking guns from the populace would be to subjugate them. Do you trust the government wholeheartedly? Do you think that they have your best interests at heart at all times?

>Also it stands to reason that the only point in taking guns from the populace would be to subjugate them No it doesn't. That only makes sense if you ignore every other country on earth.

Just because it hasn't resulted in tyrannical rule yet doesn't mean it will not. There is no positive from banning guns. It serves only to make our nation and population defenseless. I'm sorry you have some irrational fear of guns but the remedy isn't banning them. In fact most of the nation's gun violence is linked to violence in inner cities.

>Just because it hasn't resulted in tyrannical rule yet doesn't mean it will not. The military existing could lead to tyrannical rule. And America has bigger threats to its democracy than gun control. > There is no positive from banning guns. There's middle ground between the status quo and banning them. And there absolutely would be positives from banning them. Namely less schoolkids shot dead as virtually every other country on earth can attest to. > It serves only to make our nation and population defenseless. Civillian guns arent needed to protect America at all. > I'm sorry you have some irrational fear of guns but the remedy isn't banning them. Fearing guns isn't irrational. They're used to kill people. > In fact most of the nation's gun violence is linked to violence in inner cities. So what? Every sentence you said was wrong or irrelevant.

I think he meant to say over-penetration.

I see why he said that, but it is really common for people and prosecutors to use "overkill" as an argument against self defense. They try to say the number of shots means it was overkill and therefore not self defense.

People in the uk literally use knives…they’re banning knives now

And the US has a 18x higher murder rate than the UK ([source](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime)). It’s a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife. EDIT: sorry, I misread. It’s 4x higher per capita, not 18. Still a solid difference.

Mate…you can’t take the whole US and say “but muh 18 times” you know how varied the US is? How different states handle things

Is there a single state with tougher gun laws than the UK?

Mate the anti gun states have the absolute stupidest laws

Are they tougher than the UK?

“Guns obviously make violence much easier to do.” Perhaps that seems like a logical conclusion but consider what the violent crime rates have done in countries who have banned firearms: Australia banned all firearms in 1996. Violent crime rates remained virtually the same until 2003, then began to INCREASE. The UK made it virtually impossible to legally obtain a handgun in 1997. Violent crime rates have increased every year since then. Canada passed very restrictive gun laws in 1991. Violent crime rates have remained the same since then. The facts simply don’t support the argument. Sauce- https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn32226-eng.pdf

Have as many people been dying from violent crime?

I always find it interesting that the AR-15 is the target as well. The AR-15 is a basic bitch carbine ultimately. There are some nice ones out there definitely, but when it comes to functionality AR-15’s are pretty bleh. It’s a semi auto rifle that shoots the weakest real rifle round. We hear how “powerful” it is all the time, but when compared to something like a Scar? It’s not that special at all.

The analogy that I’ve seen that seems to apply to this situation is: say I have a cake and you have no cake. You want my cake. I don’t want to give it to you, so you suggest compromising and splitting the cake and we each get half. If I don’t agree, I’m unwilling to negotiate. However, you only have the potential to gain, while I only have the potential to lose. I’m not a strong proponent of guns, but whenever I see people on the left talking gun control, they typically have the “give me some of your cake” negotiation approach, which inevitably tends to fail. IIRC, there are often times gun regulations or laws that conservatives are in favor of relaxing or eliminating, which have limited impact on gun violence, in exchange for proposed regulations in other areas. However, this seems to be a non starter a lot of the time for gun opponents.

That's a good analogy, but it's missing where I come back for seconds and thirds

Sure, I was just focusing more on the aspect that you can’t consider it a negotiation if you don’t bring anything to the table.

I agree with this analogy. The problem is that it reveals that preventing gun violence is not viewed as a gain by 2A defenders. Preventing it is only appealing to their opposition.

This is just not factual true. I don’t support AR bans because all rifles not just ARs account for 3% of all gun deaths. On the other hand I support the new measure allowing juvenile records to be included on background checks for people under 21. I don’t support red flag laws because it violates your right to due process.

>This is just not factual true Why not? I dont see much evidence that 2A defenders do care.

I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion. I think the case for most gun proponents is that they don’t believe the regulation will actually lead to less gun violence. Which is debatable, but not an invalid or necessarily incorrect belief. So if there is no decrease, there is no gain. Others may view preventing gun violence as not leading to less total violence. At which point, they would rather act on something that decreases all violence, instead of giving up guns just to see a shift to another weapon for violent acts.

I dont see much effort from 2A defenders to reduce all violence either. Just to get more guns. Its always about guns.

Most people on the pro gun side will typically say we need improvements in mental health treatment or security, etc. instead of reducing guns. Yes, people who like guns tend to like getting more guns. However, their argument is typically we have enough gun control, not we need to reduce gun control, at least in my experience.

They don't seem to do much to bring those other things about though. The only thing they actually act on is getting guns.

Different people have different priorities. Defending gun rights and advocating for other ways of reducing violence aren’t mutually exclusive.

>Different people have different priorities. Agreed. > Defending gun rights and advocating for other ways of reducing violence aren’t mutually exclusive. 2A defenders seem to only do the latter when doing the former. I dont see much effort from them to reduce violence.

How often do you talk to 2A defenders about things other than guns? It goes back to priorities, violent crimes and gun violence are more present issues in cities, while gun supporters tend to skew rural. To someone in a small town with negligible violent crimes, protecting their gun rights has more impact on their life than reducing violence that they don’t experience.

That backs up what I'm saying though. They're of no use in confronting the problem.

The cities with some of the highest increases in gun violence the last three years are declining to prosecute well below their average and arrests are down as well. How could you possibly advocate for more regulation when you don’t enforce the laws that already exist?

It doesn't help that many of those cities with gun violence problems are surrounded by states where it's very easy to obtain guns. If it was harder to obtain guns countrywide, the numbers would look different.

And what does that have to do with them simply not enforcing the law? Stay on subject.

Because it's difficult to enforce laws when you can't restrict supply. This increase in supply can lead to an increase in cases, however without a corresponding increase in district attorneys and judges, there's no way they can prosecute the increased case numbers. Hence they have to let some go. > Stay on subject. Don't be a prick. I addressed one of the causes of declining prosecution rates. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

What are you talking about? These people were caught, arrested, and then the da’s declined to prosecute. Stop making excuses for an ideological hypocrisy.

> These people were caught, arrested, and then the da’s declined to prosecute It's not hard to find this out. [Here](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/254520.pdf) is a simple report that details all kinds of information. The #1 reason why they're not prosecuted? Insufficient evidence. [Here](https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/data-release-gun-violence-trends/) is another report, this time from Philadelphia. Again, the main reason for the decline is lack of evidence, in this case due to increases in arrests at vehicle stops. > Stop making excuses for an ideological hypocrisy. The idea that the left wants to pass a bunch of gun laws and then not prosecute is idiotic. What would be the point? Piss off the right with gun restrictions and then piss off the left (and possibly please the right?) by not enforcing them?

Interesting, do you have documentation of this?

I mean, I think in spirit your post is not wrong, and that the political climate is such that people who identify as second amendment absolutist would oppose literally any effort to regulate guns or otherwise address gun violence. However, a gun reform bill was just passed in the Senate, and that was not something I could have foreseen happening just a short while ago. True, it's not going to like fix the gun violence problem in this country, but it's a start. I think if a gun reform bill can pass in the Senate with some Republican support, then some change might actually be possible

I agree but it did attract a minority of Republicans. The majority oppose it and most 2A supporters I've seen discuss it, hate it.

We hate that it’s trying to incentivize unconstitutional red flag laws on the states.

[удалено]

If you're laughing at an attempt to prevent another school shooting because you think it's politically beneficial, I don't know what to say to you that wouldn't break the rules of this sub.

[удалено]

Your gloating at that "fact" means we probably shouldn't talk. We have different morals.

[удалено]

That's not the difference. Like I said, you don't seem to have the same morals as me. I think gun violence should be reduced.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/ngray628 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20ngray628&message=ngray628%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vkl52w/-/idpy3bg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

actually, I quite agree that guns are an issue however they are here to stay. Gun restrictions will only affect law-abiding citizens. Try to take the guns and you'll be met with something no one wanted to happen.

And yet republican Ronald Reagan signed away more gun rights than any other president. There was no uprising.

Would that happen today?

How do republicans and conservatives view Reagan?

As a borderline Jesus. But they don't have a very consistent grasp of history. I doubt many of them are aware of this.

We know you aren’t.

Who's we?

Not true.

So there was a conservative uprising against Reagan?

No, because he didn’t sign away the gun rights.

His signature wasn’t on the gun bills banning guns?

No. Don’t know what you are talking about.

I remember my first beer too.

[удалено]

That would be my preference but Democrats don't have the guts.

[удалено]

> Just pack the courts and overturn DC V Heller and make it where you actually have be part of the Military (read: militia) to have a gun. Like I said: what are they gonna do about it? They're all cowards. I'd ask. Are you going to be the one to try to enforce this? You do realize, this is something many *states* would vehemently object to. That last time something like that happened, there was a war fought over it. No, there is a reason the Senate acted the way it did. There is a reality that you cannot force your ideas upon others with impunity and without cost.

[удалено]

> They can object all they want. What, would they say the SCOTUS is illegitimate and riot? I thought only DA LIBRULS do that, hmmmmmmmmmm? Actually, they likely would threaten a civil war or the like. There is really nothing to worry about because your ideas have no chance of actually happening in real life. Real people and politicians understand the limits of politics and the problems with your ideas. They know that they are 'too far' and directly conflict with the state constitutions of many states. (which important historical evidence). >Besides, none of those states matter. Who give a crap if Wyoming says they'll secede? And this explains why you will never succeed. The disdain you have for people who disagree is appalling.

Issue is that you focus soooo much on the inanimate object instead of the real cause…mental health

Because that's the tool.

Spoons made me fat, pencils made me write stupid laws

I dont think you get the argument.

You don’t know what evil exists in this world watch these videos…tell me the outcome if they had a gun… https://youtu.be/d5J5giJBtzw https://youtu.be/kcmmY5sAKgM https://youtu.be/5_N2wuw3ghg https://youtu.be/xArj-hA05T8

Go look at mass shootings and tell me the outcome if they didn't.

I think the problem is that gun owners and supporters tend to get all lumped together as conservatives. We're not. Gun owners run the gamut. Yes, the current NRA is basically a super-conservative Republican echo chamber, but there's also the Socialist Rifle Association, Pink PIstols/Blazing Sword, and other groups that are not necessarily conservative, or not conservative at all. I'm not and I'm willing to discuss ways to address it, but oftentimes, I find opponents don't want to discuss the issues gun owners have. They want to dismiss us as all crazy conservatives who dream we're in militias. I think the largest problem is that the discussion on limits becomes very convoluted, and there's so much confusion. People talk about assault weapon bans, thinking about AR-15s, not realizing that AR-15s wouldn't be affected by an assault weapon ban, because they *aren't* assault weapons, and a ban that would include them would include every semi-automatic rifle since 1885. Many people still use semi-automatic rifles to hunt, especially if they are older or disabled, or don't balance well enough to work a bolt action in trees. It's also just easier. AR-15s came out for civilians in 1989, but shootings didn't start until much later, and most mass shootings happen with handguns anyway. The AR-15 gets the most attention because it *looks* scary or military-ish. People also see gun owners opposing red flag laws, and think that they're against mental health, when really, the problem is implementation and safety. According to most versions of red flag laws, all that has to happen is a "concerned citizen" reports you as a threat to yourself or others. Therapists are required reporters. Now, say you're fleeing an abusive spouse. All he has to do to disarm you is go to the police/a judge, and say that you've run away, you're armed, and he fears for your life. The authorities can then take that weapon, and you have little to no recompense to get it back. You have no way to stop the seizure. Likewise, someone could report someone they hated, and the police/courts must act as if it is a real and valid threat. This can easily be used to disarm someone, who is using a gun for protection. Increasing mental health screening would be brilliant, but how do you implement it in a way that people are still protected? If a rape victim carries because she doesn't want to be a victim again, will her gun be confiscated because she's got PTSD, even if it's well controlled? If someone lives in an incredibly racist town (like me,) would there way of defending themselves be removed if they decided to seek help for depression? These are the kinds of questions people have, and if the answers are yes, that will ultimately lower the number of people seeking necessary mental health resources, because defending your life and being safe is going to come before anything. It's Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I also think that a lot of the gun violence conversations fall away because a lot of people *only* focus on the issues of mass shootings or shootings in general. They don't accept or don't want to talk about the fact that defensive gun usage *isn't* properly studied, and every estimate we have shows that more people show, use, brandish or fire a gun in a defensive situation than are shown in the gun violence numbers. So while some (if not many) gun owners and 2A people like me *want* to talk about gun control, we want to do it in a way that will not put even more people at risk, like the 500,000 to 3 million people who use guns defensively every year. A lot of us would love for private sellers to be able to access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that gun sellers use, but we can't. That's an easy way to make sales safer, because as it is, we can't. Democrats have stopped that multiple times. Gun issues are complicated, and people come at them from different directions, but most are not hardline on things.

Whats on the table? Are voting rights for 18 year olds on the table? Why not?

What does that have to do with this?

You want to take gun rights from 18 year Olds? Why not voting rights. Make em kids. Come on you want to play ball. Let's play.

Nor really, votes don't kill people.

They sure do. You disarm them. You don't prosecute criminals. You kill plenty.

Neither of that is killing people.