Debate Thread: USA Gun Control

[phisheep]

Yesterday we had our first USA mass shooting thread on ERA, and it went about the same as all the previous ones in Another Place – news drowned out by calls for/disagreements about gun control. And we have had this every time there is a mass shooting. Every time we start from zero, we have the usual 2nd amendment vs ban all guns rhetoric, we have the odd thoughtful post, and then the whole thing fizzles out until the next time. We make no progress, and in the course of it we have alienated people of good will from many different sides of the argument.

Let's try something different. This thread is about gun control/gun culture in the USA. Other countries are relevant only insofar as they may cast light on the USA situation. But that includes debunking of any US misuse of other country's situations. (We had, for example, one Swiss poster on GAF who got fed up of debunking the ownership/homicide rate stuff touted in the USA after about three threads.)

This is a debate thread. The aim is to debate, and argue if need be, whatever facets are relevant. I don't have any great hopes that we will reach agreed conclusions: this is a complicated topic including all sorts of legal , cultural, economic, political, constitutional, historic, statistical and historical aspects. I do hope that we will be able to reach some common ground on some things – or at least tease out some of the arguments involved.

Because this is a debate thread, please:

- Introduce yourself properly, tell us where you stand and why (mine is below)
- Support with stats/research/personal experience if possible
- Avoid purely anecdotal stuff unless it is relevant
- Avoid one line mantras like "ban all guns"/"constitutional right"
- Don't pile in. A member only needs to be questioned once, not 17 times.
- Respond to queries that other people ask you.
- Don't be afraid of changing your mind, or arguing the opposite view if it helps the debate.

Because this is an ERA thread, please:

- Stick to ToS, and in particular tackle the argument, not the poster
- In particular, don't attribute motivations to people. Not everyone who owns guns is a "gun nut", not everyone in favour of gun controls is against the Second Amendment. Keep it sensible.

This will get political of course, because any sort of proposed action is bound to have political ramifications. But just because it is political does not mean it has to be partisan. Not all Republicans. Not all Democrats. Proposed policy and pragmatism are the important things.

Don't please come in here to post that "nothing will happen". The Onion has done that for us already.

[Personal statement: I'm a Brit. I am accustomed to unarmed police, to gun crime being extremely rare. I have shot bolt-action rifles – came second in a competition many years ago. I have relatives in New England. I am alarmed, as I guess we all are, at the level of homicide and gun-related crime in the US. I do not believe that banning all guns is at all practical given the history of the USA. I do support controls on the ownership, transfer, and carrying of weapons in public places. The most I can sensibly contribute to this debate is to prod and poke a bit, to seek to understand the underlying issues, and to steer the conversation if that helps.]

I have absolutely no idea whether this thread will do any good. But let's give it a go. I will try to summarise occasionally and index any particularly insightful posts. If it does nothing else, then at least we can keep gun control debates out of threads about individual calamities.

Thread Index
#1 - #361: bit of an uncontrolled free-for-all to start with. Lots of good stuff interspersed with unnecessary argument.
#363: TOPIC: Which categories of firearms/equipment might be subject to restriction/control?

 

[Min]

A Florida man who's position is that guns should be regulated, controlled, and certainly some should be banned. The country is too large and too rural to ban all guns. Hunting rifles and rifles for protection/control (against animals) are still needed in parts of the country, but this doesn't carry to assault weapons (and handguns).

The countries foundation is based on paranoia of the government. Corporations have played into this fear to sell you guns.

 

[Rotkehle]

I'm a German and in the same positionas the op. Weapons are here so rare and often only visible on police officers. Only used an airrifle once and held a gas pistol. Thats it. I think I never heard the sound of a shot in realife. The situation in the US is crazy as someone with my level of involvement in gun culture.

But I have no problem with the usage of guns for sports or hunting. But both should be heavily regulated. I think the german or british model works fine in this regads.

 

[phisheep]

The country is too large and too rural to ban all guns.

Click to shrink...

That is something that I think most Europeans don't appreciate. Just how big and how wild much of rural USA is, and it does make a difference to how one thinks of at least some of the gun debate. Rural over here(UK) mostly means you are still within about 40 miles of a major city. That's a world of difference from the US.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I think most states should eventually adopt gun laws similar to NY. You'll still have guns but far more regulated.

Banning guns outright or Australian style confiscation just isn't going to happen in the US with guns as prevalent in the culture as it has been since its foundation.

 

[Snack12367]

I'm a Brit and I've never understood the fetishes of guns in america. To me any argument for them makes no sense. I don't think the US will ever see any real movement on this.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I will hopefully have time to make a more extensive post later. But so many problems in USA are related to widespread gun ownership. I have considered for a while to make a thread analysing gun ownership from a game theory perspective. But basically, because guns are so widespread, cops feel like they need to shoot first to be safe. Burglars feel like they need guns to protect themselves. It leads to an arms race as no one trusts their fellow man not to shoot. The only solution is to get rid of guns

Background: Am Swedish. Hunting rifles are allowed for hunting only, if you have a license. Killing someone in self-defense is a crime, as it should be. (Again, consider the game theory perspective.)

 

[Player 1]

Guns are heavily regulated in my country. That's why we only have about 5 gun related deaths (suicide and homocide combined) per year.

 

[MANUELF]

Im mexican I'm all in for a stricter gun market, that would also help us by making it harder for cartels to get them

 

[Sephzilla]

I'm a gun owner (shotgun for bird hunting purposes) and honestly when I bought that shotgun years ago I was troubled with how easy it was to acquire. The US needs way more regulation and longer screening processes for firearms

 

[Isro]

Based on Pew Research, there are estimated 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States - so banning guns at this point is akin to trying put a very angry genie back in the bottle. At the very minimum, there should be researches (government funded and otherwise) done on the subject - CDC was cowed into not running the study - so we at least know what to tackle first.

I felt a combination of strength gun control measures (existing or otherwise), outright ban of gun modifications or some accessories, and closing loopholes should be implemented alongside with a strong push to fundamentally change the culture permeated the U.S. society that values gun ownership over the mass causalities. Gun ownership is essentially a mytho ingrained as part of the culture fiber, that it would take a groundswell or at least, a wave of messages that erodes NRA's brutish, self-serving propaganda.

Personally I am tired of gun debates (ironic I know, since I am ranting), as all known avenues of discussion had pretty much been exhausted and the deaths are mostly accepted as the way of life here in the U.S. My sentiment being that if Sandy Hook didn't spur any legislation regarding gun controls, if gun violence against members of GOP didn't spur any changes, then nothing would.

 

[kmax]

The problem with the American attitude is that the ownership of guns is treated as a right rather than a privilege.

People that wants to own a gun should have to demonstrate that they are responsible, safe and secure. How is it that you're required to get a license to drive a car, but don't need one to use an AR-15? It's insane and frankly disturbing how easy it is to obtain such a lethal weapon.

It's too easy. Way too easy.

 

[Hat22]

I will hopefully have time to make a more extensive post later. But so many problems in USA are related to widespread gun ownership. I have considered for a while to make a thread analysing gun ownership from a game theory perspective. But basically, because guns are so widespread, cops feel like they need to shoot first to be safe. Burglars feel like they need guns to protect themselves. It leads to an arms race as no one trusts their fellow man not to shoot. The only solution is to get rid of guns

Background: Am Swedish. Hunting rifles are allowed for hunting only, if you have a license. Killing someone in self-defense is a crime, as it should be. (Again, consider the game theory perspective.)

Click to shrink...

It can't work, the society has too many guns. The Cartels and gangs would just sell guns to gun nuts willing to break the law and people who seek to do harm. Law abiding citizens would be left defenseless in certain parts of the country.

Saudi can prohibit alchohol because it's never been a big thing there but take that prohibition to drunken societies like the US, Germany or Russia and you have a problem.

 

[Sephzilla]

The problem with the American attitude is that the ownership of guns is treated as a right rather than a privilege.

People that wants to own a gun should have to demonstrate that they are responsible, safe and secure. How is it that you're required to get a license to drive a car, but don't need one to use an AR-15? It's insane and frankly disturbing how easy it is to obtain such a lethal weapon.

It's too easy. Way too easy.

Click to shrink...

Yup. It's well past time to look at the second amendment and collectively realize that it's a bit outdated now considering how different the landscape of firearms is today compared to back during the revolutionary years.

 

[NJDEN]

I think most states should eventually adopt gun laws similar to NY. You'll still have guns but far more regulated.

Banning guns outright or Australian style confiscation just isn't going to happen in the US with guns as prevalent in the culture as it has been since its foundation.

Click to shrink...

I'm an American who owns both "hunting style" & "military style" firearms. I travel to New York regularly to hunt with my family, but do not actually live there. The NY SAFE Act is an example of an absolute train-wreck. NY's laws were passed in a midnight session by the governor as a response to Sandy Hook. While I'm not against better gun control, NY is a prime example of gun laws written by people who have very little experience with firearms. It seems they passed the laws without doing much research since most of the laws are extremely ambiguous, poorly defined, and in some cases made zero sense.

NY's SAFE Act was developed with NYC in mind, but completely dismisses upstate New York's rural communities, and many low income families who rely on subsistence hunting to survive.

 

[Greigor the FellHand]

US, from ohio.

Gun Shows need to made illegal. It is a flagrant work around to the already poorly implemented basic gun safety checks.

all you have to do is walk in with cash, the dealer looks at you, and hands you the firearm. there is no background checks, no waiting periods.

The sale of firearms/gifting needs to come with a check/balance system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firearm location checks.
Sorry NRA there has to be a fucking database, thats on a computer not paper. Facebook probably knows the exact number or munitions and firearms you have, the government needs it more.

depending on the number of firearms one owns then they must be verified at random that they have them in there possession.
pistol, shotgun, for home defence, once every 2-3 years a police officer will contact you and show up at your residence when you are there. they are required to verify the serial numbers on your firearms are still the same, you can choose to let them enter or not but you must present your firearms.

own 3-5 every 1-2 years this check.
own 6-10 every year
own 10-20? every 6-10 months
own 20+ at random, as little as weeks or months.

in addition having over 10 firearms, one should be required to get a collectors license, and required with that license is insurance, and police safety/ATF safety storage check.
-you must have insurance
-you must have proper gunsafes/storage locations to deter theft and proper ownership.


Sell your firearm to bob?
well both of you have to go to the police station, hand the firearm over sign documents, and bob can come back in 3 days to pick up his firearm.

bob got your firearm and you didnt register it or follow basic proceedures?
well if bob is found with that handgun and the serial # doesnt go back to bob. well the orginal owner adn bob are going to be in some deep shit.
If they both admit it was a sale/gifting but they just didnt go through proper procedure off the bat then they should each pay a fine thats equal to 300% the value of the firearm as a fine.
lie about it? face potentially 5 years in prison/probabtion.


Bump stocks and other devices that go around technicalities to simulate full auto fire? BAN them, anyone with one of these needs to be fine/charged with a federal crime, unless you surrender it to the local police department/authorities

.50 caliber rifle/extreme high powered?
what in the fuck are you using it for? make several steps and hoops to jump through to get a license to own one. in addition you must be able to verify you have this firearm every 10 months.

Munitions:
Munitions must have proper storage, one who lives in a crowded suburb should not be allowed to stock pile 10K rounds in there house, without proper storage.

why? if theres a fire and these rounds cook off thats really really bad.

Proper fire storage safes for munitions is required.

Full Safety inspections for firearms and munitions happens just like drivers licenses for 99% of the gun owners. once every few years theres a check/test, a simple process. fuck up and well your shit is either taken or held until you correct the problems.

 

[Bandage]

Dismantle the NRA
Make lobbying illegal
National gun buy back programs

 

[Palas]

I'm from Brazil, a country in which guns are mostly banned, but with an extremely high gun-related homicide rate. So we get the (alledged) worst of both worlds. The idea of widespread civilian arming makes absolutely no sense to me - although I do understand it's a part of USA's history and culture, so it's not like I can apply my own notions to American people.

It seems to me this is not merely a problem with gun ownership. There seems to be a fundamental moral, political and legal rift in the relationship between society and law enforcement. Gun ownership (more or less and in practice) takes away Weber's monopoly of the state over physical coercion, so there should be a compromise between citizens and the State on how the empowerment of just about anyone at large is handled. It doesn't seem to happen. Weapons people can own seem far too dangerous, law enforcement systems seem far too slow and biased and the lobby seems to have corrupted the balance.

The argument for gun ownership being a constitutional right doesn't hold up when it becomes "just let them have it". No amount of background checks can prevent someone from killing multiple people with a semi-automatic rifle and, by not controlling guns and not making a political pact of mutual protection with civil society, USA has created a monster far worse than organized armed crime - unorganized armed crime.

 

[Watchtower]

As a American here's where I currently stand on the gun debate:

• Gun control in the US is impossible without some form of recall.
• Any form of recall is impossible because US gun culture has become downright zealous - for some, no amount of money in the world is worth giving up the 2nd Amendment.
• The NRA is an active part in perpetuating this culture by preventing the federal government from taking action against it.
• Any meaningful action must be done by the federal government because, quite frankly, there are several state governments that cannot be trusted to uphold reasonable gun control.

 

[Deleted member 19813]

I'm a thirty-four year-old male that currently resides deep in the heart of East Texas. Hunting is almost a religion here. I grew up with guns and have gun fanatics on my wife's side of the family (Northern and Hispanic) and on my side (Southern).

I, however, do not own a gun. I don't feel guns should be banned because I just don't see how it would happen. Regulation is a must at this point. ARs should be banned. I'd take a lot of flack for this here, but I don't see civilians needing handguns. The last thing we need is a gun fanatic taking actions into his own hands.

It may be unpopular and people will lose their shit, but the United States could really benefit from laws like New Jersey has.

 

[BankaiZaraki]

I'm from Florida. I own 2 handguns and used to own a rifle myself before I sold it. I practice safe gun rules at all times and keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo and I am the only one with a key to my safe. I feel like ever since I personally saw the Colombine shooting occur, there needs to be gun reform in this country. I feel like there needs to be thorough background checks on individuals including debt, employment history, rental history, things of that sort. It should never be so easy as putting a down payment on a house. I wish our government would take extreme measures to ensure our way of life is protected.

 

[Paradox House]

Agree on the handgun point above. In fact this is what was outlawed in Britain following Dunblan iirc.

Needs to be some effort to regulate the trade or production. There is just too many guns in circulatiob.

 

[gutter_trash]

Australia did it.
They haven't had a mass killing incident since buying back peoples' guns and then outlawing them.

It can be done.

People can list a bunch of random countries but the ones that are the closest in terms of historical British colonializtion such as Australia and Canada are where the USA should look to.

Why as soon you cross the Canadian border does the homicide rate by firearm drop like a rock?
We have strict gun laws in Canada and with reason.

 

[PJV3]

Australia did it.
They haven't had a mass killing incident since buying back peoples' guns and then outlawing them.

It can be done

Click to shrink...

Yep, it's just that the US is going to take longer and require more effort, just working on a gun culture that is turning citizens into threats and targets would be a good start.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

It can't work, the society has too many guns. The Cartels and gangs would just sell guns to gun nuts willing to break the law and people who seek to do harm. Law abiding citizens would be left defenseless in certain parts of the country.

Saudi can prohibit alchohol because it's never been a big thing there but take that prohibition to drunken societies like the US, Germany or Russia and you have a problem.

Click to shrink...

It won't work overnight, but with buyback programs, confiscation every time a gun is found on anyone's person or property at any point, a ban on manufacture and sales, the number of guns circulating WILL go down overtime. It did work in Australia.

The fact that normal people are defenseless is a feature. Law enforcement should take care of criminals, not civilians. Again, consider the game theory perspective: If a burglar won't be shot by a houseowner, they won't be carrying guns themselves. The best way to protect against burglars is home insurance, not firearms

 

[Method]

Dismantle the NRA
Make lobbying illegal
National gun buy back programs

Click to shrink...

Yep. All of this.

 

[gutter_trash]

 

[Hat22]

It won't work overnight, but with buyback programs, confiscation every time a gun is found on anyone's person or property at any point, a ban on manufacture and sales, the number of guns circulating WILL go down overtime. It did work in Australia.

The fact that normal people are defenseless is a feature. Law enforcement should take care of criminals, not civilians. Again, consider the game theory perspective: If a burglar won't be shot by a houseowner, they won't be carrying guns themselves. The best way to protect against burglars is home insurance, not firearms

Click to shrink...

Burglars will stay armed. You'll never be able to disarm everybody and people value their personal items and will defend them with force.

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't mind NJ style gun regulations from the most part. some of is stupid, like the "assault weapons" ban, but most is background checks which I agree with.

People focus on the mass shootings but forget that most weapon deaths are caused by handguns. Good luck banning hand guns since the Supreme Court ruled that people have the right to have it.

 

[gutter_trash]

Burglars will stay armed. You'll never be able to disarm everybody and people value their personal items and will defend them with force.

Click to shrink...

the guns are made in the USA.

tackle Gun Manucturers just like you tackled Big Tabacco.

Look at the rate of tabacco smokers today, it has dropped like a rock. Do the same and punish the gun makers .

Mexico's gun problem aslo stems from Made in the USA firearms

 

[phisheep]

Based on Pew Research, there are estimated 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States - so banning guns at this point is akin to trying put a very angry genie back in the bottle.

Click to shrink...

Except that nobody (well nobody sensible) is talking about banning gun ownership in the USA entirely. Or if anyone is, then I estimate it would take at least 150 years to do so, and that's with a favourable legislative starting position.There's a post over in the other thread comparing gun ownership with homicide rates in different countries, but that ignores completely the different laws in those countries. There is all the difference between a country that allows gun ownership but prohibits carrying them in public and one which is free on both.

What we probably need to look at more is carry laws rather than ownership, at least to start with.

 

[AuthenticM]

I'm from Canada.

Studies after studies after studies show that stronger gun control laws translate to fewer gun homicides. The only firearms that should be legal to sell, purchase and use are bolt-action hunting rifles. That's it. Ban all the rest.

Dismantle the NRA
Make lobbying illegal
National gun buy back programs

Click to shrink...

Great ideas.

I had made a thread back at the old site on the second amendment. Might as well copy it here:

-----

In Canadian law, there is a primordial principle called "The Living Tree Doctrine". It was established in the 1929 case Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), in which the then-highest court of the country ruled that the word "person" in the Constitution would henceforth include women. The Living Tree Doctrine was coined by one of the judges presiding over the case, Viscount Sankey, who said that the canadian Constitution was "a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits". In other words, the Constitution has to be interpreted with the changing times in order to accurately reflect modern society, lest it loses reason or practicality and falls into disuse. This interpretation principle is what some could call the "Holy Grail" of Constitutional Law, and is reflected in every case asking the courts a constitutional question.

In the United States of America, the right to bear arms was constitutionalized when the following was true:

• firearms were extremely primitive; semi-automatic weapons didn't even exist.
• there was no dedicated police service like there is today; people could not call 911 if they were in distress, they were on their own.
• the population was not as high and cities not as dense
• the USA had just been born, and one of the reasons the 2nd amendment was written was to ensure a civil revolt could tople a tyranical government, should the american revolution not last.
• slavery was legal, and one of the main reasons the 2nd amendment was written was to protect the right to slaves of white men by enabling them to easily quell slave revolts and easily put down slaves who were disobedient.
• many more things that don't come to mind right now.

Today's society is completely different from then. Weaponry has progressed in development to such an extent that a single person could kill dozens (or even hundreds, in theory) of people in an instant or a very short amount of time; cops exist and are well-organized and well-armed (some might say too well); slavery is no longer legal; today's society is much more stable, calm and civil than it ever was.

It is crazy to me that, today, the highest court of the USA has not, at some point in the past, ruled that the second amendment could not be interpreted as allowing the commerce and ownership of certain categories of weapons, such as automatic rifles, for exemple. Because we don't need them. The individual does not need an automatic rifle to defend himself against British Royalists, a tyranical US government or revolting slaves. He also does not need a small easily-hidden semi-automatic handgun.

If it were up to me, the 2nd amendment would be interpreted as allowing the commerce and ownership of bolt-action hunting rifles and only that.

Here are some relevant posts by poster Jonm1010:

Originally Posted by Jonm1010

I'm sorry. This is literally bullshit. Like factually so. Analysis after analysis and case study after case study have shown that stricter access and lower supply of guns reduces gun violence. This is true on an individual level, the state level and at the national level. Extensive statistical data supports this.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525...nce-statistics

If you want to say that you support having your precious guns with as little restrictions as possible because of reasons, go ahead. Recognize though and own the fact that this will lead to higher homicide rates, higher suicide rates, higher accidental gun death rates and higher rates of gun violence. The onus is thus on you to explain to others why this is a worthwhile trade off so you can have easy and flooded access to your precious guns.

Click to shrink...

Originally Posted by Jonm1010

It's funny that the supreme court disagreed with the modern interpretation for much of its history though. At least that is my understanding.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...cond-amendment

Click to shrink...

Originally Posted by Jonm1010

The dissent from Columbia V. Heller


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

You may have your interpretation but historically speaking there are strong arguments and precedent on the side of the militia argument.

Click to shrink...

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Burglars will stay armed. You'll never be able to disarm everybody and people value their personal items and will defend them with force.

Click to shrink...

Burglars are not armed in Europe, because of the game theory aspect. Killing a burglar is a crime, so burglars don't feel they have to protect themselves with firearms. On a long enough timescale, the same would happen in the US

 

[Straight Edge]

Make gun manufacturers liable for deaths cause by their products.

 

[Elandyll]

I'm French naturalized US citizen, married to a US born citizen with 2 kids, both born in the US and have been in the US for the past 14 years...

I still don't get the obsession with guns, and probably never will.

Viewed from outside it probably looks insane, specially when looking at statistics, but here, for a ton of people, having guns is just as natural as having a bike and the right to ride it whenever you feel like it.
It also has this romantic "freedom against tyranny" notion attached to it which can be in certain case terribly dangerous because, alongside the odd 'citizens' arrest" thing, it can make anyone feel like they can be their own form of justice or army.
The 2nd amendment also saw to that to be fair, while it was meant for the citizens to have the right to maintain a "well regulated militia", not for people to go gun crazy and end up with a country that has now nearly more guns than people in it (310m and counting afaik).

Now culturally the country has been built (besides obviously slavery) on glorifed individuality, fighting to earn what's yours, and a certain 'frontier' spirit where guns used to be the difference between life and death. At least in middle America.

That was 100+ years ago you'll think, but it has been unfortunately entranched in what some may call the 'DNA' of rural America, and is passed down as oral history and traditions by parents.

Of course, there is also the NRA, this association of gun manufacturers that lobbies and bullies its way around to make sure that they can sell more guns, which is, for them, the only answer to everything because ... profits.

In that environment, doing -anything- will be hard. And frankly after Sandyhook I have lost faith that much CAN be done at all with the hold the NRA has on Conservatives in Congress (and many Dems as well) frankly.
I mean... 20 children from an elementary school were killed, and nothing was done in spite of a strong plea by President Obama.

All this is not to say there's nothing we can do. Public support for common sense measures is actually rising.
Personally, I would be in favor of a complete ban aside from hunting rifles ...
But that will never happen.

The next best thing would be to do what Australia did in 1996, a complete ban on assault riffles (semi auto included), any semi auto gun (including shotguns), self loading guns, increased background checks, plus a buyback program.
But that won't happen here. Not with the culture in place, and not with 300m+ guns in circulation.

So, more pragmatically, I want strong background checks, no gun show loophole (person to person sales are exempt from background checks), a unified database for checks across states which bars not only terrorist suspects and abusers but also people with a psych history from buying (no need to have their medical history, just a no buy flag put in place by a psychologist).

I also ideally would like a license for owners (with gun handling training), with a basic psych screen to renew every 5 years . It probably won't happen, but it should.

I would also like a ban on military style Semi auto rifle, silencers (there is no reason to have one), and any item designed to increase fired rates and large capacity magazines (more than 10 bullets), because all these are designed to kill large amount of people, not hunting, and certainly not self defense.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm an American who owns both "hunting style" & "military style" firearms. I travel to New York regularly to hunt with my family, but do not actually live there. The NY SAFE Act is an example of an absolute train-wreck. NY's laws were passed in a midnight session by the governor as a response to Sandy Hook. While I'm not against better gun control, NY is a prime example of gun laws written by people who have very little experience with firearms. It seems they passed the laws without doing much research since most of the laws are extremely ambiguous, poorly defined, and in some cases made zero sense.

NY's SAFE Act was developed with NYC in mind, but completely dismisses upstate New York's rural communities, and many low income families who rely on subsistence hunting to survive.

Click to shrink...

I'm not talking about the Safe Act only. But gun laws in NY as a whole. Wasn't a fan of safe act for the exact reasons you listed (7 rounds in a magazine and background checks for ammo was ridiculous) but I did agree with other things (increased jail time for attacking a first responder, legal obligation to report a missing firearm within 24 hours of discovery, no more grandfather policy for 30 round magazines they're just banned outright, universal background check provisions)

 

[SigEpTendo]

Im from Memphis, TN. I suppose I fall more on the gun rights advocacy side than I do on the gun control advocacy side. I own several guns, running the gamut of handguns, shotguns, and rifles. That said, I do not believe the USA should be a wild wild west without regulation. The problem is most often times there is no consideration of compromise between the two sides. Both sides often stick to the one liners and that's that. This is complicated, in that both side are technically "right" - gun rights' advocates will say its a Constitutional right that "shall not be infringed" whereas gun control advocates will say that these mass shootings should be minimized by passing more laws to regulate.

The fact that is a right in the United States is the issue; which makes it much harder to regulate. We can argue the intent of the 2nd Amendment, but our opinions are pretty much moot - the Supreme Court has continued to uphold that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right to self defense.

So, all that to say, if we really want meaningful change, one of two things needs to happen: The 2nd Amendment gets amended or repealed, or there is a change in the Supreme Court. Both aren't easy, but the piecemeal approach that has been taken has been proven to be ineffective for the past decade.

 

[captive]

I'm from Texas and own a 12 guage shotgun and a Springfield XDM 9mm.

I support universal background checks for sales of all guns.
Private sales of guns must occur through a licensed gun dealer where a background check can occur.
gun shows, gone.
National gun buy back
your kid finds your gun and shoots someone on purpose or accident? you're 100% liable and to be charged criminally.
history of mental health issues? no gun for you
history of beating your wife? no gun for you

 

[Occam]

Only people who profit from the firearm business or who lack the ability to think logically and are unable to observe the rest of the world are opposed to gun control.
Generally speaking, humans lack self control and are prone to giving in to violent urges in the heat of the moment rather than staying calm and thinking rationally. Despite pretending to be something completely different, we really are not that far removed from other animals. The result of handing out tools like candy whose sole purpose is killing quickly and effortlessly can be observed in the USA on a daily basis.
Nowadays, more people are killed by firearms in the US during a single year than during the entire so-called wild west.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm from Texas and own a 12 guage shotgun and a Springfield XDM 9mm.

I support universal background checks for sales of all guns.
Private sales of guns must occur through a licensed gun dealer where a background check can occur.
gun shows, gone.
National gun buy back
your kid finds your gun and shoots someone on purpose or accident? you're 100% liable and to be charged criminally.
history of mental health issues? no gun for you
history of beating your wife? no gun for you

Click to shrink...

Yea this shouldn't be hard. I keep a Mossberg 500 for home defense and private sales background check is already the law in NY.

Criminal/Mental health history should be our focus and MUCH more should disqualify folks. Like w/ this incident in Texas yesterday. Dude was known to beat his family? No firearms.

 

[Jackpot]

How about guns being as regulated as cars as a starting point?

 

[phisheep]

It won't work overnight, but with buyback programs, confiscation every time a gun is found on anyone's person or property at any point, a ban on manufacture and sales, the number of guns circulating WILL go down overtime. It did work in Australia.

The fact that normal people are defenseless is a feature. Law enforcement should take care of criminals, not civilians. Again, consider the game theory perspective: If a burglar won't be shot by a houseowner, they won't be carrying guns themselves. The best way to protect against burglars is home insurance, not firearms

Click to shrink...

That's feasible of course. But it assumes there exists the popular support, the political will, and the legislative votes to make it happen. Which seems a long way off in the USA. Also perhaps worth pointing out that the baseline of gun ownership in the USA is way higher than it ever was in Australia, which makes things more difficult.

Viewed from outside it probably looks insane, specially when looking at statistics, but here, for a ton of people, having guns is just as natural as having a bike and the right to ride it whenever you feel like it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah. As a rough equivalent, I think banning guns in the USA has about as much chance as banning golf in Scotland (which has been tried before several centuries ago and that didn't work either).

 

[Iorv3th]

Burglars are not armed in Europe, because of the game theory aspect. Killing a burglar is a crime, so burglars don't feel they have to protect themselves with firearms. On a long enough timescale, the same would happen in the US

Click to shrink...

I would say that most burglars in the US are likely not armed. It's just that the possibility of them being armed or dangerous exists and you have a right to defend yourself with force in many states. I know around here a lot of the thieves are on meth and stealing to buy more drugs. They usually break in during the day when people are at work or at night at businesses etc.

Insurance on property is also somewhat useless in some cases. I know the business I work at has been broken into at night multiple times. If you report it to insurance you have to pay the deductible (which sometimes doesn't even cover the cost of what got broken/stolen) and on top of it they want to raise your rates if you do claim something (also give you way less than what it's worth).

At the same time the police in most cases aren't going to find out who took your stuff unless it's on camera or they catch them in the act. Your stuff is going to be long gone and you aren't getting it back in most cases.

 

[phisheep]

The fact that is a right in the United States is the issue; which makes it much harder to regulate. We can argue the intent of the 2nd Amendment, but our opinions are pretty much moot - the Supreme Court has continued to uphold that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right to self defense.

So, all that to say, if we really want meaningful change, one of two things needs to happen: The 2nd Amendment gets amended or repealed, or there is a change in the Supreme Court. Both aren't easy, but the piecemeal approach that has been taken has been proven to be ineffective for the past decade.

Click to shrink...

"Continued to uphold" is a bit of a stretch there. DC v Heller was only about 10 years ago after all. And it seems to me that a different Supreme Court interpretation is way more likely than a further amendment at this stage (but maybe not all that likely in the current circumstances).

 

[TheRuralJuror]

I'm an American who owns both "hunting style" & "military style" firearms. I travel to New York regularly to hunt with my family, but do not actually live there. The NY SAFE Act is an example of an absolute train-wreck. NY's laws were passed in a midnight session by the governor as a response to Sandy Hook. While I'm not against better gun control, NY is a prime example of gun laws written by people who have very little experience with firearms. It seems they passed the laws without doing much research since most of the laws are extremely ambiguous, poorly defined, and in some cases made zero sense.

NY's SAFE Act was developed with NYC in mind, but completely dismisses upstate New York's rural communities, and many low income families who rely on subsistence hunting to survive.

Click to shrink...

You nailed my biggest issue. The people who are most against it, don't really know shit about them. I know many do, but sometimes, I listen to these politicians and they're way off base and it's obvious to any shooter.

That aside, I'm a gun carrying, 2nd amendment supporter who thinks there is definitely room for improvement in our system in regards to guns ownership.

 

[Crispy75]

A ban is impossible at this point (and there are very few (any?) places in the world with outright bans in place). Guns have many legitimate uses, particular in the wilderness and countryside. But I believe that gradual change could approach something like:

There should be a federal-level registration system. Every gun has a number. Every gun has a registered owner. If that gun is used in a crime, that owner bears (some) responsibility. If you sell or destroy a gun, you must notify the register. Second-hand gun sales must be conducted through a registered 3rd party.

There should be a federal-level licensing system.To obtain a license, you must pass a rigorous test. To own different types of gun, you must pass specialised tests. If your gun is used in a crime, your license is revoked or suspended.


(I'm in the UK)

 

[thesoapster]

I'm from the DC metro area (more or less). I grew up around guns, and spent a decent amount of time target shooting. I've shot >25 different guns (not a lot compared to a gun nut, but more than your average person, for sure).

I don't support all-out bans, but am for what most on the left tend to call "common sense" gun legislation. This doesn't necessarily include "assault weapons" bans (which are often more about banning a gun based on its appearance rather than its actual function). I like the idea of magazine limits and bump stock bans. I was absolutely shocked that bump stocks are legal when I saw FPS Russia demoing one. Furthermore, I'm for refusing to sell to those deemed to be mentally unfit to own a gun, or those with a violent past. I'm not sure when the Texas church shooter acquired his weaponry, but he served time for domestic assault! There's no reason he should have been able to acquire a firearm.

This brings up two issues - federal vs state law, and private sales. In my state, you cannot sell a gun privately person-to-person. This is not the case in many states, where guns can be legally sold without vetting. I understand the argument that if you own a gun, it is your private property, and the government should not be able to regulate the sale of said property. On the other hand, the implications of not regulating the sale of firearms are too dangerous in my mind. Back on the federal vs state bit - most of the legislative action, to be effective, would need to happen at the federal level. I don't believe I can buy a magazine over 10 rounds capacity in my state (MD) right now...but if I step over the PA line, or WV, etc., I can legally buy a high capacity magazine, and use it!

 

[SigEpTendo]

"Continued to uphold" is a bit of a stretch there. DC v Heller was only about 10 years ago after all. And it seems to me that a different Supreme Court interpretation is way more likely than a further amendment at this stage (but maybe not all that likely in the current circumstances).

Click to shrink...

You're right; "uphold" may have been the wrong word choice - maybe "interpret" would be more apt. And I agree, Supreme Court changing their opinion is definitely the more likely option; albeit one that lacks permanence. Amendments aren't an easy thing to do, certainly.

 

[NJDEN]

I'm from Texas and own a 12 guage shotgun and a Springfield XDM 9mm.

I support universal background checks for sales of all guns.
Private sales of guns must occur through a licensed gun dealer where a background check can occur.
gun shows, gone.
National gun buy back
your kid finds your gun and shoots someone on purpose or accident? you're 100% liable and to be charged criminally.
history of mental health issues? no gun for you
history of beating your wife? no gun for you

Click to shrink...

I'm American, & could be considered a firearms enthusiast (own multiple firearms, hunt, and shoot at the range). Several of the posts in this thread I'm a little iffy on, or disagree with, but I agree with everything in this post 100%. Each point is completely reasonable, and potentially feasible for American gun laws.

 

[Spectone]

That is something that I think most Europeans don't appreciate. Just how big and how wild much of rural USA is, and it does make a difference to how one thinks of at least some of the gun debate. Rural over here(UK) mostly means you are still within about 40 miles of a major city. That's a world of difference from the US.

Click to shrink...

I don't understand this argument about rural. Australia has some of the most isolated country in the world. You can be hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest living human but we have effective gun control. I also assume that Canada is similar.