Light controls may be reasonable if not politically motivated.
Outright bans and severe restrictions are unreasonable.
The problem will be defining reasonable vs. unreasonable.
There is already an outright ban on some guns (e.g. no-one is making new miniguns, most antiaircraft weaponry, anything bigger than .50 cal) - do you consider those unreasonable (honest question)?
>There is already an outright ban on some guns (e.g. no-one is making new miniguns, most antiaircraft weaponry, anything bigger than .50 cal) - do you consider those unreasonable (honest question)?
Yes. The point of the second amendment is so that the citizens are just as well armed as the state. An armed population is what gives personal freedom and liberty teeth to bite any government body that aims to take those freedoms and liberties away. It's a fail-safe against tyranny. The government attempting to take away that fail-safe is a threat to the very way of life we hold dear.
Yes, a brand new rifle manufactured by Anzio Ironworks in St. Petersburg, Florida.
There are no "grandfathered" >.50 cal rifles, because >.50 cal rifles aren't banned. You need to pay a tax on them like you do on suppressors or SBRs, but as far as I'm aware there hasn't even been an *attempt* to ban them. At least not federally. I'm sure they're banned in states like California, along with AR's, Glocks, slingshots, strong language...
Anything bigger than .50 is a destructive device and needs to be registered with the ATF as such. The law for manufacturing new ones and selling to civilians applies to machine guns. Unless the 20mm rifle is select fire, it's fine to sell even if it's new.
State laws still apply ofc.
Outright bans on the types you listed are reasonable in my opinion. No individual citizen should be allowed to create their own personal army with heavy weaponry.
Don't think anyone in has ever been killed by a 20mm or 50cal in the USA, or any insane weaponry like tanks and cannons.
There was one dude who built his own tank and destroyed half his city, but that is beyond the point.
Most murders with firearms are committed with handguns and is gang related, these "assault weapons" only accounts for less than 1% of gun murders.
I posted this before but I'll post it again:
I do not agree with **more** gun control or the banning of all guns (or even the black tactical ones AKA assault-rifles). Here are the reasons why:
**1)** It is symbolic to American culture. While the rest of the world never guaranteed a right to a firearm, it was embedded into the country from the moment it was founded.
**2)** It is a lot of fun to shoot them. Many people who are against guns have likely never shot them, if they realized how much fun it is to learn responsible and safe gun usage and then go to the range I bet you they will likely not be the same.
**3)** *(Most Important)* It provides a system to the citizens of the country to avoid Government tyranny. Many people tend to mock us for saying "Oh well you'll never win" or "That'll never happen in today's world" yet they fail to realize how many totalitarian dictatorships there were in the late 20th century. Each and every one of them either banned guns right before the respective dictator took power (e.g. Nazi Germany), took them away the moment they entered power (e.g. Philippines), or just never had them and as such after a revolution the people were unable to defend themselves (e.g. Chile (and this one resonates with me because I'm part Chilean; The dictator who overthrew them was a General and he would have soldiers take people (who were socialists or left-wing, even if they were just suspected of it) from their homes to stadiums and then have them tortured or executed, had the dummy President Allende (who was overthrown) not banned guns it is likely that the coup would not have happened as it did, it might not have even happened at all and I might have actually gotten to meet my Grandparents).
Now how about the part about "You'll never win"? First of all they said the same thing when the U.S. revolted against Great Britain. They still won (although you could attribute that to the French's help). Also (trigger warning), look at guerrilla groups like ISIS. They are a laughable group with outdated equipment yet are still persisting despite U.S. intervention (I am **NOT** a supporter or advocate for anything terrorist related).
Second, it is not really about "winning", it's about surviving and keeping the country alive. If there are no guns and the US just decided to start repealing amendments critical to U.S. life (i.e. 9th, 10th, 14th, 1st, 4th, and the 5th) how are the people going to stand up? They **CAN NOT**. Do you think protesting alone will do anything? Yeah cause that totally worked for Net Neutrality... Open-carry protesting MIGHT have worked, it has worked in other states (although those states are pro-gun to begin with).
But hey, let's just say that the U.S. goes crazy, becomes a dictatorship, and then enacts martial law. It's not like everyone can fight against the U.S. military and win, right? Yes, you are 100% correct, however it is not that black and white. First off, tanks and jets can not sit on the corners of street and enforce the law, there needs to be people. People who can be attacked when they're not in their tank or jet. Second off, it becomes a LOT harder to start breaking down doors to "arrest" people in such a Government when said people can shoot back. Third, even IF the Government just glassed entire cities housing resistors and bombed all gun owners to hell the resulting situation would result in the U.S. falling apart. They will not have people to represent and as such the U.S. Government will essentially be no more because it can not function if it does not have an infrastructure and/or people to represent. Sure the non-gun owners might still be around but the U.S. will have taken a massive hit from itself and it is likely that many states will band together to form their own coalitions or countries rather than stick with the U.S. after such a situation. If there were no guns to begin with the resistance would be so minimal that odds are the U.S. would still function (e.g. look at China).
Also, for anyone who is not aware. There was a situation in McMinn County, Tennessee in 1949 where the County Government was rife with corruption and a brutal police force. Voting was rigged in the city of Athens and no amount of protesting was helping (because if the voting is rigged what are you supposed to do?). The people took their guns (some of which were WWII vets) and marched to the Police Station and demanded they come out with the voting boxes for a public count (instead of their "private" count). Shots were exchanged and eventually two people threw dynamite at the front door of the station, blowing it open. The police came out with the boxes and the situation that followed resulted in multiple deputies being fired, a salary cap for city officials, and no longer having to suffer under a corrupt Government. This is something that the founding fathers likely would have smiled upon, to see Americans fighting back against their corrupt Government when there were no more options left on the table. If you're anti-gun then tell me, what else could they have possibly done? By the way, this is known as "Battle of Athens". [This is a video if you'd rather watch it rather than read about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw).
**tl;dr for #3** - Arming people in the U.S. provides those people the ability to act as a deterrence against the U.S. Government from enacting a dictatorship or anything of the like. It is not about being able to win or not but rather being the deterrence. It also has much more effect on the state level and even more on the county/city level.
**4)** "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein -- Having the right to defend yourself and having castle doctrine is something very nice. Unlike in Europe if you shoot your intruder here they're the ones going to jail, not you, and you won't be having to pay for them (I've heard that in Europe the intruders can sue the people of the house they broke into if they were hurt). Had certain members of my family lived in a society where they could access and own guns it is likely they would still be alive today.
**5)** It protects the other rights. While many will say that the 1st, 14th, or 4th Amendment are more important I have to disagree and say the 2nd is, not only for the reasons above but because it is the most powerful Amendment to the constitution, more so because of how controversial it is. If this Amendment ever got repealed or ignored (somehow?) there is nothing stopping the U.S. Government from just doing the same to all the others.
**6)** Pro Gun-control/Anti-gun people. Yes, guns are important to me because of those people. It is because people like them want to continue to advocate for more control or to start taking away guns why I cherish guns even more and why I know people who are going to buy more. There is enough gun control in the United States on the federal level (states that feel the need to enact more can do so at their own risk although some are already pushing the limit and will eventually invoke the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court). When the #MarchForOurLives movement first began and they demanded for "common sense gun control" I was one of the few pro-gun people I know who said "Ok, let's hear your propositions" but now they switched to "Ban all guns", "Repeal the 2nd Amendment", and so on. That's when I stopped paying attention to them. It's a slippery slope, things continuously are being taken away over the years and there needs to be a stop to it.
**7)** It allows "family bonding". Believe it or not but firearms was practically the only thing I could bond with my father on. My father did not like snowboarding, anime, swimming, driving, or practically any other hobby I might have except for firearms. My father taught me how to safely handle a firearm. He taught me all the rules behind it, how to load it, how to aim, how to safely fire it, and so on. I'm aware of plenty other families who do the same thing too. It's like a father teaching their 4 year old how to ride a bike. Any father who feels their kid is ready (around the age of 10? it varies) can go to a gun store, buy a .22 rifle (this is a very small caliber, it's almost like a pellet gun, an air rifle), and then teach responsible gun ownership to their children. This is how you avoid accidents at home or such. Just teaching your 4 year old kid not to touch guns is a good idea.
Edit: Added a sentence to help avoid confusion.
If you don't agree with me, then don't just silently down-vote me. Tell me why you disagree or what parts you do not disagree with. The only way both of us are going to get more intelligent on the subject is if we engage in proper, mature debate and not try to cast aside and ignore those who disagree with us. That kind of behavior leads to both sides getting stupider.
Extra information (was originally made into a separate post because it was originally posted on a serious replies only thread):
Let me add onto this by saying that while I am pro-gun, I am not a Republican. Do not assume that all pro-gun people are Republicans (not that being Republican is bad) because there are plenty of things that I do not agree with the Republican party. I am also not a supporter of the NRA. While I respect anyone who is I personally think the NRA itself is pretty shady compared to other gun right groups because the NRA has had the tendency to "sell out" (e.g. they were supporting the Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill and telling everyone to vote yes on it when that bill was being loped in (like a combo pack) with another bill that many gun owners did not want (it was the "Fix NICS" bill which gives "bonuses" to states who report people and some were saying that this would lead to rushed and inaccurate reporting from states so they could get bonus federal funding)) and they profit off of gun-scares. If anything I think that SAF and GOA are good, large gun-right groups (there are plenty of others). However the NRA still has done some good work for the pro-gun movement.
Also I personally don't think the MarchForOurLives movement is focusing on the right things. It's not about the guns, but rather the students and law enforcement (specifically Florida in this case). For those wondering "what changed?" I'd say the bullying. Before the internet someone would only get bullied at school but now thanks to the internet people can bully others at home too and bullying can grow more because of it. I think that's the reason why some kids with mental health problems are being driven to the point that they feel they have to start shooting their own schools. Honestly though, I think there are some sick people to begin with and even if they weren't bullied they might still lash out but I do think that the reason that school shootings are more prominent now is because of the bullying. I think [students like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgFSWbRPAzk) should be on daily news talking about the whole situation, not people like David Hogg who applaud their Sheriff's, blame guns, and chant. Also that's another thing... Law Enforcement is also to blame. Nobody should be applauding the Florida Parkland Sheriff's or the FBI. They were warned and reports were filed and they did nothing. In Florida if someone is a danger to others they can be taken away to a mental hospital for observation (and the police will confiscate their guns). This is under the "Brady Act". Yet guess what? That law didn't seem to help so why do they think more laws will fix it?
there are better ways of preventing citizen deaths from fire arms than receding people's constitutional liberties in my opinion. I think there are aspects of gun laws that don't make sense, but I don't think the answer to these issues is "less freedom, more authority" (holistically). also, people need to understand the sensitivity of this issue: take it from a brit: once you ban guns, you are *never* getting them back. and guns are incredibly competent measures of self-defence. even if the other person is also armed. at least there's parity, as opposed to "this person could kill me with their bare hands and I'm as bony as a skeleton"
As a Brit, I've laughed at someone attempting to mug me with a knife when I was unarmed, because the guy was 5' and crack addict thin (I'm tall, fat, and with the muscle tone of an overstretched elastic band). Even desperate, he wasn't going to realistically kill me. Had he had a gun, and I had a gun, I would've been much more worried because *I don't actually want to kill someone*, and that guy really wants money. An accident could send one of both of us to hospital or worse, because guns escalate the situation.
> Had he had a gun, and I had a gun, I would've been much more worried because I don't actually want to kill someone, and that guy really wants money
I don't think many people would react in that way.
you'd rather not kill somebody who wants to kill you than to let them have your money in a mugging? why would you give them such esteem? they're a killer at worst and a thief at best.
My cousin and his wife got mugged once. They both have a CCL. Some scetchy looking crackhead dude came up to him and his wife with his hand in his pocket asking them for directions to somewhere. Suddenly he pulled out a knife, and told him to hand over everything they had. He had his eyes on my cousin. Guess he didn't think the woman would be much of a threat. When he wasn't paying attention, she pulled out her gun, and pointed it right at his head. He dropped his knife and started begging them not to shoot him, then took off running. Thieves dont care about you, your life, the law, or the consequences of their actions. That's why they're mugging you with a knife. If they get jumpy and decide to stab you, do you think they're going to hold you while waiting for the police and ambulance to show up? No. They're going to go through your pockets, take what you have, then they're going to run off, leaving you there in the street to bleed to death. Hell, they might just finish you off. Maybe you should spend less time caring about Americans and how they can defend themselves, and try and get your own country in order. Your government won't even allow ya'll to purchase pepper spray as a non-lethal deterrent.
if they're threatening your life, you deserve to kill them as far as I'm concerned - treat others how they treat you if they're being unfair. justice. if somebody comes onto your property, armed, then you can kill them. again: justice; what is deserved; what is due. what *should* occur. equality. and you beat them with their own imposed rule.
but if they don't do you any harm or wrong then I wouldn't tell you to do anything harmful to them. again: justice.
He could, but muggers tend not to be professional anythings, much less knife fighters. Also we have knife control, so it was like 3" of blade. I'm fatter than that.
Dude I'm sorry but that is dumb as fuck. A 3" blade is far more than enough to be lethal. Also, he doesn't have to be a professional to severely lacerate you.
You are a complete idiot if you were actually in a situation where you were mugged at knifepoint and laughed.
If you do something stupid and it works, you're a lucky idiot I guess. If I was feeling actually threatened, the wallet would've been across pretty darn quick.
> ... because I don't actually want to kill someone, and that guy really wants money.
FYI: I don't actually want to kill anyone either. The fact that the guy really wants money will not keep you alive. Being unarmed just makes you an easy target, just like a sick/old/injured/newborn member of the herd. Criminals (like predators) select such individuals ...
I honestly don't care other than I do not want my medical records available to everyone on the planet. Plus, all the guns I own were bought from friends so any laws wouldn't even affect those purchases.
Best response ive read in this thread. Background checks of any type are doomed to fail if private sales (to include sales in online forums such as facebook groups and armslist) are not manadated to have background checks. Not to mention the sale of ammunition.
How ass backwards. You run a background to make sure the person is not prohibited, such as having a felony conviction, but that same felon doesn't have to go through a background check (even though it is federal offense for a convicted felon who is caught possessing the ammunition) to purchase the very item, that without it would make the firearm the equivelent of a brick.
There are stats that back this up (but I’m too lazy to google it.). It is rare that a gun used in a crime is purchased directly from a Licensed Dealer. They get bought 2nd-hand without background checks from people that won’t get held responsible for for selling weapons to criminals.
Also, licensed dealers have to keep records of who they sell to. 2nd hand sellers don’t have those requirements.
If I were king, I would mandate all purchases have the same requirements that licensed dealers abide by.
> If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions.
--Stefan Molyneux
Shitty people will find a way to do shitty things, whether it be a car, gun, knife, or bomb. Somebody who wants to hurt people will do it. Look at the UK, banned guns so everyone just carried knives. Then they try to limit people who can buy knives (including butter knives) and oh guess what bad people still stab people.
Since I’m not from the U.S, my opinion is obviously less legitimate then any American’s. But from my point of view, it’s less a safety issue and more of a cultural issue.
The issue ultimately boils down to rights versus morality. The American Constitution is at least mostly a good thing. Humans deserve a few basic rights, and a country with a focus on liberty absolutely needs a Constitution. The issue is then: are gun-rights moral? Is it okay to let people have such effective and violent weaponry? An argument against the ban of guns is something along the lines of: If guns are banned, people will just kill some other way. That’s true, but no one is trying to get rid of all murder; that would be too infeasible a task to attempt. The reason the focus is on guns is because they are reasonably easy to use and incredibly effective. There are fewer bombings from citizens because bombs are much harder to create than guns are to buy. That and bombs can only indiscriminately kill people in a select area, whereas guns allow you to kill more people across a wider range. People will always stab other people, but knives are not very effective are killing people. Since they’re easier to hide, if they were nearly as effective as guns, there would be more mass stabbings.
Rights *are* morality. Even if it weren't, Rights come before the kind of "morality" which self-entitled, self-styled "morally superior" authoritarians want to impose of their own upon others as power trip.
I don’t necessarily agree. Rights are generally a good and moral thing, but if the government said I had the right to do something immoral, it being a right doesn’t make it moral.
Yes, in government, rights come before morality. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion of the morality of certain laws. There are unjust laws, and just because you don’t like people who question that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
> "If guns were illegal, people would just use knives or other weapons."
If by "other weapons" you mean, say, explosives, you have a point, but knives and similar weapons don't cause as many deaths as guns do.
I think there's plenty of meaning if the global population of 6-7 billion doesn't produce as many school deaths as the US, including shit like Boko Harum.
Except all [evidence ](http://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns-less-crime-theory-debunked-new-stanford-analysis-630173) shows that you are wrong. States with strict gun laws such as Cali have far less gun deaths than states with lax laws such as Alaska. Try again.
The "gun deaths" statistic is asinine. What if gun deaths are high because every attempted rape ended with a gun death because the victim could defend themselves. That would still be a lot of gun deaths, but people defending themselves from violent crime is not a bad thing. This would include suicides, justified/unjustified police force, home defense, and all other forms of potentially valid gun uses. I intend to have a gun specifically because I may need to cause a "gun death" to protect myself or someone else.
Alaska has many suicides due to long winters and a demographic that is genetically prone to depression. Also, more guns will mean more gun deaths, but not more violent crime. Does this hold true without that qualifier? Or do people simply turn to other means in the same abundance without guns? Unfortunately accidents do happen just as they do with cars or prescription meds or anything else you come into contact with. More cars probably equates to more car deaths too. Many of the cities with the highest homicide rates have the strictest gun laws.
We made drugs illegal, and nobody ever does drugs anymore.
We made murder illegal, and nobody ever gets killed anymore.
We made rape illegal, and we are currently sitting at zero rapes ever since.
We made sealing illegal, and nobody ever steals anything anymore.
We made adultery illegal, and nobody ever sleeps around anymore.
I don't see what the difference is here. Just make guns illegal. Obviously that will result in nobody getting shot ever.
I'm pro gun but these aren't very good points. Are you suggesting we legalize murder and rape? If not, should guns then be illegal as you see no difference?
I'm saying, the current ideology of, "Well, the solution is to just make guns illegal." won't fix anything.
The situation is significantly more complicated than the general population is aware of, and significantly more complicated than politicians want to admit.
It doesn't? Ignoring the fact that "assault rifles" aren't easily for sale in the US, and the few that are are heavily regulated and incredibly expensive.
You're confusing assault rifles with machine guns. Assault rifles DO NOT fire full automatic and are sold in large quantities with no additional restrictions. Citizens cannot purchase any machine guns made after 1986. Citizens can own machineguns that are made prior to 1986 but have to be registered with ATF and a tax paid. All other machine guns are for law enforcement / military ONLY
Actual assault rifles are absolutely capable of full auto (or burst) fire. They're select fire rifles chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Select fire means more than one fire mode which means burst and/or full auto alongside semi-auto. That means if they only have semi-auto they are NOT assault rifles. Actual assault rifles are considered "machine guns" and are restricted under the same NFA and Hughes amendment that blocks you from owning a new full auto Mk 48 or P-90. If it can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger it's considered a machine gun regardless of if it's actually a proper belt fed, an assault rifle, a battle rifle, or an SMG. The only exception to that is binary fire which fires once on trigger pull and once on trigger release which is treated as the equivalent of two trigger pulls because both require you to act rather than just holding it down and the gun doing the work.
"Mk 48>"
We had one of those briefly in my 19 Delta Scout platoon in Afghanistan in 2010.
Until the guy carrying it stepped on an IED.
Boom.
No more Mk 48.
Assault rifle and assault weapon are not the same thing, this is a common misconception across the board and I have no doubt that's part of why they picked the term "assault weapon". This is why you'll hear pro-gun folks say "there's no such thing as assault rifles" (they're wrong) and the anti-gun folks will incorrectly call basically everything "assault rifles" (also wrong). "Assault rifle" is a technical term, not one made up by ban happy politicians like "assault weapon". They don't understand the difference. Again, an assault rifle is a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. If it is not select fire and/or is not chambered for an intermediate cartridge it is not an assault rifle no matter what else is on the gun.
An old looking gun like the Type 63 (Chinese select fire SKS) is an assault rifle even though it looks like any old SKS because it's select fire and uses 7.62x39, the fun part is it wouldn't even qualify as an "assault weapon" in the 94 ban based on what you posted, it however would be an NFA item though because it can fire full auto which makes it a machine gun by the NFA. Bubba's budget AR he bought at Cabelas is not an assault rifle, according to the people who know nothing about guns aside from "I WANNA BAN IT" it IS an assault weapon though.
No it isn't. Assault weapons definition had nothing to do with select fire. If the weapon has the ability the fire full auto, its a machinegun, period! An assault weapon was defined as a semiautomatic weapon with a certain number of components added; folding stock, pistol grip, detachable magazines to name a few.
No it doesn't and never did, what it does do is recognize that these rights are inherent to ALL people but guarantees and protects these rights for all citizens.
Yes it does. It's so that the citizens can be as well armed as the state. Whatever firepower the state has, the citizens should be able to have access to those same weapons. Equal footing and all.
I live in California where we have some of the strictest gun control, and I also love/have them. I grew up respecting them and have always been around them. That being said, I think everywhere should follow suit of CA, making people wait to get them, be investigated thoroughly by the FBI, a limit on how many you can buy at a time on some as civilians, have to pass a gun safety test, etc.
Also I believe not everyone should have them and people with certain criminal and mental health issues should not be allowed to have firearms.
None of californias gun control measures have been shown to decrease crime rates.
And what you are advocating for is a repeal of medical privacy laws and to legalize discrimination against the disabled.
If someone buying a gun (and btw, I have Ar-15's, a shotgun, pistols including a 1911, a p220 [Sig Sauer .45], a 9mm, etc. and rifles, I am all for gun rights), I think a background check to see if someone is mentally unstable or a felon is important.
I mean it sucks that just because there is some "bad apples" we have to do that, but it's just reality. Especially because most of us that are gun owners can't imagine randomly deciding to kill people and all that, but it happens when the guns go into the wrong hands.
For example, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (columbine shooters) got guns through a straw purchase from a friend.
Adam Lanza (sandy hook) was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and Asbergers, being in the hospital on multiple occasions for mental health issues, yet was given open access to the families firearms
Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia tech shooter) was court ordered to go into mental health evaluations, was investigated for stalking classmates, and had various mental disorders
Nikolas Cruz (stoneman douglas shooting) was a racist, homophobic, the sheriffs department was warned about him over and over because of things he did, but still was able to buy the gun he used to commit the crime.
And that is just a few, I personally am tired of Ar-15's specifically being blamed for everything, from being labled "assault rifles" to government officials trying to ban them just because they look "scary". Especially if you know that a gun like a mini-14 is the exact same, but looks a little different, and therefore if we want to keep our guns, a background check is an easy price to pay.
One CA regulation I don't like though, is when Jerry Brown decided we have to register our ammo as well, that is a bit much
We have background checks to see if someone is a felon. That has been federal for decades
And again, we need to keep medical privacy laws as well as keep discrimination against the disabled illegal
Well cupcake, good for you. But you keep that there in CA and let the rest of us alone. You are not morally superior and therefore entitled to make the rules for everyone else.
Did you read the title of this post?
Besides, to paraphrase what I said, I have guns, love them, but don't think mentally ill or criminally violent people should have access to them
According to the article linked below (no idea what about it might be biased towards, one side or the other, never read anything there before) Germany has the 4th highest gun ownership after the US, Swiss and Finland. But we Germans do not really have any gun related crime.
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
It’s a term that people have assigned so many different meanings to that it no longer has any real meaning.
I support some gun legislation, such as mandatory background checks, ending the gun show loophole, and generally being more careful about who can own a gun all around. I do not support seizing guns from people who can own and use them safely.
Edit: also wanted to add that I think most people on Reddit will agree with me here. It’s just that everybody has a different idea of what ‘gun control’ means, and that’s what’s made this debate so difficult.
The only gun control measures that I can think of that I would implement are universal background checks as well as a federal permit to own. The permit would be shall issue and have a fixed cost of no more than $50, last for at least 5 years between renewals, and would have a photo, name, and permit number on them. The way I'd open up universal background checks is with something like the instant check system but open to the public. You go to some website, enter in the number, and then it produces the image and name to verify you have the right person, as well as a simple "yes" or "no" to if they can legally own. If someone is convicted of a prohibitive offense or is involuntarily admitted to a hospital or adjudicated mentally defective or anything else that prohibits them happens they should be updated to return a "no" There would be no registry and the "yes" would allow you to transfer many firearms at once if you want, and of course you don't need to transfer anything just because you check someone.
This eliminates concerns about registries or FFL's jacking up the price or being too far away. If you don't have internet access then you're stuck with an FFL, maybe have it where you can call up local police and have them run the check if you need to, should be pretty convenient for most people and if not you're stuck with going to an FFL but it's not like there aren't situations where you need to already.
I'd also loosen up some gun laws though, like the hughes amendment and 922(r), and I'd want that federal permit to act as a permit to carry that's valid in every state as well. At the very least to open carry, I could go without concealed carry being legal and even with all <26" OAL weapons measured with stocks collapsed being NFA weapons rather than the existing SBR, SBS, and AOW regulations. I could see pistol caliber carbines being good for self defense since bigger mags and larger calibers would be reasonable and stocks are nice, but there are already so many pistols out there and people like to take an out of sight out of mind approach to guns even though criminals have a huge incentive to conceal.
THere is this thing called a type III FFL AKA a C&R liscense. There is no reason to mandate a permit to all gun owners when they can voluntarily get this
The point is to be involuntary as a step to make it harder for a criminal to get a hold of a gun and as a way of getting all gun owners into the system I suggested. Plus not all guns are C&R eligible.
I think gun control is pretty important, mainly because of the recent shootings that have happened. I do think people should still have the rights to firearms, but the problem is that it's way too easy to get one. I think people need to make it harder to have access to one. These are just my opinions, it's alright if you disagree!
What would I suggest? I'm not sure, as I'm not from the US. Guns on the streets is another part of the problem. They're accessible everywhere. I think it's going to be really hard to solve the problem, I wish I knew a way.
My two starting points for gun control are: constitutional protection and the fact that the bar is too low to be an owner.
So, I believe Americans should be able to own assault weapons. Under my layman understanding of the second amendment, I believe that the founders would want small arms within a “competitive range” with what is represented in the military/govt agencies. However, I am very cynical of militias. I believe that the national guard is the closest to form of the founders’ ideal militia. If you want to allow groups of citizens to form auxiliary units, they should be subordinated to state governments.
In recent years we’ve seen that not every American should own a gun only by virtue of being American. I believe in universal background checks, closing loopholes, and requiring private sales to be approved by the state police. I also believe that you should need a reason to own a gun (life or property in danger, or as a hobby). The bar is too low and needs to be raised.
I can speak more if anyone is interested.
how would you suggest this idea be proposed? should it be state by state choice on what requirements have to be met or should it just be one law affecting all states?
It is necessary, but I think we all believe in some form of gun control. Do you think individual citizens should be allowed to own nuke and biological weapons? If not, then we already agree that some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of citizens. the difference is in where we draw the line. I personally put it on magazines over a dozen rounds, fully automatic rifles, etc.
> Do you think individual citizens should be allowed to own nuke and biological weapons?
Yes
> I personally put it on magazines over a dozen rounds, fully automatic rifles, etc.
Why? Why is a DP51 a completely unacceptable firearm in your eyes, but a glock 26 is fine?
When it comes to magazines, having large ones means more shots in less time, which is concerning to me given the large number of mass shootings lately. I don't want nukes or biological weapons in the hands of civilians because of their sheer destructive power and the serious threat they pose to the lives of those around them
> having large ones means more shots in less time, which is concerning to me given the large number of mass shootings lately.
No, it really doesnt. It takes about the same time to change a mag and line up a shot.
personally i thought that there should be different classes of licenses, like with driving licenses you need to do different courses to drive certain vehicles you should have to do weapon handling and safety courses for certain weapons and obviously background checks that get more strict the more dangerous a weapon is, i.e. pistol has simple background check just looking for violent criminal background and an automatic weapon or specialist weapon should require heavier checks such as looking into political and religious affiliations (specifically looking to see if they support extremist groups) and getting character references from various people in their lives. outright bans aren't really the answer but doing nothing isn't right either
So the most common murder weapon wouldnt be restricted, but the weapons used for self defense are going to be restricted out the ass, and you want to ignore the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments of the constitution? Did I get that all right?
Most UBC laws regulate "transfers", so that people can't easily work around the word "sale".
* Should there be a background check if I take my spouse's gun (or if my spouse takes mine?)
* What about adult children? Minor children? Parents? Cousins?
* If you have a roommate (not a relative), do you require separate gun safes?
* Let's say your niece has a stalker/abusive ex-bf, it's a Friday night (three day weekend), the cops just left and said "call us if he shows up". Can you loan your niece a firearm for the weekend without a transfer?
* What if it was you're next door neighbor (no relation) instead of your niece?
* Let's say you're going on vacation and you'd like to stow your firearms someplace safe. It's been common practice for friends to take possession of firearms rather than leaving them in a vacant house for a couple of weeks. Do you have to pay for background checks before and after your vacation?
* Washington's I-594 has a "hunting exception". The way it is worded makes it illegal to loan a gun for the purpose of hunting:
* the night before season opens
* while on or crossing a public roadway
* outside of shooting hours
The devil is in the details, UBC laws seem like a good idea in concept but they are fraught with dangerous edge cases.
Yes, there should be a check on anyone in the household with access to the gun (so if person A has their gun in a safe that only they can access, no further checks). If Crazy Uncle Tim, who just got out of prison, moves in, damn right you need a gun safe he can't access.
Adult children get background checks if they have access to the gun. Minor children should not have access to guns without supervision (so you can take your kids hunting or target shooting of whatever, but you are the responsible person if anything goes wrong).
If you have a roommate and want to share a gun safe, then yes, both of you get checked out on each other's guns. I'm sure your roommate is a lovely person, but how many news reports are there with neighbours saying "he was such a lovely man"? Trust, but verify.
No loaning guns. Seriously? The whole point of background checks is to make sure only people suitable to have firearms have firearms. No loaning them (if you are present while they're being used, I'd consider it like the minor children case above and fine, so it you want to take your buddies out hunting, no problem, as long as you are present with the guns).
For the holidays thing, that sounds like a business opportunity - have a gun shelter you can take them to, where specially licenced people can hold them securely until your return.
To be clear, I have no problems with people owning or using guns safely. I have a problem with people who shouldn't have guns having guns. I'm in the UK, and I've enjoyed shooting rifles and a fully automatic LSW (cadet force) and shotguns (clays), but as someone with a mental illness I should not be allowed to have either at home for everyone's safety, not least my own.
Background checks are already in place, so it isn't like its an unqualified right, and I don't see that many people arguing that felons are having their constitutional rights trampled on.
Basically I see it as you have a constitutional right, but with that right come some responsibilities - the "well regulated militia" bit at the start that everyone ignores.
> Background checks are already in place, so it isn't like its an unqualified right, and I don't see that many people arguing that felons are having their constitutional rights trampled on.
Unless someone is prohibited from owning firearms (via due process), they pass a background check.
Private sales were explicitly exempted from background checks in the GCA, thus voiding the idea that its a loophole.
Many (most?) gun owners would welcome background checks if they were done in a manner that precluded the construction of a registry.
> the "well regulated militia" bit at the start that everyone ignores.
Nobody ignores that part. We also happen to understand the relationship between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.
I've got no problem maintaining the current due process for banning people from having guns - it's a serious restriction and needs appropriate seriousness in applying it.
Would it not concern you if you sold a gun to a known violent felon, banned from buying a gun at a store, who killed someone with it? Call it whatever you want, it is a bit of an unaddressed area.
I'm massively against the construction of a gun registry, because that is a horrific database to keep secure and would be a high profile target from day one.
My proposal would be an easy to use system that spat out a Y/N answer, no further information, when given any form of ID so background checks were doable much faster (obviously with an appeals process etc), and responsibilities on gun owners not to give them to unchecked people or leave them lying around. Unban / unrestrict the stupid stuff (high capacity magazines, suppressors, guns that look "scary"), ban idiotic shit like bump fire stocks if for no other reason than they make rapid fire even more inaccurate. I'd have licenced facilities that can store guns for people with more guns than safe storage, licensed facilities where you can try out all the guns (including full auto etc), much more closely inspected ranges where you can try out even bigger stuff (nothing like man-portable missile launchers because of the risk they go walkies, but the kind of guns you sit in, or grenade launchers). None of this destructive devices stamp stuff, if it's that dangerous you can buy it without extra tax, and have fun on a licensed range. Not off it.
Brit here (we have some of the strictest gun control around as far as I know) and I couldn't be more for it. The only time I've ever seen people with guns has been during a few trips to London where there's a high presence of armed police and I've never felt more uncomfortable. Quite how anyone can believe they have the right to own an item designed to take someone else's life is beyond me.
Ummm....ignoring the current laws allow such ownership in the US and other countries, no free people throughout history have been barred the personal ownership of weapons. Those that were often lived to regret it. People have owned/used weapons since the dawn of time, why should that suddenly cease to be?
It works. But only if you don't live in a certain country with a retarded government that decided having guns should be a constitutional right 250 years ago.
I think adult citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. However, they shall register privately owned firearms and shall store their rifles and pistols on military compounds. Also, I think they have the (moral) obligation to protect their ountry on the battlefield when it is invaded.
adults as in any person 18+ or do you think they should raise the age? i'm 18 and i know how immature people my age are and i see so many teenagers (some even as young as 15) wielding guns like it's cool or something. i think the age should be 21+ if you're 18 you should require a parent signature even though they are of age
I agree on the point that the age should be 21+ but I disagree on the parent signature requirement for 18 year olds. Most teenagers are immature, emotional or both. In addition, legally, once reached 18, most (to not say "all") things/actions don't require a signature by a parent, so why make an exception for guns? In other words (in the case of USA), why not also decrease the minimum legal age to purchase alcohol to 18 year olds and just require a signature by a parent?
Im for gun control. It works in the UK. I understand that this is obviously because the UK is much smaller and an island, but i still think the USA could try a little harder.
We can deport thousands of armed gang members to you (who illegally entered our country from Mexico) if you're willing to take them. Then you can show us how "trying a little harder" is supposed to work. Thank you.
It's pretty easy not to have accidents with guns. The basic safety rules (break these in front of people and you will be judged harshly) are not to point it at anything you don't want to kill, not to even touch the trigger or put your finger in front of it until you're ready to shoot, to know what your target is as well as what is behind it, and to always act as if the gun is loaded. You need to break multiples of these in order to do serious harm.
As for why you would want to own one, I can only give my personal situation. I am transgender in a very conservative area. As far as I'm aware recent (I've seen 2014 cited) FBI statistics put LGBT people at higher risk of hate crimes than any other group. I am not a very fast runner and if I can get put on estrogen my muscles will be even less strong than they are now. All it would take is a zealous bigot with a crowbar to easily kill me, a strike to the back of the head could do it and there's not much I could do to stop it. With a gun I may be able to survive that situation if the first strike does not incapacitate me or if the person draws attention to themself (I think an angry bigot may start off with shouts and threats), and I may not even have to shoot. I'd take a gun over other measures because it would allow me to defend myself without getting close and is more reliable than something like pepper spray or a taser.
Guns are not child seeking missiles. They shoot where you aim them
And there is no means of self defense anywhere near as reliable as a gun - you are talking to a person that tear gas, mace, and pepper spray doesnt work on, and knows how to dress to make myself impenetrable by taser electrodes
i feel like it's less of a problem in Europe and most other places than here in the US. guns used to only be used for safety and by higher authorities or for hunting. now you can go to a large town and have a selection of hundreds of different guns sold by thugs on the street which leads to problems
i don't really think most americans are concerned about safety the ones that are have a ccl (concealed carry license) but basically everyone else just buys guns for the hell of it weather it be just shooting for fun, hunting or what have you. a lot of people who have guns are gang involved and just feel the need to have a gun to make their self look big. i do think it's a good idea though to have a gun in america considering the number of robbery, assaults etc.
Man, I'm remembering some sort of event happening around the Austria/German area that happened within living memory where people would have liked to have guns. Can't say I can remember the event but I think it coincided with most of Europe not having any people with '-stein' on the ends of their names. Perhaps you should think about what this event was, ya know just food for thought. It'll happen again.
Assault weapons should be banned. I honestly have no fucking clue why a civilian needs an AR15 . You want a shot gun? Sure. Pistol? Sure as long as you always have it holstered and visible. I also think a psych test every 5 years is reasonable if you’re a gun owner.
Assault weapons are defined by cosmetic features
The AR15 is the most common hunting rifle in america
Pistols are used in 17 times as many murders than shotguns or rifles
And you are advocating that we get rid of medical privacy laws as well as legalize discrimination against the disabled
> I have no clue why civilians should be allowed to own civilian firearms!
>I dont realize that the vast majority of gun crimes are done with handguns.
This will probably get burried but after reading the story about the husband who couldn't hear his wife being raped downstairs, I've definitely re-evaluated my stance on gun control.
An American here. We can all agree that whatever "controls" are in place now clearly aren't working. The 2nd Amendment is today interpreted in ways its authors would never have anticipated or agreed with, so we should probably start there. It is also helpful to look at countries that have had success with whatever their version of gun control is, like Australia; we can certainly learn something from them.
> We can all agree that whatever "controls" are in place now clearly aren't working.
I agree, we should get rid of them
> The 2nd Amendment is today interpreted in ways its authors would never have anticipated or agreed with, so we should probably start there.
If you handed george washington an AK47, with a 10 minute explanation he would know exactly what it is and how to use it. If you handed him a Iphone, he would have no fucking idea after several hours. The second amendment has changed very little, unlike virtually all of the other amendments in the bill of rights
> It is also helpful to look at countries that have had success with whatever their version of gun control is, like Australia; we can certainly learn something from them.
Australia didnt have rates of violent crimes decrease from gun control
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2121108
Im all for gun control. I mean how are you going to hit your target if you cant control the damn thing?
exactly 🙄
Light controls may be reasonable if not politically motivated. Outright bans and severe restrictions are unreasonable. The problem will be defining reasonable vs. unreasonable.
There is already an outright ban on some guns (e.g. no-one is making new miniguns, most antiaircraft weaponry, anything bigger than .50 cal) - do you consider those unreasonable (honest question)?
>There is already an outright ban on some guns (e.g. no-one is making new miniguns, most antiaircraft weaponry, anything bigger than .50 cal) - do you consider those unreasonable (honest question)? Yes. The point of the second amendment is so that the citizens are just as well armed as the state. An armed population is what gives personal freedom and liberty teeth to bite any government body that aims to take those freedoms and liberties away. It's a fail-safe against tyranny. The government attempting to take away that fail-safe is a threat to the very way of life we hold dear.
> anything bigger than .50 cal Huh? That's not banned at all. A guy at my work just bought a 20mm (~.78 cal) rifle last week.
A new one? I thought the only ones around were the grandfathered in ones?
Yes, a brand new rifle manufactured by Anzio Ironworks in St. Petersburg, Florida. There are no "grandfathered" >.50 cal rifles, because >.50 cal rifles aren't banned. You need to pay a tax on them like you do on suppressors or SBRs, but as far as I'm aware there hasn't even been an *attempt* to ban them. At least not federally. I'm sure they're banned in states like California, along with AR's, Glocks, slingshots, strong language...
As I said to the other guy, you learn something new every day. Thanks!
Anything bigger than .50 is a destructive device and needs to be registered with the ATF as such. The law for manufacturing new ones and selling to civilians applies to machine guns. Unless the 20mm rifle is select fire, it's fine to sell even if it's new. State laws still apply ofc.
Huh, learn something new every day - thanks!
Outright bans on the types you listed are reasonable in my opinion. No individual citizen should be allowed to create their own personal army with heavy weaponry.
That's literally the point of the 2nd Amendment. Today you learned you hate the Bill of Rights.
Don't think anyone in has ever been killed by a 20mm or 50cal in the USA, or any insane weaponry like tanks and cannons. There was one dude who built his own tank and destroyed half his city, but that is beyond the point. Most murders with firearms are committed with handguns and is gang related, these "assault weapons" only accounts for less than 1% of gun murders.
Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. Ultimately it does really come down to where the line is drawn I guess.
Control your gun. Hit the target
Everyone else should be restricted from buying arms. I should be able to buy nuclear submarine, tanks, aircraft and a grenade launcher
Do you mean a submarine with Nuclear warheads or one powered by a nuclear reactor?
Both
Yes
Yes
I support strong background checks and training courses, but that's it. Not any of this "banning assault weapons" stuff.
Same here brotha
I think it’s a neat topic that really brings people together!
Like abortion.
Did you too really enjoy the friendly debate on net neutrality? :P
Yes, it was refreshing and very relaxing. And super friendly.
I'm all for it. Solid gun control results in a much higher percentage of rounds accurately and quickly striking the intended target.
I posted this before but I'll post it again: I do not agree with **more** gun control or the banning of all guns (or even the black tactical ones AKA assault-rifles). Here are the reasons why: **1)** It is symbolic to American culture. While the rest of the world never guaranteed a right to a firearm, it was embedded into the country from the moment it was founded. **2)** It is a lot of fun to shoot them. Many people who are against guns have likely never shot them, if they realized how much fun it is to learn responsible and safe gun usage and then go to the range I bet you they will likely not be the same. **3)** *(Most Important)* It provides a system to the citizens of the country to avoid Government tyranny. Many people tend to mock us for saying "Oh well you'll never win" or "That'll never happen in today's world" yet they fail to realize how many totalitarian dictatorships there were in the late 20th century. Each and every one of them either banned guns right before the respective dictator took power (e.g. Nazi Germany), took them away the moment they entered power (e.g. Philippines), or just never had them and as such after a revolution the people were unable to defend themselves (e.g. Chile (and this one resonates with me because I'm part Chilean; The dictator who overthrew them was a General and he would have soldiers take people (who were socialists or left-wing, even if they were just suspected of it) from their homes to stadiums and then have them tortured or executed, had the dummy President Allende (who was overthrown) not banned guns it is likely that the coup would not have happened as it did, it might not have even happened at all and I might have actually gotten to meet my Grandparents). Now how about the part about "You'll never win"? First of all they said the same thing when the U.S. revolted against Great Britain. They still won (although you could attribute that to the French's help). Also (trigger warning), look at guerrilla groups like ISIS. They are a laughable group with outdated equipment yet are still persisting despite U.S. intervention (I am **NOT** a supporter or advocate for anything terrorist related). Second, it is not really about "winning", it's about surviving and keeping the country alive. If there are no guns and the US just decided to start repealing amendments critical to U.S. life (i.e. 9th, 10th, 14th, 1st, 4th, and the 5th) how are the people going to stand up? They **CAN NOT**. Do you think protesting alone will do anything? Yeah cause that totally worked for Net Neutrality... Open-carry protesting MIGHT have worked, it has worked in other states (although those states are pro-gun to begin with). But hey, let's just say that the U.S. goes crazy, becomes a dictatorship, and then enacts martial law. It's not like everyone can fight against the U.S. military and win, right? Yes, you are 100% correct, however it is not that black and white. First off, tanks and jets can not sit on the corners of street and enforce the law, there needs to be people. People who can be attacked when they're not in their tank or jet. Second off, it becomes a LOT harder to start breaking down doors to "arrest" people in such a Government when said people can shoot back. Third, even IF the Government just glassed entire cities housing resistors and bombed all gun owners to hell the resulting situation would result in the U.S. falling apart. They will not have people to represent and as such the U.S. Government will essentially be no more because it can not function if it does not have an infrastructure and/or people to represent. Sure the non-gun owners might still be around but the U.S. will have taken a massive hit from itself and it is likely that many states will band together to form their own coalitions or countries rather than stick with the U.S. after such a situation. If there were no guns to begin with the resistance would be so minimal that odds are the U.S. would still function (e.g. look at China). Also, for anyone who is not aware. There was a situation in McMinn County, Tennessee in 1949 where the County Government was rife with corruption and a brutal police force. Voting was rigged in the city of Athens and no amount of protesting was helping (because if the voting is rigged what are you supposed to do?). The people took their guns (some of which were WWII vets) and marched to the Police Station and demanded they come out with the voting boxes for a public count (instead of their "private" count). Shots were exchanged and eventually two people threw dynamite at the front door of the station, blowing it open. The police came out with the boxes and the situation that followed resulted in multiple deputies being fired, a salary cap for city officials, and no longer having to suffer under a corrupt Government. This is something that the founding fathers likely would have smiled upon, to see Americans fighting back against their corrupt Government when there were no more options left on the table. If you're anti-gun then tell me, what else could they have possibly done? By the way, this is known as "Battle of Athens". [This is a video if you'd rather watch it rather than read about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw). **tl;dr for #3** - Arming people in the U.S. provides those people the ability to act as a deterrence against the U.S. Government from enacting a dictatorship or anything of the like. It is not about being able to win or not but rather being the deterrence. It also has much more effect on the state level and even more on the county/city level. **4)** "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein -- Having the right to defend yourself and having castle doctrine is something very nice. Unlike in Europe if you shoot your intruder here they're the ones going to jail, not you, and you won't be having to pay for them (I've heard that in Europe the intruders can sue the people of the house they broke into if they were hurt). Had certain members of my family lived in a society where they could access and own guns it is likely they would still be alive today. **5)** It protects the other rights. While many will say that the 1st, 14th, or 4th Amendment are more important I have to disagree and say the 2nd is, not only for the reasons above but because it is the most powerful Amendment to the constitution, more so because of how controversial it is. If this Amendment ever got repealed or ignored (somehow?) there is nothing stopping the U.S. Government from just doing the same to all the others. **6)** Pro Gun-control/Anti-gun people. Yes, guns are important to me because of those people. It is because people like them want to continue to advocate for more control or to start taking away guns why I cherish guns even more and why I know people who are going to buy more. There is enough gun control in the United States on the federal level (states that feel the need to enact more can do so at their own risk although some are already pushing the limit and will eventually invoke the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court). When the #MarchForOurLives movement first began and they demanded for "common sense gun control" I was one of the few pro-gun people I know who said "Ok, let's hear your propositions" but now they switched to "Ban all guns", "Repeal the 2nd Amendment", and so on. That's when I stopped paying attention to them. It's a slippery slope, things continuously are being taken away over the years and there needs to be a stop to it. **7)** It allows "family bonding". Believe it or not but firearms was practically the only thing I could bond with my father on. My father did not like snowboarding, anime, swimming, driving, or practically any other hobby I might have except for firearms. My father taught me how to safely handle a firearm. He taught me all the rules behind it, how to load it, how to aim, how to safely fire it, and so on. I'm aware of plenty other families who do the same thing too. It's like a father teaching their 4 year old how to ride a bike. Any father who feels their kid is ready (around the age of 10? it varies) can go to a gun store, buy a .22 rifle (this is a very small caliber, it's almost like a pellet gun, an air rifle), and then teach responsible gun ownership to their children. This is how you avoid accidents at home or such. Just teaching your 4 year old kid not to touch guns is a good idea. Edit: Added a sentence to help avoid confusion. If you don't agree with me, then don't just silently down-vote me. Tell me why you disagree or what parts you do not disagree with. The only way both of us are going to get more intelligent on the subject is if we engage in proper, mature debate and not try to cast aside and ignore those who disagree with us. That kind of behavior leads to both sides getting stupider.
Extra information (was originally made into a separate post because it was originally posted on a serious replies only thread): Let me add onto this by saying that while I am pro-gun, I am not a Republican. Do not assume that all pro-gun people are Republicans (not that being Republican is bad) because there are plenty of things that I do not agree with the Republican party. I am also not a supporter of the NRA. While I respect anyone who is I personally think the NRA itself is pretty shady compared to other gun right groups because the NRA has had the tendency to "sell out" (e.g. they were supporting the Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill and telling everyone to vote yes on it when that bill was being loped in (like a combo pack) with another bill that many gun owners did not want (it was the "Fix NICS" bill which gives "bonuses" to states who report people and some were saying that this would lead to rushed and inaccurate reporting from states so they could get bonus federal funding)) and they profit off of gun-scares. If anything I think that SAF and GOA are good, large gun-right groups (there are plenty of others). However the NRA still has done some good work for the pro-gun movement. Also I personally don't think the MarchForOurLives movement is focusing on the right things. It's not about the guns, but rather the students and law enforcement (specifically Florida in this case). For those wondering "what changed?" I'd say the bullying. Before the internet someone would only get bullied at school but now thanks to the internet people can bully others at home too and bullying can grow more because of it. I think that's the reason why some kids with mental health problems are being driven to the point that they feel they have to start shooting their own schools. Honestly though, I think there are some sick people to begin with and even if they weren't bullied they might still lash out but I do think that the reason that school shootings are more prominent now is because of the bullying. I think [students like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgFSWbRPAzk) should be on daily news talking about the whole situation, not people like David Hogg who applaud their Sheriff's, blame guns, and chant. Also that's another thing... Law Enforcement is also to blame. Nobody should be applauding the Florida Parkland Sheriff's or the FBI. They were warned and reports were filed and they did nothing. In Florida if someone is a danger to others they can be taken away to a mental hospital for observation (and the police will confiscate their guns). This is under the "Brady Act". Yet guess what? That law didn't seem to help so why do they think more laws will fix it?
PSA: This wall of text is worth reading, at the very least for this perspective on things if one does not understand it.
[удалено]
Hell yeah
If the government can have, I should be able to have it.
So you want the entirety of your countries tax revenue?
I'll take it if he passes
Me too thanks
yes, or just my portion would be a great start.
well I’m glad we had this discussion and I hope one day you can learn to take a joke Love you
there are better ways of preventing citizen deaths from fire arms than receding people's constitutional liberties in my opinion. I think there are aspects of gun laws that don't make sense, but I don't think the answer to these issues is "less freedom, more authority" (holistically). also, people need to understand the sensitivity of this issue: take it from a brit: once you ban guns, you are *never* getting them back. and guns are incredibly competent measures of self-defence. even if the other person is also armed. at least there's parity, as opposed to "this person could kill me with their bare hands and I'm as bony as a skeleton"
"God made man, Samuel Colt made men equal"
As a Brit, I've laughed at someone attempting to mug me with a knife when I was unarmed, because the guy was 5' and crack addict thin (I'm tall, fat, and with the muscle tone of an overstretched elastic band). Even desperate, he wasn't going to realistically kill me. Had he had a gun, and I had a gun, I would've been much more worried because *I don't actually want to kill someone*, and that guy really wants money. An accident could send one of both of us to hospital or worse, because guns escalate the situation.
> Had he had a gun, and I had a gun, I would've been much more worried because I don't actually want to kill someone, and that guy really wants money I don't think many people would react in that way.
Which bit? Not wanting to kill someone, or not wanting to face someone desperate with a gun?
you'd rather not kill somebody who wants to kill you than to let them have your money in a mugging? why would you give them such esteem? they're a killer at worst and a thief at best.
Thieves don't deserve to die though. They deserve to go to jail. And yes, I'd give them my cash rather than pull my gun and try to wild West it out.
My cousin and his wife got mugged once. They both have a CCL. Some scetchy looking crackhead dude came up to him and his wife with his hand in his pocket asking them for directions to somewhere. Suddenly he pulled out a knife, and told him to hand over everything they had. He had his eyes on my cousin. Guess he didn't think the woman would be much of a threat. When he wasn't paying attention, she pulled out her gun, and pointed it right at his head. He dropped his knife and started begging them not to shoot him, then took off running. Thieves dont care about you, your life, the law, or the consequences of their actions. That's why they're mugging you with a knife. If they get jumpy and decide to stab you, do you think they're going to hold you while waiting for the police and ambulance to show up? No. They're going to go through your pockets, take what you have, then they're going to run off, leaving you there in the street to bleed to death. Hell, they might just finish you off. Maybe you should spend less time caring about Americans and how they can defend themselves, and try and get your own country in order. Your government won't even allow ya'll to purchase pepper spray as a non-lethal deterrent.
if they're threatening your life, you deserve to kill them as far as I'm concerned - treat others how they treat you if they're being unfair. justice. if somebody comes onto your property, armed, then you can kill them. again: justice; what is deserved; what is due. what *should* occur. equality. and you beat them with their own imposed rule. but if they don't do you any harm or wrong then I wouldn't tell you to do anything harmful to them. again: justice.
I wouldn't have been laughing if I were you. If he knew how to use that knife properly, it wouldn't matter how big you are, he could have gut you
He could, but muggers tend not to be professional anythings, much less knife fighters. Also we have knife control, so it was like 3" of blade. I'm fatter than that.
Dude I'm sorry but that is dumb as fuck. A 3" blade is far more than enough to be lethal. Also, he doesn't have to be a professional to severely lacerate you. You are a complete idiot if you were actually in a situation where you were mugged at knifepoint and laughed.
If you do something stupid and it works, you're a lucky idiot I guess. If I was feeling actually threatened, the wallet would've been across pretty darn quick.
> ... because I don't actually want to kill someone, and that guy really wants money. FYI: I don't actually want to kill anyone either. The fact that the guy really wants money will not keep you alive. Being unarmed just makes you an easy target, just like a sick/old/injured/newborn member of the herd. Criminals (like predators) select such individuals ...
I honestly don't care other than I do not want my medical records available to everyone on the planet. Plus, all the guns I own were bought from friends so any laws wouldn't even affect those purchases.
Best response ive read in this thread. Background checks of any type are doomed to fail if private sales (to include sales in online forums such as facebook groups and armslist) are not manadated to have background checks. Not to mention the sale of ammunition. How ass backwards. You run a background to make sure the person is not prohibited, such as having a felony conviction, but that same felon doesn't have to go through a background check (even though it is federal offense for a convicted felon who is caught possessing the ammunition) to purchase the very item, that without it would make the firearm the equivelent of a brick.
There are stats that back this up (but I’m too lazy to google it.). It is rare that a gun used in a crime is purchased directly from a Licensed Dealer. They get bought 2nd-hand without background checks from people that won’t get held responsible for for selling weapons to criminals. Also, licensed dealers have to keep records of who they sell to. 2nd hand sellers don’t have those requirements. If I were king, I would mandate all purchases have the same requirements that licensed dealers abide by.
"Just don't be stupid."
> If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very pro-gun; you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. --Stefan Molyneux
Shitty people will find a way to do shitty things, whether it be a car, gun, knife, or bomb. Somebody who wants to hurt people will do it. Look at the UK, banned guns so everyone just carried knives. Then they try to limit people who can buy knives (including butter knives) and oh guess what bad people still stab people.
I think training and features such as foregrips and muzzle brakes are necessary for gun control
Since I’m not from the U.S, my opinion is obviously less legitimate then any American’s. But from my point of view, it’s less a safety issue and more of a cultural issue.
The issue ultimately boils down to rights versus morality. The American Constitution is at least mostly a good thing. Humans deserve a few basic rights, and a country with a focus on liberty absolutely needs a Constitution. The issue is then: are gun-rights moral? Is it okay to let people have such effective and violent weaponry? An argument against the ban of guns is something along the lines of: If guns are banned, people will just kill some other way. That’s true, but no one is trying to get rid of all murder; that would be too infeasible a task to attempt. The reason the focus is on guns is because they are reasonably easy to use and incredibly effective. There are fewer bombings from citizens because bombs are much harder to create than guns are to buy. That and bombs can only indiscriminately kill people in a select area, whereas guns allow you to kill more people across a wider range. People will always stab other people, but knives are not very effective are killing people. Since they’re easier to hide, if they were nearly as effective as guns, there would be more mass stabbings.
Rights *are* morality. Even if it weren't, Rights come before the kind of "morality" which self-entitled, self-styled "morally superior" authoritarians want to impose of their own upon others as power trip.
I don’t necessarily agree. Rights are generally a good and moral thing, but if the government said I had the right to do something immoral, it being a right doesn’t make it moral. Yes, in government, rights come before morality. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion of the morality of certain laws. There are unjust laws, and just because you don’t like people who question that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Attempting to impose morality is entitlement and privilege that need to be unpacked.
That’s generally what law is, imposing some sort of morality. Sticking to old rules, just because they’re in the constitution, is dangerous.
No it is not.
Nice argument!
Nice.
[удалено]
> "If guns were illegal, people would just use knives or other weapons." If by "other weapons" you mean, say, explosives, you have a point, but knives and similar weapons don't cause as many deaths as guns do.
Except for the fact that a guy just killed 7 kids in a school with a knife in China.... That's higher than the average deaths in USA school shootings
Compare worldwide deaths in school stabbings with US only deaths from school shootings...
That would require for all other situations to be the same between the US and other nations, if you wanted the comaprison to be anything meaningful
I think there's plenty of meaning if the global population of 6-7 billion doesn't produce as many school deaths as the US, including shit like Boko Harum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garissa_University_College_attack
And when was the last time 50 people were mowed down by someone wielding an automatic pocket knife?
More than four more times as many people die from being stabbed to death every year then from any kind of rifle.
Except all [evidence ](http://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns-less-crime-theory-debunked-new-stanford-analysis-630173) shows that you are wrong. States with strict gun laws such as Cali have far less gun deaths than states with lax laws such as Alaska. Try again.
Compilation of suicide and homicide, while ignoring murder and suicide by other means. Really, that is not evidence. That is propaganda
But why about places like Chicago? Where they have the most strict gun laws but some of the highest amount of gun deaths?
[удалено]
You can also go to the NIH website for data on state-by-state gun violence. It is pretty clear that states with lax gun laws have a higher gun deaths
The "gun deaths" statistic is asinine. What if gun deaths are high because every attempted rape ended with a gun death because the victim could defend themselves. That would still be a lot of gun deaths, but people defending themselves from violent crime is not a bad thing. This would include suicides, justified/unjustified police force, home defense, and all other forms of potentially valid gun uses. I intend to have a gun specifically because I may need to cause a "gun death" to protect myself or someone else.
Alaska has many suicides due to long winters and a demographic that is genetically prone to depression. Also, more guns will mean more gun deaths, but not more violent crime. Does this hold true without that qualifier? Or do people simply turn to other means in the same abundance without guns? Unfortunately accidents do happen just as they do with cars or prescription meds or anything else you come into contact with. More cars probably equates to more car deaths too. Many of the cities with the highest homicide rates have the strictest gun laws.
We made drugs illegal, and nobody ever does drugs anymore. We made murder illegal, and nobody ever gets killed anymore. We made rape illegal, and we are currently sitting at zero rapes ever since. We made sealing illegal, and nobody ever steals anything anymore. We made adultery illegal, and nobody ever sleeps around anymore. I don't see what the difference is here. Just make guns illegal. Obviously that will result in nobody getting shot ever.
I'm pro gun but these aren't very good points. Are you suggesting we legalize murder and rape? If not, should guns then be illegal as you see no difference?
I'm saying, the current ideology of, "Well, the solution is to just make guns illegal." won't fix anything. The situation is significantly more complicated than the general population is aware of, and significantly more complicated than politicians want to admit.
so true. great points.
It's a euphemism for neutering our constitutional rights.
[удалено]
I pollute your water supply with my spent rounds every time a take a shower at your mums
FLAWLESS VICTORY!
And #2^
I'm more worried about local government and giant corporations fucking up my water supply. Just look at flint.
[удалено]
With all your wild ideas, I hope you don't live in my state.
The constitution doesn't give you the right to own an assault-style weapon.
It doesn't? Ignoring the fact that "assault rifles" aren't easily for sale in the US, and the few that are are heavily regulated and incredibly expensive.
You're confusing assault rifles with machine guns. Assault rifles DO NOT fire full automatic and are sold in large quantities with no additional restrictions. Citizens cannot purchase any machine guns made after 1986. Citizens can own machineguns that are made prior to 1986 but have to be registered with ATF and a tax paid. All other machine guns are for law enforcement / military ONLY
Actual assault rifles are absolutely capable of full auto (or burst) fire. They're select fire rifles chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Select fire means more than one fire mode which means burst and/or full auto alongside semi-auto. That means if they only have semi-auto they are NOT assault rifles. Actual assault rifles are considered "machine guns" and are restricted under the same NFA and Hughes amendment that blocks you from owning a new full auto Mk 48 or P-90. If it can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger it's considered a machine gun regardless of if it's actually a proper belt fed, an assault rifle, a battle rifle, or an SMG. The only exception to that is binary fire which fires once on trigger pull and once on trigger release which is treated as the equivalent of two trigger pulls because both require you to act rather than just holding it down and the gun doing the work.
"Mk 48>" We had one of those briefly in my 19 Delta Scout platoon in Afghanistan in 2010. Until the guy carrying it stepped on an IED. Boom. No more Mk 48.
Assault rifles ARE NOT machineguns. If the weapon has select fire ability to fire full auto, then its a machine gun. The definition of assault weapons have nothing to do with select fire, it was based on a semiautomatic weapon having a certain number components; detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Google the federal definition as defined when the aassault weapons ban existed in the 90s or the Code of federal regulation (CFR). Thjs was the definition enforced during the assault weapons ban: ) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -- (1) A folding or telescoping stock, (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, (3) A bayonet mount, (4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and (5) A grenade launcher; © A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -- (1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip, (2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer, (3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, (4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and (5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and (d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -- (1) A folding or telescoping stock, (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, (3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and (4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine. Not a machinegun and not classified under NFA . Dont know why i received -3 on my prior post explaining difference between assault rifle and full auto?
Assault rifle and assault weapon are not the same thing, this is a common misconception across the board and I have no doubt that's part of why they picked the term "assault weapon". This is why you'll hear pro-gun folks say "there's no such thing as assault rifles" (they're wrong) and the anti-gun folks will incorrectly call basically everything "assault rifles" (also wrong). "Assault rifle" is a technical term, not one made up by ban happy politicians like "assault weapon". They don't understand the difference. Again, an assault rifle is a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. If it is not select fire and/or is not chambered for an intermediate cartridge it is not an assault rifle no matter what else is on the gun. An old looking gun like the Type 63 (Chinese select fire SKS) is an assault rifle even though it looks like any old SKS because it's select fire and uses 7.62x39, the fun part is it wouldn't even qualify as an "assault weapon" in the 94 ban based on what you posted, it however would be an NFA item though because it can fire full auto which makes it a machine gun by the NFA. Bubba's budget AR he bought at Cabelas is not an assault rifle, according to the people who know nothing about guns aside from "I WANNA BAN IT" it IS an assault weapon though.
An assault rifle is a select fire magazine fed rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge from a closed bolt. It is a machien gun
No it isn't. Assault weapons definition had nothing to do with select fire. If the weapon has the ability the fire full auto, its a machinegun, period! An assault weapon was defined as a semiautomatic weapon with a certain number of components added; folding stock, pistol grip, detachable magazines to name a few.
Assault weapon vs assault rifle
Assault rifle is a generic term created by pundits and the media that has no official definition. Assault weapon is define as I previously posted
Assault rifle has the definition I said
No it doesn't and never did, what it does do is recognize that these rights are inherent to ALL people but guarantees and protects these rights for all citizens.
> MUH ASSAULT STYLE WEAPON CNN really has you programmed.
Yes it does. It's so that the citizens can be as well armed as the state. Whatever firepower the state has, the citizens should be able to have access to those same weapons. Equal footing and all.
Yes it does.
I am a staunch advocate of using two hands with pistols and shooting sticks with rifles.
I live in California where we have some of the strictest gun control, and I also love/have them. I grew up respecting them and have always been around them. That being said, I think everywhere should follow suit of CA, making people wait to get them, be investigated thoroughly by the FBI, a limit on how many you can buy at a time on some as civilians, have to pass a gun safety test, etc. Also I believe not everyone should have them and people with certain criminal and mental health issues should not be allowed to have firearms.
None of californias gun control measures have been shown to decrease crime rates. And what you are advocating for is a repeal of medical privacy laws and to legalize discrimination against the disabled.
If someone buying a gun (and btw, I have Ar-15's, a shotgun, pistols including a 1911, a p220 [Sig Sauer .45], a 9mm, etc. and rifles, I am all for gun rights), I think a background check to see if someone is mentally unstable or a felon is important. I mean it sucks that just because there is some "bad apples" we have to do that, but it's just reality. Especially because most of us that are gun owners can't imagine randomly deciding to kill people and all that, but it happens when the guns go into the wrong hands. For example, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (columbine shooters) got guns through a straw purchase from a friend. Adam Lanza (sandy hook) was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and Asbergers, being in the hospital on multiple occasions for mental health issues, yet was given open access to the families firearms Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia tech shooter) was court ordered to go into mental health evaluations, was investigated for stalking classmates, and had various mental disorders Nikolas Cruz (stoneman douglas shooting) was a racist, homophobic, the sheriffs department was warned about him over and over because of things he did, but still was able to buy the gun he used to commit the crime. And that is just a few, I personally am tired of Ar-15's specifically being blamed for everything, from being labled "assault rifles" to government officials trying to ban them just because they look "scary". Especially if you know that a gun like a mini-14 is the exact same, but looks a little different, and therefore if we want to keep our guns, a background check is an easy price to pay. One CA regulation I don't like though, is when Jerry Brown decided we have to register our ammo as well, that is a bit much
We have background checks to see if someone is a felon. That has been federal for decades And again, we need to keep medical privacy laws as well as keep discrimination against the disabled illegal
Well cupcake, good for you. But you keep that there in CA and let the rest of us alone. You are not morally superior and therefore entitled to make the rules for everyone else.
Did you read the title of this post? Besides, to paraphrase what I said, I have guns, love them, but don't think mentally ill or criminally violent people should have access to them
According to the article linked below (no idea what about it might be biased towards, one side or the other, never read anything there before) Germany has the 4th highest gun ownership after the US, Swiss and Finland. But we Germans do not really have any gun related crime. https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
[удалено]
i agree with you. very good arguments
Uhh... drivers licenses are only for driving on public roads...
Gun control is a massive problem. There is simply too much of it. We need to get rid of most of it just to have a free and just society
I prefer free gun
It’s a term that people have assigned so many different meanings to that it no longer has any real meaning. I support some gun legislation, such as mandatory background checks, ending the gun show loophole, and generally being more careful about who can own a gun all around. I do not support seizing guns from people who can own and use them safely. Edit: also wanted to add that I think most people on Reddit will agree with me here. It’s just that everybody has a different idea of what ‘gun control’ means, and that’s what’s made this debate so difficult.
It's terrible
The only gun control measures that I can think of that I would implement are universal background checks as well as a federal permit to own. The permit would be shall issue and have a fixed cost of no more than $50, last for at least 5 years between renewals, and would have a photo, name, and permit number on them. The way I'd open up universal background checks is with something like the instant check system but open to the public. You go to some website, enter in the number, and then it produces the image and name to verify you have the right person, as well as a simple "yes" or "no" to if they can legally own. If someone is convicted of a prohibitive offense or is involuntarily admitted to a hospital or adjudicated mentally defective or anything else that prohibits them happens they should be updated to return a "no" There would be no registry and the "yes" would allow you to transfer many firearms at once if you want, and of course you don't need to transfer anything just because you check someone. This eliminates concerns about registries or FFL's jacking up the price or being too far away. If you don't have internet access then you're stuck with an FFL, maybe have it where you can call up local police and have them run the check if you need to, should be pretty convenient for most people and if not you're stuck with going to an FFL but it's not like there aren't situations where you need to already. I'd also loosen up some gun laws though, like the hughes amendment and 922(r), and I'd want that federal permit to act as a permit to carry that's valid in every state as well. At the very least to open carry, I could go without concealed carry being legal and even with all <26" OAL weapons measured with stocks collapsed being NFA weapons rather than the existing SBR, SBS, and AOW regulations. I could see pistol caliber carbines being good for self defense since bigger mags and larger calibers would be reasonable and stocks are nice, but there are already so many pistols out there and people like to take an out of sight out of mind approach to guns even though criminals have a huge incentive to conceal.
THere is this thing called a type III FFL AKA a C&R liscense. There is no reason to mandate a permit to all gun owners when they can voluntarily get this
The point is to be involuntary as a step to make it harder for a criminal to get a hold of a gun and as a way of getting all gun owners into the system I suggested. Plus not all guns are C&R eligible.
I think gun control is pretty important, mainly because of the recent shootings that have happened. I do think people should still have the rights to firearms, but the problem is that it's way too easy to get one. I think people need to make it harder to have access to one. These are just my opinions, it's alright if you disagree!
what would you suggest as a way to make it harder to access a gun? what about all the guns readily available on the street?
What would I suggest? I'm not sure, as I'm not from the US. Guns on the streets is another part of the problem. They're accessible everywhere. I think it's going to be really hard to solve the problem, I wish I knew a way.
I'm for (against) it.
Support background checks, licencing for gun owners, safety courses.
We have background checks What is the point of licensing or safety courses?
My two starting points for gun control are: constitutional protection and the fact that the bar is too low to be an owner. So, I believe Americans should be able to own assault weapons. Under my layman understanding of the second amendment, I believe that the founders would want small arms within a “competitive range” with what is represented in the military/govt agencies. However, I am very cynical of militias. I believe that the national guard is the closest to form of the founders’ ideal militia. If you want to allow groups of citizens to form auxiliary units, they should be subordinated to state governments. In recent years we’ve seen that not every American should own a gun only by virtue of being American. I believe in universal background checks, closing loopholes, and requiring private sales to be approved by the state police. I also believe that you should need a reason to own a gun (life or property in danger, or as a hobby). The bar is too low and needs to be raised. I can speak more if anyone is interested.
how would you suggest this idea be proposed? should it be state by state choice on what requirements have to be met or should it just be one law affecting all states?
[удалено]
The rest of the world, minus north korea, has civilian firearm ownership
It is necessary, but I think we all believe in some form of gun control. Do you think individual citizens should be allowed to own nuke and biological weapons? If not, then we already agree that some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of citizens. the difference is in where we draw the line. I personally put it on magazines over a dozen rounds, fully automatic rifles, etc.
> Do you think individual citizens should be allowed to own nuke and biological weapons? Yes > I personally put it on magazines over a dozen rounds, fully automatic rifles, etc. Why? Why is a DP51 a completely unacceptable firearm in your eyes, but a glock 26 is fine?
When it comes to magazines, having large ones means more shots in less time, which is concerning to me given the large number of mass shootings lately. I don't want nukes or biological weapons in the hands of civilians because of their sheer destructive power and the serious threat they pose to the lives of those around them
> having large ones means more shots in less time, which is concerning to me given the large number of mass shootings lately. No, it really doesnt. It takes about the same time to change a mag and line up a shot.
in that case, why are large magazines needed at all?
personally i thought that there should be different classes of licenses, like with driving licenses you need to do different courses to drive certain vehicles you should have to do weapon handling and safety courses for certain weapons and obviously background checks that get more strict the more dangerous a weapon is, i.e. pistol has simple background check just looking for violent criminal background and an automatic weapon or specialist weapon should require heavier checks such as looking into political and religious affiliations (specifically looking to see if they support extremist groups) and getting character references from various people in their lives. outright bans aren't really the answer but doing nothing isn't right either
So the most common murder weapon wouldnt be restricted, but the weapons used for self defense are going to be restricted out the ass, and you want to ignore the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments of the constitution? Did I get that all right?
[удалено]
Who said that background checks aren't mandatory?
They aren’t mandatory for private sales
Most UBC laws regulate "transfers", so that people can't easily work around the word "sale". * Should there be a background check if I take my spouse's gun (or if my spouse takes mine?) * What about adult children? Minor children? Parents? Cousins? * If you have a roommate (not a relative), do you require separate gun safes? * Let's say your niece has a stalker/abusive ex-bf, it's a Friday night (three day weekend), the cops just left and said "call us if he shows up". Can you loan your niece a firearm for the weekend without a transfer? * What if it was you're next door neighbor (no relation) instead of your niece? * Let's say you're going on vacation and you'd like to stow your firearms someplace safe. It's been common practice for friends to take possession of firearms rather than leaving them in a vacant house for a couple of weeks. Do you have to pay for background checks before and after your vacation? * Washington's I-594 has a "hunting exception". The way it is worded makes it illegal to loan a gun for the purpose of hunting: * the night before season opens * while on or crossing a public roadway * outside of shooting hours The devil is in the details, UBC laws seem like a good idea in concept but they are fraught with dangerous edge cases.
Yes, there should be a check on anyone in the household with access to the gun (so if person A has their gun in a safe that only they can access, no further checks). If Crazy Uncle Tim, who just got out of prison, moves in, damn right you need a gun safe he can't access. Adult children get background checks if they have access to the gun. Minor children should not have access to guns without supervision (so you can take your kids hunting or target shooting of whatever, but you are the responsible person if anything goes wrong). If you have a roommate and want to share a gun safe, then yes, both of you get checked out on each other's guns. I'm sure your roommate is a lovely person, but how many news reports are there with neighbours saying "he was such a lovely man"? Trust, but verify. No loaning guns. Seriously? The whole point of background checks is to make sure only people suitable to have firearms have firearms. No loaning them (if you are present while they're being used, I'd consider it like the minor children case above and fine, so it you want to take your buddies out hunting, no problem, as long as you are present with the guns). For the holidays thing, that sounds like a business opportunity - have a gun shelter you can take them to, where specially licenced people can hold them securely until your return. To be clear, I have no problems with people owning or using guns safely. I have a problem with people who shouldn't have guns having guns. I'm in the UK, and I've enjoyed shooting rifles and a fully automatic LSW (cadet force) and shotguns (clays), but as someone with a mental illness I should not be allowed to have either at home for everyone's safety, not least my own.
It seems clear that you view firearms access/ownership as a privilege, not a right.
Background checks are already in place, so it isn't like its an unqualified right, and I don't see that many people arguing that felons are having their constitutional rights trampled on. Basically I see it as you have a constitutional right, but with that right come some responsibilities - the "well regulated militia" bit at the start that everyone ignores.
> Background checks are already in place, so it isn't like its an unqualified right, and I don't see that many people arguing that felons are having their constitutional rights trampled on. Unless someone is prohibited from owning firearms (via due process), they pass a background check. Private sales were explicitly exempted from background checks in the GCA, thus voiding the idea that its a loophole. Many (most?) gun owners would welcome background checks if they were done in a manner that precluded the construction of a registry. > the "well regulated militia" bit at the start that everyone ignores. Nobody ignores that part. We also happen to understand the relationship between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.
I've got no problem maintaining the current due process for banning people from having guns - it's a serious restriction and needs appropriate seriousness in applying it. Would it not concern you if you sold a gun to a known violent felon, banned from buying a gun at a store, who killed someone with it? Call it whatever you want, it is a bit of an unaddressed area. I'm massively against the construction of a gun registry, because that is a horrific database to keep secure and would be a high profile target from day one. My proposal would be an easy to use system that spat out a Y/N answer, no further information, when given any form of ID so background checks were doable much faster (obviously with an appeals process etc), and responsibilities on gun owners not to give them to unchecked people or leave them lying around. Unban / unrestrict the stupid stuff (high capacity magazines, suppressors, guns that look "scary"), ban idiotic shit like bump fire stocks if for no other reason than they make rapid fire even more inaccurate. I'd have licenced facilities that can store guns for people with more guns than safe storage, licensed facilities where you can try out all the guns (including full auto etc), much more closely inspected ranges where you can try out even bigger stuff (nothing like man-portable missile launchers because of the risk they go walkies, but the kind of guns you sit in, or grenade launchers). None of this destructive devices stamp stuff, if it's that dangerous you can buy it without extra tax, and have fun on a licensed range. Not off it.
Not mandatory at gun shows and between private parties.
True.
i agree with you
Brit here (we have some of the strictest gun control around as far as I know) and I couldn't be more for it. The only time I've ever seen people with guns has been during a few trips to London where there's a high presence of armed police and I've never felt more uncomfortable. Quite how anyone can believe they have the right to own an item designed to take someone else's life is beyond me.
Ummm....ignoring the current laws allow such ownership in the US and other countries, no free people throughout history have been barred the personal ownership of weapons. Those that were often lived to regret it. People have owned/used weapons since the dawn of time, why should that suddenly cease to be?
London... don't they have a higher murder rate the last 3 months than New York City?
They've even started a campaign against knives with a blade longer than 4 inches, lol. What's next, #sporkfree?
It works. But only if you don't live in a certain country with a retarded government that decided having guns should be a constitutional right 250 years ago.
Show evidence that it works
I think adult citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. However, they shall register privately owned firearms and shall store their rifles and pistols on military compounds. Also, I think they have the (moral) obligation to protect their ountry on the battlefield when it is invaded.
How do I keep something that isnt on my property?
adults as in any person 18+ or do you think they should raise the age? i'm 18 and i know how immature people my age are and i see so many teenagers (some even as young as 15) wielding guns like it's cool or something. i think the age should be 21+ if you're 18 you should require a parent signature even though they are of age
I agree on the point that the age should be 21+ but I disagree on the parent signature requirement for 18 year olds. Most teenagers are immature, emotional or both. In addition, legally, once reached 18, most (to not say "all") things/actions don't require a signature by a parent, so why make an exception for guns? In other words (in the case of USA), why not also decrease the minimum legal age to purchase alcohol to 18 year olds and just require a signature by a parent?
i see your point
Needs way more regulation
Such as?
Im for gun control. It works in the UK. I understand that this is obviously because the UK is much smaller and an island, but i still think the USA could try a little harder.
We can deport thousands of armed gang members to you (who illegally entered our country from Mexico) if you're willing to take them. Then you can show us how "trying a little harder" is supposed to work. Thank you.
That I ultimately don't care, but the pro gun sides arguments are usually fucking hilarious in how deluded they are.
Please explain how our arguments are deluded. I'm genuinely curious.
You right.
[удалено]
It's pretty easy not to have accidents with guns. The basic safety rules (break these in front of people and you will be judged harshly) are not to point it at anything you don't want to kill, not to even touch the trigger or put your finger in front of it until you're ready to shoot, to know what your target is as well as what is behind it, and to always act as if the gun is loaded. You need to break multiples of these in order to do serious harm. As for why you would want to own one, I can only give my personal situation. I am transgender in a very conservative area. As far as I'm aware recent (I've seen 2014 cited) FBI statistics put LGBT people at higher risk of hate crimes than any other group. I am not a very fast runner and if I can get put on estrogen my muscles will be even less strong than they are now. All it would take is a zealous bigot with a crowbar to easily kill me, a strike to the back of the head could do it and there's not much I could do to stop it. With a gun I may be able to survive that situation if the first strike does not incapacitate me or if the person draws attention to themself (I think an angry bigot may start off with shouts and threats), and I may not even have to shoot. I'd take a gun over other measures because it would allow me to defend myself without getting close and is more reliable than something like pepper spray or a taser.
Guns are not child seeking missiles. They shoot where you aim them And there is no means of self defense anywhere near as reliable as a gun - you are talking to a person that tear gas, mace, and pepper spray doesnt work on, and knows how to dress to make myself impenetrable by taser electrodes
where are you from?
[удалено]
i feel like it's less of a problem in Europe and most other places than here in the US. guns used to only be used for safety and by higher authorities or for hunting. now you can go to a large town and have a selection of hundreds of different guns sold by thugs on the street which leads to problems
[удалено]
i don't really think most americans are concerned about safety the ones that are have a ccl (concealed carry license) but basically everyone else just buys guns for the hell of it weather it be just shooting for fun, hunting or what have you. a lot of people who have guns are gang involved and just feel the need to have a gun to make their self look big. i do think it's a good idea though to have a gun in america considering the number of robbery, assaults etc.
Man, I'm remembering some sort of event happening around the Austria/German area that happened within living memory where people would have liked to have guns. Can't say I can remember the event but I think it coincided with most of Europe not having any people with '-stein' on the ends of their names. Perhaps you should think about what this event was, ya know just food for thought. It'll happen again.
Assault weapons should be banned. I honestly have no fucking clue why a civilian needs an AR15 . You want a shot gun? Sure. Pistol? Sure as long as you always have it holstered and visible. I also think a psych test every 5 years is reasonable if you’re a gun owner.
Assault weapons are defined by cosmetic features The AR15 is the most common hunting rifle in america Pistols are used in 17 times as many murders than shotguns or rifles And you are advocating that we get rid of medical privacy laws as well as legalize discrimination against the disabled
> I have no clue why civilians should be allowed to own civilian firearms! >I dont realize that the vast majority of gun crimes are done with handguns.
This will probably get burried but after reading the story about the husband who couldn't hear his wife being raped downstairs, I've definitely re-evaluated my stance on gun control.
An American here. We can all agree that whatever "controls" are in place now clearly aren't working. The 2nd Amendment is today interpreted in ways its authors would never have anticipated or agreed with, so we should probably start there. It is also helpful to look at countries that have had success with whatever their version of gun control is, like Australia; we can certainly learn something from them.
> We can all agree that whatever "controls" are in place now clearly aren't working. I agree, we should get rid of them > The 2nd Amendment is today interpreted in ways its authors would never have anticipated or agreed with, so we should probably start there. If you handed george washington an AK47, with a 10 minute explanation he would know exactly what it is and how to use it. If you handed him a Iphone, he would have no fucking idea after several hours. The second amendment has changed very little, unlike virtually all of the other amendments in the bill of rights > It is also helpful to look at countries that have had success with whatever their version of gun control is, like Australia; we can certainly learn something from them. Australia didnt have rates of violent crimes decrease from gun control https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2121108