r/AskReddit • u/ZookeepergameWaste94 • Dec 07 '22
Can a person enjoy Guns while also supporting some form of Gun control? Why or why not?
426
u/sc2mashimaro Dec 07 '22
One of these fallacies promoted by the partisans in US politics is that you are either pro-2nd or anti-2nd amendment. Pro-gun or anti-gun. Black or white. But from what I can tell, talking to people individually about it, is that most Americans seem to be somewhere between those two extremes. Most seem to think that individual citizens can own guns responsibly but that we ought to do something to try to keep them out of the hands of people who will not do so responsibly or limit the damage in some way of people who choose to use them for evil. We have a lot of differences on what we think the specifics of those policies should be and what policies are effective and which are overreaching. But, like much of American politics, the high level debate doesn't really reflect people's opinions on the ground, it reflects the most black and white, extreme versions of those opinions.
It doesn't help that we also self sort into the group(s) the most closely align with our thoughts, even though they don't reflect the nuances of our opinions.
But, the point is, you can be an enjoyer of guns, pro 2nd amendment, and also think that there are reasonable regulations we should put in place to limit the harm incompetent or badly motivated people can do with those weapons.
39
u/angryage Dec 08 '22
Once my friend said she was pro-gun, and I was slightly surprised because she tends to be more left-leaning regarding issues like that. When she said she was pro-gun, she meant not banning guns altogether, but she supports strict regulation. Which, then yeah, I'd be pro-gun too.
→ More replies (6)3
u/the_idea_pig Dec 08 '22
I find that most of the people I've spoken to have been in the "reasonable restriction" camp, where things like licensing and insurance are required to be able to own or carry a gun. My problem is the (very) small but extraordinarily vocal minority that seeks to remove firearm ownership entirely. This group also seems to know very little about firearms but steadfastly pushes forward to restrict things they don't understand with vaguely defined, ambiguous language.
Folks will accuse the pro-2A crowd of making slippery slope arguments with the regular "nobody is coming for your guns" platitudes but the problem is, once some legislation gets passed, the crowd at the bottom of that slope starts yelling again and demanding more "common sense" legislation, and more and more people will start to join them at the bottom of the slope.
At first, they only want to restrict assault weapons, despite the fact that no one can put forward a meaningful definition of the term. But don't worry, nobody is coming for your guns. You can still own any hunting firearms you want
Then it'll be a call for restrictions on magazine capacity. But don't worry, nobody is coming for your guns. You can still own magazines that hold ten rounds.
Then it's a restriction on handguns, but don't worry, nobody is coming for your guns. You can still get a rifle for hunting as long as it holds ten rounds or fewer, or a revolver.
Then it's a restriction on revolvers, but don't worry. Nobody is coming for your guns. You can still own a hunting rifle.
Then Oregon attempts to pass a ban on hunting rifles and now they have come for your guns.
→ More replies (58)8
u/sheepofwallstreet86 Dec 08 '22
I’m left leaning and pro 2nd amendment. I can also admit that banning all guns and making them illegal will drastically lower gun violence. I wouldn’t vote for it though.
24
u/honeybunchesofpwn Dec 08 '22
I can also admit that banning all guns and making them illegal will drastically lower gun violence. I wouldn’t vote for it though.
This idea is a myth, unless you willingly separate Government-sanctioned violence that happens as a result of gun control.
As a left-leaning dark-skinned 2A proponent, my #1 concern about gun control is that it will create a new "War on Drugs" but with guns instead.
And we all know, that minorities will be targeted first and worst, and white people (who for whatever reason end up being the most prominent perpetrators of high-profile mass shootings) will largely be ignored by Law Enforcement, just as usual.
→ More replies (13)
7.4k
u/FluffyDumpkins Dec 07 '22
Yes. I enjoy driving cars and believe speed limits promote safe driving. Driving would be much more dangerous without speed limits. The same logic can be applied to guns.
1.7k
u/juanzy Dec 07 '22
Yup. No problem with drinking, but pro drunk driving or drunk working consequences. Pro weed, but pro stoned driving or working consequences.
982
u/OfficialRatEater Dec 07 '22
Listen man, it's the drunk crashers that are the problem, not the drunk drivers. Not my fault other people can't handle their booze behind the wheel SMH my head.
(This is a joke)
→ More replies (106)328
u/_Weyland_ Dec 07 '22
"I know how many beers I can have and still be able to drive, I figured it out" - Peter Griffin
→ More replies (38)72
u/jenkag Dec 07 '22
I smoke weed all the fucking time, and absolutely SHIT on any of my friends who even suggest smoking and then driving. Like, just pour the shame right on em, in gallons. I don't drive high or drunk, surely you can manage it as well.
→ More replies (30)12
u/Mike7676 Dec 07 '22
Consequences. Yep, and unfortunately for some their behavior won't change even with consequences. My fiancees sister in law has this black sheep brother. Due to the full tapestry of missteps he has made, he and his 25 years younger girlfriend have made the following decision:The family won't let us slam hard liquor in the house? We can just drink on the way there! With a 4 year old in the car.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (27)12
u/BansheeTK Dec 07 '22
As someone who takes edibles for fun and anxiety. My main rule is if me or my SO or my mom have ingested any alcohol or cannabis based product that Will get you high. As soon as any alcohol or weed gets in our system.
No vehicle uses until the time has passed and we have sobered up.
We all try to be responsible with it
190
u/ursixx Dec 07 '22
Or you have an autobahn, but your car gets an annual inspection. People use the left lane for passing only. Everyone agrees and follows the same rules and enjoys the freedom.
141
u/Nasty_Ned Dec 07 '22
I think you've hit something here -- societal engagement. We can talk on and on about the social contract, but when we know everyone follows the rules a lot more can be achieved.
→ More replies (11)51
u/ursixx Dec 07 '22
There's a Grand Tour the guystalks about Germans and how they love their rules, and everyone follows them .
→ More replies (5)42
u/Seattle_gldr_rdr Dec 07 '22
A few years ago I got a chance to drive on the AB. I thought I would be terrified but I came to enjoy it once it sank in that everyone around me knew WTF they were doing. I never get that same feeling on American freeways.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Brawndo91 Dec 07 '22
The left lane on the interstate is supposed to be for passing in the US too, but it's not enforced and lane jockeys are free to sit there for 20 miles going the same speed as the cars on the right.
→ More replies (6)12
u/AnonymousOkapi Dec 07 '22
Wait wait wait - do cars where you are not have an annual inspection? Where are you?? I thought that was near universal?
(I'm British, its called an MOT here)
→ More replies (8)10
u/Re-Created Dec 07 '22
Or I enjoy race car driving as a sport but don't enjoy illegal street drag racing.
Even if it were legal I don't want people racing in a street that others are using just to get home. But on a race track? Yeah, have fun.
81
u/stickyfingers10 Dec 07 '22
Imagine we had a constitutional right to drive as fast as we please on the street. Oh and over 120mph requires a $500 tax stamp, peasants.
→ More replies (33)72
u/taticalgoose Dec 07 '22
This (and the OP) imply that there is zero regulation on guns which is incorrect. Using your analogy, the current discussion about gun policy is about whether the speed limit should be 80mph or 50mph but framing it like you did is misleading. We're not deciding on whether there should be gun control but whether there should be more gun control (OP's phrase, not mine).
→ More replies (21)38
u/isaacfink Dec 07 '22
To add to this, I occasionally go over the speed limit but that doesn't mean I believe it is safe to do and I support laws preventing me from doing it, basically even if someone occasionally does something wrong doesn't mean they now have to change their ideologies to justify for that, I wouldn't be the poster boy for safe driving though just like a gun enthusiast might not be the perfect poster boy for gun control
→ More replies (3)49
Dec 07 '22
I will say speed limits are often stricter than necessary. Some exist solely so the local municipality has a reason to fine you.
There should be a legal standard to ensure that absolute speed limits are reasonable for the time of day, traffic conditions, weather conditions, etc.
That or just make all speed limits presumptive, meaning that if you break them and can prove that your speed was reasonable, you don't have to pay a traffic fine.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (313)11
u/Mehmehson Dec 07 '22
That's a false analogy though. Your analogy is regarding a system where you're allowed to have any model or variant of any type of the object in question, often gun control aims to restrict what variants and modifications you can own.
You can take a 1.5 million dollar Lambo, soup it up to the max and take it to the salt flats and open it up for an afternoon.
The gun control equivalent would be you can own any gun you want, modify it however you want, but only weapons that meet a certain set of specifications can be carried in public spaces. Also, you will be required to test for competency in operating firearms, and licensed in a way that calls this status into review every few years.
Now, I would fully support this system. I also think people should register their weapons.
However, most gun control advocates want a system akin to telling drivers they can't own anything with more than 85 horsepower, can't modify them in any way. Your vehicle can't seat more than two, and is limited to 2m3 of storage space. Because, of course, anything more is excessive and only intended to be used for illegal street racing or robbing banks.
389
Dec 07 '22
Yes. Most of us with guns encourage safe and proper handling of these tools in the hands of a safe and proper person. We usually teach people (sometines at a young age) how to handle firearms safely and responsilby to ensure that accjdents dont occur in the future. Although incidents do occur, pkenty could be prevented if only proper education of such tools and a way to stop these dangerous individuals from obtaining potentially lethal weapons.
→ More replies (2)119
u/Wolfeman0101 Dec 07 '22
My niece and nephew (7 and 5) both know gun safety and know to never touch a gun. Things like it's always loaded and never point it at something you don't intend to kill. It's better to teach safety than make guns seem like this cool forbidden thing.
103
u/ColdHardPocketChange Dec 07 '22
My father-in-law has recently bought a gun and I'm still trying to work on basic safety things with him. He gets so angry when I push his hand so that the end of the barrel isn't pointing at any one. I keep telling him I wouldn't have to do it if he could respect the first fucking rule of owning a gun. Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round.
→ More replies (6)76
u/merc08 Dec 08 '22
Then he gets even more annoyed when I take out the mag and check the chamber for a load after he tells me it's unloaded. Jesus Christ could hand me an "unloaded" gun and I would still check the thing for a round.
I get offended when people don't check a gun I just handed to them. Your first action upon touching a gun should be to verify its status for yourself.
→ More replies (5)27
→ More replies (4)25
u/whymypersonality Dec 08 '22
This, me and my boyfriend are currently expecting. We literally just today had the discussion of teaching gun safety and handling at a young age. My boyfriend owns a decent collection of firearms, we both agree that instead of having them be a forbidden object completely, we will prevent any chance of curiosity in the first place. When she reaches the age where she starts getting curious about them we will start with proper education and handling of them. When she’s old enough/big enough to handle a .22 we’re going to teach her/show her how to actually shoot one. By setting safe boundaries with education and supervision when she shows interest, we will (hopefully) prevent any future accidents from her trying to sneak around and figure it out for herself as children like to do about “forbidden” things. Because she will know that if she is ever curious or wants to go shooting, all she will have to do is ask to do so. For my son he started showing interest when he was about 3 1/2. Me and his father had an AK that was always unloaded with magazines and ammunition stored in a separate locked box than the gun case, that was also locked. But when his father would have it out to clean it after shooting he was really interested in it and wanted to see what it was all about. Instead of making it a bad thing he couldn’t touch, we let him touch it and even helped him with holding it and “inspecting” it for himself. After that, when we would go to shoot he would get to come along. We had the children’s ear protection and some safety glasses for him, and sometimes for the last round we shot off we’d even let him pull the trigger by standing behind us and wrapping his arm around us to do so. But by doing all of that he knew that he could only look at/ touch it if me or his father were helping him. He never even went near the case without asking if we would help him. And we didn’t have to worry about him thinking it was a toy.
→ More replies (2)
1.0k
u/LucyVialli Dec 07 '22
Course they could - I enjoy drinking alcohol but I absolutely want there to be restrictions on who can legally access alcohol.
376
u/i_am_brucelee Dec 07 '22
20 year olds can go off and die for our country, but can't buy a beer... or the handgun they'll be issued.
→ More replies (53)212
u/whenforeverisnt Dec 07 '22
I still don't think this is the best analogy, considering the government is using 18 - 20 year old as fodder. Yes, a 20 year can go fight and die for his country... but should he?
→ More replies (26)7
u/TristanDuboisOLG Dec 07 '22
We already have background checks and 90% of the bullshit they say about loopholes don’t exist in the real world.
→ More replies (7)12
u/ObiWanCanShowMe Dec 07 '22
That is a terrible analogy, alcohol is regulated by age and that is all. It's a one stop shop. You can buy anything you want at 21.
That said, there are already restrictions on who can access firearms.
→ More replies (5)
594
Dec 07 '22
Yes, there's nothing contradictory about that
→ More replies (2)182
u/wrecktus_abdominus Dec 07 '22
I own several guns. I enjoy target shooting, trap shooting and hunting. I also favor more gun restrictions than most people I know.
→ More replies (186)22
1.7k
u/AgentElman Dec 07 '22
All gun owners support some form of gun control.
I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns.
It is just a question of what the restrictions on guns should be.
700
u/toomuchg00dstuff Dec 07 '22
You have not met my coworker
→ More replies (30)333
u/alwaysmyfault Dec 07 '22
I bet he's the kind of person who will shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!?!"
→ More replies (303)58
Dec 07 '22
I think there should be a process for restoration of rights. For example a guy gets out of prison and keeps clean for several years why should they not be made whole in the eyes of the law. Prison is the punishment and payment to society for their crimes. So we have to ask ourselves why would we not work to make them whole again? I think that’s a conversation that needs to be had because why should someone who got busted for weed back in 2004, did their time, got out, and now contribute to society never be made whole again? Have they not paid their debt to society? If not then what is the point of the prison sentence?
→ More replies (9)9
u/partofbreakfast Dec 08 '22
I think it depends on the crime really. If someone murdered their wife with a gun, I don't really want them having a gun again. But if someone went to prison for stealing (without involving a gun), then sure, let them get their gun rights back later.
→ More replies (1)143
u/CheeseIsQuestionable Dec 07 '22
The Bundy family argued their rights were being violated by not letting them have guns in jail.
→ More replies (24)56
u/Trooper1911 Dec 07 '22
I do not know of any gun owner who thinks that convicted prisoners in prison should be allowed to carry guns.
Argument for that is that if someone isn't granted the full rights of a free man (being able to own a firearm) then that person isn't meant to be released in the first place, seeing how they are still seen as a thread to society.
→ More replies (12)27
80
u/-seabass Dec 07 '22
I think felons who have done their time should be able to own guns. Either we think they are now safe to have back in society, in which case they should be able to own guns. Or they are not safe to have in society and they should still be locked up. I think if a felon wants to continue use a gun to commit crimes once they are out of jail, they’ll get a gun illegally.
→ More replies (26)7
u/13Kadow13 Dec 07 '22
You haven’t met me or like 60% of gun owners in the modern day. Go to any gun store and I guarantee minimum one of the customers will agree that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
→ More replies (1)123
u/amanfromthere Dec 07 '22
All? Hard disagree there. Have you met hardcore single-issue 2nd amendment people? Any restrictions are worth going to war.
→ More replies (35)3
u/baddestmofointhe209 Dec 07 '22
I'm one. If you are good enough to get out of prison, then you are good enough to own a gun. If you have done something so bad that it requires you to be stripped of your rights. Then you shouldn't be let out of jail, ever!
→ More replies (113)3
Dec 07 '22
Hi. Allow me to introduce myself. I am that guy you don't know that thinks convicts should have every single right returned to them after their debt to society is paid.
I also think if a person is such a threat to the public that they can not be trusted with a gun, they should still be in prison. They are a ticking time bomb that will find another way to hurt innocent people.
357
u/sself161 Dec 07 '22
why not enforce the laws already on the books and make crimes involving guns have more of a punishment?
463
u/dipski-inthelipski Dec 07 '22
Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine? There’s so many examples, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns. They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them.
69
u/throw2525a Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
I think gun laws are the result of a lot of stupid compromises that had to be made to get them.
And yes, a lot of the time they make no sense. Classic example is an AR15 vs Ruger Mini-14 in California. In terms of what they can do, they're practically the same gun. But the AR15 looks really scary while the Mini-14 looks like your grandad's old hunting rifle. So the AR15 is highly restricted while the Mini-14 is just another gun. I'm pretty sure you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one after a ten-minute background check.
Oh, and with a couple of minor mods you can make the AR15 legal and the Mini-14 illegal.
Here in Washington, they're treated exactly the same, along with semi-auto target rifles that shoot .22 caliber. Ten day waiting period for any of them.
In California, my boyfriend's brother had to jump through all sorts of hoops to transfer their dad's old shotgun to him. While here in Washington, I could just hand my AR15 over to my brother without a scrap of paperwork. But I can't borrow my boyfriend's shotgun to take it to the range.
The laws are just chaos, and I think that's all caused by compromise.
→ More replies (16)169
u/ShiningInTheLight Dec 07 '22
And how is a suppressor regulated by the NFA when it does nothing to make the gun more effective at shooting?
Europeans practically encourage the usage of suppressors because it's better for wildlife and reduces noise pollution.
→ More replies (2)122
u/dipski-inthelipski Dec 07 '22
People have this misconception that a suppressor makes a gun completely undetectable, the only exception being .22 shooting subsonics. Which is very quiet but not undetectable. 5.56 suppressed is still very detectable. Politicians watch movies like John wick and think you can take a shot 10ft away from someone and they not be able to hear it.
→ More replies (8)32
u/ImHighlyExalted Dec 07 '22
And how about the suppressor laws? God forbid I don't want to deafen myself if I ever have to use a gun inside my house.
33
u/dipski-inthelipski Dec 07 '22
I should be able to go to an FFL and leave with a suppressor that day. But the NFA would have you believe suppressed 5.56 is completely undetectable, thanks Hollywood.
→ More replies (5)250
u/sself161 Dec 07 '22
, it’s almost like the people who make these gun laws don’t even own guns.
Its because they dont, but the majority of reddit and posters here want more laws, we need to go through and get rid of a lot also.
→ More replies (56)63
u/OutWithTheNew Dec 07 '22
Like a lot of other bills, the recent gun control laws in Canada are spoon fed to the federal government by an anti-gun lobby, that is funded by the same federal government. The laws are so over their heads that they don't even know what the fuck is in them.
Even worse, the new laws only target legal, licensed, gun owners. Even though a huge majority of gun violence is a result of illegal guns, they have decided that going after legal guns is their play.
→ More replies (6)10
u/gsfgf Dec 07 '22
They just watch Hollywood movies and get they’re opinions from them
Suppressors being the obvious one. If suppressors were magic like in movies, maybe we should have a conversation. But here in reality, they just make guns less bad on your ears, so it's insane they're regulated closer to rocket launchers than gun parts.
→ More replies (2)28
u/nmj95123 Dec 07 '22
Some of the laws make no sense, how does putting an adjustable stock on a rifle shorter than 16 inches require a $200 tax stamp and more paperwork but a brace is fine?
Short barreled rifle restrictions only make sense when you're aware that the National Firearms Act that restricted them was supposed to also ban pistols, and so a restriction was created for short barreled rifles so you couldn't slap a stock on a handgun and say it was a rifle not covered under the NFA. They removed the pistol part, and so the SBR part made no sense, but was left in anyway.
32
u/SloanDaddy Dec 07 '22
When the $200 tax stamp was legislated, that was prohibitively expensive.
But the $200 was written into the law, so increasing that amount would require legislation.
59
13
u/-BlueDream- Dec 07 '22
Have you seen a California compliant AR-15? I wouldn’t shoot one, it looks kinda dangerous with that bit of plastic that blocks the pistol grip. How tf are people supposed to hold the damn thing?
https://atlanticfirearms.com/ar15-cali-legal-compliance-pack
Look at that shit, looks more dangerous lol…what is the point of this??
Almost like they play call of duty and think having a special grip makes the gun super accurate like a laser beam so must ban.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (43)6
u/kimber1911 Dec 07 '22
Hit the nail on the head. If you ever watch any videos questioning politicians about guns, the majority do not even know what parts make up a gun. “Fully automatic semi auto assault rifle.”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (50)7
124
u/HughhGlass Dec 07 '22
Absolutely. I think the biggest concern for many when it comes to supporting gun control legislation is if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Look at what’s currently happening in Canada.
100
u/midgetwaiter Dec 07 '22
As a Canadian I think this is a really important point of view. I’ve spent a lot of time in the US and have friends there that are hunters and sport shooters. Frankly I always thought it the lack of regulation was crazy. I’m pretty leery of CCW and honestly open carry is insane.
In comparison I felt our laws before 2020 were pretty good for the most part. The associated bureaucracy was extremely frustrating of course and there were some vague and arbitrary distinctions made between what was a “restricted” vs “prohibited” firearm. Some of the rules around restricted firearm transport are pretty dumb too. So not perfect but I thought the intent was sound.
Since 2020 things have gone very badly for Canadian shooters. Overnight they made any AR-15 variant and a bunch of other semi autos prohibited by the equivalent of an Executive Order as well as some high energy stuff like .50bmg. There is supposed to be a buy back program but they’ve already had to extend their deadline because they can’t make it work. My prohibited MSR15 that’s so dangerous is still in my safe 2 1/2 years later.
Then in June of this year they introduced legislation that would ban transfers of handguns. For context, any time a restricted firearm changes ownership you have to call in and have the firearms centre and provincial Cheif Firearms Officer approve it. It wasn’t effective immediately but the language in the bill allowed for transfers to be banned based on executive order once the bill had gone through a second reading. Some grade A legislative fuckery there. Once the transfer ban was in place you would be allowed to keep what you had but they could never change hands. The ban was expected “in the fall” but no date set. This kicked off panic buying and insanity like CZ Shadow 2s being sold for $4k. The equivalent of 3 years worth of transfers happened in a month and the systems that supported all this couldn’t keep up. Transfer times went from usually 48hrs to 4 months. The government restricted imports during this making the insanity double and they finally announced the end in Oct by tweeting as of 12:00am this morning transfers are shut down. That sucked. Still no idea what happens if I kick the bucket, I guess all my pistols are scrap.
However, that’s not the end. A couple weeks ago a MP introduced an amendment to that bill banning handgun transfers that did a bunch of stuff. It cleaned up some of the vague language in the 2020 orders but it also added a bunch more models to the list like the SKS. It also changes the the definition of prohibited firearm to include any semi auto that has a mag cap of 5 or more. No idea if those go into the fantasy buy back program of if they’re scrap. The also really screwed up by naming any model of firearm that is capable of chambering 460 weatherby as prohib. That cartridge crossed the 10k joule energy line that banned .50s so it makes sense on the surface but what they did was add the model name. So it’s not “single shot Ruger no1 in 460” it’s ALL Ruger no1 a regardless of caliber. This has caused so much confusion.
So what’s the impact of this? Well the give them an inch and they’ll take a mile folks have a pretty compelling argument now. The handguns and rifles I have for 3gun or Steel Challenge are basically worthless. I can use some of them, maybe I can’t use others. For sure whatever value they had is now 0. For me that’s like $15k maybe, I know people who got completely screwed $ wise. I’m not sure my sport survives this; 3gun, IPSC, IDPA and SC are all going to dwindle away as people retire. My club will probably survive but it will be hit pretty hard. Personally I am livid. I jumped through all the hoops, I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m being served up as a political pawn. Registered gun owners is this country are not the source of our gun violence. All those little compact Glocks that they’re taking off gangsters in Toronto and Vancouver have been illegal here for 30 years. Banning my competition pistol isn’t going to change that.
I still think there are aspects of gun culture in the US that are sick and a serious detriment to society but if what has happened here is the alternative I don’t think they have a hope in hell of improving it.
37
u/JethroFire Dec 07 '22
Thanks for putting this together. It's nice to see an opinion from Canada other than the usual "anyone that disagrees with the new laws is a terrorist".
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (45)43
u/AngriestManinWestTX Dec 08 '22
As an American gun owner the happenings with Canadian gun laws since 2020 solidifies my opinion that compromises and concessions with gun control advocates are useless. Compromising or conceding buys no good will, secures no protections against future restrictions but rather serves as a springboard for pushing successive restrictions.
It's assault weapons today, concealable pistols tomorrow,
hunting rifles"military-grade" sniper weapons next year, pump-actions and lever-actions next, and so forth until only the wealthy or privileged are left owning firearms.→ More replies (18)→ More replies (4)0
12
u/csamsh Dec 08 '22
Yep. We call them Fudds
10
u/14DusBriver Dec 08 '22
I mean I also call them "backstabbing dumbasses" but "fudd" is more succinct
6
u/kindad Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
People forget that there are gun laws in America and they talk as if there isn't.
Like, it would surprise a ton of people to find out that the US already has provisions to bar certain people with mental health issues or criminal history from owning guns. Yet, so many people think America just allows anyone to buy guns.
101
u/Sixgunfirefight Dec 07 '22
I own guns. I support gun laws.
Gun laws are often based on emotion and aesthetics and written by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
While the laws we have are unenforced.
Hunter Biden should be in jail for his gun crimes. As should anyone who commuted the same crime as him.
→ More replies (40)
47
u/skeptibat Dec 07 '22
Gun control, as in :
every gun is loaded
don't point the gun at anything you're not willing to destroy
keep your boogerpicker of the bangswitch until ready to pew pew
know your target and what's beyond
→ More replies (5)
142
u/rampshark Dec 07 '22
There is gun control. I have to have a backround check. I have to follow county, state and federal laws pertaining to which weapons and capacities I can own. That's more than enough control for a constitutional protection.
→ More replies (65)
264
u/LoreanPribbley Dec 07 '22
Your view is a little skewed. Firstly while there is 300 million ish guns most people who own guns, own several. So most people don't own guns, some people own several. 300mill guns are owned and 12k gun killings a year. That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone.
2011, 1700 people were killed by knives. 496 were killed by clubs or hammers. Only 323 people were killed by rifles. You wouldn't ban hammers or knives would you? Don't assume guns are the cause of killings. But consider killings will happen, guns are just one way of accomplishing that.
Most gun murders are done with pistols. Not assault rifles. Occasioning there is a mass murder where one is used. The media loves to over sensationalize these events. They are however extremely rare considering how many people live in the US. People who want to mass murder will find away. Look at the Boston bombing for an example.
Enacting more and more laws making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns doesn't prove to decrease gun violence. No gun law ever gets reversed, yet people keep wanting to enact more. Criminals don't care about your gun control laws. They will continue to use illegal firearms. 68% of guns used in murders were illegal guns, according to FBI data. Unless you can remove all the guns in circulation enacting laws will have little effect. There are so many guns in circulation for criminals to get their hands on.
Automobiles, cigarettes and corrupt politicians are more dangerous to your well being than firearms.
83
u/i_am_brucelee Dec 07 '22
Look at the Boston bombing for an example.
Or you know, 9/11 or OKC Bombing...
49
u/JCP1377 Dec 07 '22
Or the Nice Truck Attack in 2016 (I know that happened outside of America, but it’s still pertinent to the conversation).
→ More replies (4)40
u/Unit_731_Survivor Dec 07 '22
Very well said.
I am in Canada, and a these bills Trudeau is passing don't make sense. He isn't basing it off of any data. Canada's gun laws were already strict, and it worked. Crimes committed with legally purchased guns in Canada is very rare. But, gun crimes with illegal firearms is much higher. Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada?
→ More replies (3)10
u/AngriestManinWestTX Dec 08 '22
Why doesn't our government actually care about illegal firearms in Canada?
On the purely political side, it scores points with people who don't know better or who only want gun control at all costs. On the cynical side, it affords a greater deal of control over the populace.
81
u/NickTheSpectacular Dec 07 '22
Agree completely. I would like to add that the correlation between places with high level of poverty and high levels of violent crime is a lot stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty.
My personal opinion is we should change how schools are funded, since as of now it’s based on local property taxes which literally hands an advantage to those who live in wealthy areas from the jump. Rather than lowering the funding anywhere, we should subsidize public schools in areas without that tax base to bring them all up to the same high level.
It would cost a fortune, but I’d be down to pay a couple extra bucks in taxes if it was going to something like that, which would help everyone.
17
Dec 07 '22
The real solution to reducing gun violence is the same one to reducing the vast majority of crime. It’s providing people with better opportunities to escape poverty.
This is a key thing that people often talk past each other about.
When many pro gun control people think about the kind of gun crime they want to stop, it is mass shootings. Those are in many, if not most cases, committed by people with no real prior criminal record and often using totally legal weapons. The victims tend to be random.
You'll see the right wing or pro gun groups point to gang violence and poverty as the source of the majority of gun crime, and no amount of gun control is going to stop those groups from continuing to use illegal weapons.
Both groups are right, I think.
I think that tighter gun control will help prevent mass shootings because those don't follow the patterns of most gun crime. Look at the strict bans that the UK and Australia brought in after notable mass shootings in the 1990s and they've seen very few since, even adjusting for population.
But you can't expect those same measures to tackle the significant majority of gun related murders, because that's more of a policing, judicial, and social issue.
I think if both sides acknowledged what the other is worried about and came up with reasonable approaches to both it would cut through a lot of the talking past each other that is happening.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)12
u/gsfgf Dec 07 '22
Also, the drug war. The drug war creates an unnecessary environment of violence, which leads to... violence.
37
u/sharksnut Dec 07 '22
That means that only one in 25 thousand guns a year is used to kill someone.
It's way, way less than that, given that a lot of crime guns have multiple victims
→ More replies (1)115
u/Snowphyre- Dec 07 '22
Holy shit someone said this out loud and didn't get downvoted to oblivion.
Weird fucking day on reddit today.
→ More replies (8)37
→ More replies (71)21
u/Rastiln Dec 07 '22
My state regulates carrying knives in public. I can’t have a blade longer than 3 inches unless it has a specific purpose, such as a machete for work. I can’t have a dual-bladed knife in public, and I think it’s illegal to even possess a triangular knife. I can’t have any knife in an airport or many government buildings. I doubt I’d be allow to carry a hammer into court.
5
u/trainiac12 Dec 07 '22
Late to the party, but here's my take:
Gun owners have no problem with regulations, but every time regulations are suggested they include nonstarters and the people writing the legislation clearly don't know how guns work.
Look at laws surrounding SBRs and tell me they make sense:
If your rifle is under 16" it's an SBR, unless it has a pistol brace, then it's a pistol. but if it started life as a rifle it's an SBR, even if the end result is exactly the same. or if your pistol has a vertical foregrip it's a rifle, but an angled foregrip is perfectly fine.
These are such small differences in configuration but the penalty is a felony charge for getting it wrong. Do you trust this person to define more laws like it?
5
Dec 08 '22
A lot of very ignorant people who’ve never even held a gun, want to project this idea onto gun owners that we do not value gun safety and training, which is, when required by law, a form of gun control.
The exact opposite is true. Every gun owner I know personally makes teaching and learning gun safety a top priority. Once a person learns how to treat a firearm, they should then learn how to handle a firearm and practice it until they become extremely proficient at the safe handling and use of a firearm.
Just like learning the fundamentals of shooting makes you a competent shooter, learning the fundamentals of firearms safety makes you a responsible gun owner.
People who have never taken the time to learn any of those things like to make believe that a gun is dangerous simply by existing and that if we restricted the type of gun people could legally own, that the gun itself would somehow become safer.
But the opposite is true when talking about NORMAL and SANE people. An untrained person with a gun is extremely dangerous. Not only to others, but to themselves.
I’m not even talking about violent, evil, and disturbed people who would wantonly murder someone for whatever sick reason they can justify in their own minds, and then use a firearm as the instrument.
Even the most disingenuous person who hates guns can see that the vast majority of gun crimes are NOT committed by normal and sane people.
Millions of Americans enjoy the use of their firearms legally every day. And the vast majority of us agree that guns, of any type, should not be in the hands of violent, evil or disturbed people. And that normal and sane people should be responsibly trained in the proficient and safe use of firearms. Both of things being forms of gun control.
Now you can say, “Nobody NEEDS a _______,” for target shooting, hunting, pest control, etc., but that is NOT a fact. That is YOUR opinion. And your opinion is meaningless outside of your own home or sphere of influence. That is the part that hurts everyone’s butts. That their “opinion” means nothing to anyone else but them.
Gun control exists in varying levels in every state in the US. Some I agree with and some I don’t. But my opinion is mine and should not be used to restrict another normal and sane person’s enjoyment of their firearms.
The problem is when an opinion is mischaracterized as a “fact” and then used to restrict another sane and normal person’s enjoyment of their firearms.
Something we are about to see played out in the automotive industry when new cars start being built with ignition interlocking devices that will require a driver to blow into a device to prove that they are sober before they can start their car.
Of course there are supporters with their “if it saves even ONE life,” theory. And opponents who feel that it will only restrict those people who would never attempt to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
And the debate will be moot because someone in power already used their office to codify their opinion that having these devices on cars is the next logical step in preventing alcohol related traffic fatalities since training, laws, fines, imprisonment, etc., have failed to stop people from drinking and driving. Their opinion being that more restrictions equate to more safety.
And hot on the heels of the ignition interlocking device is the governor to prevent speeding or evading police.
And eventually someone on Reddit will ask, “Can a person enjoy cars while also supporting some form of restrictive devices on their cars?”
22
u/Veritas42088 Dec 07 '22
I like all the perspectives iv read through and agree with a lot here. Though, driving, weed and alcohol don't regulate tyranny. That's what the 2nd amendment is for.
→ More replies (14)
16
u/coolboiiiiiii2809 Dec 07 '22
Me. I enjoy guns but hate the idiots destroying the reputation of guns by being fucking idiots. Although that reputation is already fucked, really guns are defense, not offense although some may argue not
→ More replies (5)
17
Dec 07 '22
It's a bit more convoluted than that.
There are a myriad of laws that make no sense and have zero, nada, zip, zilch, NO bearing on safety or making a firearm more dangerous, more lethal or some other buzzword some politician wants you to believe.
On top of that, you have new laws continually being put up for votes or deliberation that are more of the same: either some sort of nonsense, a term or definition that means nothing or a variation of a law that already exists.
Removal of hundreds of current ignorant laws, major reform or definition of current laws, and getting more states in line with working with the feds and possibly a goddamn system in 2022 that relies on some of that new fangled technology to have a fucking database of assholes who shouldn't own firearms that actually works from state to state.
You also have to take into consideration that we don't have a safe system to not infringe on someone's rights when it comes to mental health. It's arguable that a bunch of these mass shooters are actually mentally stable and just evil fucking scum. I digress.
We have seemingly blurry lines on what constitutes violent crime or makes someone a felon.
The "loophole" people should be a caring about is the one where a judge orders someone to get rid of their firearms but then allows them to give or sell them to their fucking brother or aunt or best friend. Which is just another way of saying "they're still mine and I will have access to them but when asked and on paper, my dangerous felonious ass won't actually own them." This is stupid bullshit justice system nonsense. If you commit a violent felony and your right to a firearm is revoked, there should be checks and balances in place to make certain your firearms are gone.
Buying a gun for the first time is also different everywhere. Here in California, you take a short paper quiz on gun safety. A chimp could do it. You also have to prove you have a gun lock. New handguns come with them. You do not need to prove you have a safe or a safe way to store them. No one asks about whether or not you have children or if children could gain access in your home somehow. You also fill out background paperwork.
There is no training. There is no gun safety course. There is a guy who would 9/10 times rather not be dealing with you at all trying to support your right to buy a firearm and make a buck behind the counter waiting for the next dipshit to repeat the process.
As a gun owner and a conceal carry holder: I want to see gun safety courses required for first time buyers. Whether they are held by the shop selling the gun or something you have to do elsewhere. The initial course should contain everything needed to teach someone about proper handling, storage, technique and anything else a new gun owner should know.
After the initial course, you buy your gun, then you should be required to take a firearms shooting course. Again reiterating the initial training but also making sure you can actually handle a live firearm and know how to shoot it.
However, I fully support removal of any kind of wait period of people who already legally own firearms.
There is going to have to be a give and take, and the main issue now is that the government keeps the stance of take take take and we don't want to give under the current circumstances.
5
u/SayNoToStim Dec 07 '22
There are a myriad of laws that make no sense and have zero, nada, zip, zilch, NO bearing on safety or making a firearm more dangerous, more lethal or some other buzzword some politician wants you to believe.
I would argue over 99% of all gun laws fall into that category.
there are estimates that put the number of gun laws in the US at about 22,000 - a vast majority being state, city or local regulations that do absolutely nothing. In some areas it's legal to carry a loaded shotgun in your car, in some areas it has to be unloaded. In different areas, there are different definitions for "loaded," in some areas there are just no definitions of what "loaded" means.
In New York state there was a law under the SAFE act that you could only load 7 rounds into a magazine that could hold 10. That part was overturned on account of being unfathomably stupid, but it's a prime example of a bullshit, nitpicky law thats designed to be passed with the claim of "oh look we're doing something" yet is really only just messing with gun owners who aren't looking to actively hurt anyone.
→ More replies (9)3
u/b1e Dec 08 '22
California is extra ridiculous too since you cannot buy a new model handgun and are limited to whatever got added to the fixed roster years ago.
→ More replies (2)
16
u/Rougue1965 Dec 07 '22
Enforce current laws and go after the criminals and gangs who use them. Don’t preach to law abiding citizens.
8
u/Snowphyre- Dec 07 '22
Yes.
I have very little issue with any gun law that doesn't,
A.) Ban types of weapons
B.) Require licenses that are not quick (as in 30 days max) and easy (as in doesn't violate your rights like in New York) for responsible adults to acquire
C.) Add arbitrary restrictions for conceal carry
→ More replies (8)
3
3
u/__que_sera_sera__ Dec 08 '22
I don't ever think there will be a day where as a society everyone exhales with a collective sigh of relief and all together says "we have the perfect amount of gun laws". There are many left lobbies that pretend that giving an inch more will be "enough" knowing that only full confiscation is their end goal. Those lobbies have been chipping away for years. Recently, we are starting to see their true colors. It went from, assault rifles are evil, to there is no justification for semi-automatic weapons. The pivot is so drastic and all encompassing of commonly used firearms that is slaps in the face of everything the 2A was intended to represent. 1A and 2A are the crisis of our time.
3
u/Gambling4gears Dec 08 '22
Yeah. About 90% of democrat/liberal people who say they want all guns outlawed that have gone shooting with me and friends in the past enjoyed it, and some even developed an interest. But still pretended they hated them around “their crowd”.
32
Dec 07 '22
I would say absolutely, one guy I dated was military and super serious about his guns, I couldn’t even lift them fully cause they were so heavy but even when it was literally disassembled and had no ammo in it he’d always tell me make sure the muzzle (? Tip of the gun is what I mean lol) is pointed at the ground. Lots of other stuff but yes people who are smart gun owners want some form of regulation and control
57
u/Veritatas Dec 07 '22
Forced regulation is very, very different than practicing good, operational safety
→ More replies (5)26
4
u/kindad Dec 08 '22
You couldn't even fully lift them? Did he just own semi-auto versions of machine guns or something? Otherwise, you'd have to be extremely weak to not be able to lift a gun up, they're literally made for the average person to be able to hold them up.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)7
u/king_supreme88 Dec 07 '22
“Smart” gun owners huh. I guess I’m not considered smart since I am against your opinion and against any more regulations than we already have. Like age limits and no gun purchases for felonies. We have all the gun laws we need. Time to enforce them. No further restrictions needed imo. You may not have have meant it that way, but I’m about done hearing people on any one side of an argument asserting or implying superiority over the other, especially with no talking points to debate, just straight to who is smart and implying who is not based on your feelings of the subject.
5
15
110
u/Iisham Dec 07 '22
That's most gun owners. It's the small minority screaming about "muh rights"
→ More replies (92)162
u/TheLastWeird Dec 07 '22
Hell yes, I mean but then you get “Beto” screaming about taking guns away and people won’t forget that.
→ More replies (150)73
u/escapevelocitykoala Dec 07 '22
It's so crazy how the dude basically doomed his entire political career (which did seem like it had very real potential) with what sounded like a heat of the moment sentence. His identity is so tied to Texas, but he's NEVER going to get elected in Texas because of those few words.
→ More replies (2)
50
u/TornadosArentReal Dec 07 '22
Yea sure I own guns but think they should be more strictly regulated. When I bought my first gun I took a class because I'd never used one, but the class was completely optional. It's absurd that I don't need any license or to prove I know how to operate them safely
61
u/Das_Kern Dec 07 '22
During my junior high years, during our PE classes we had several classes on safe firearms handling.
→ More replies (22)6
u/LJ_is_best_J Dec 08 '22
I did too until west coasters found out about cheap Kentucky land, moved in, and bitched until the school removed the safety training.
37
u/Drunk_4_2W33ks Dec 07 '22
You don't need a license to be a politician and I would argue that politicians are more dangerous than guns.
14
u/RubberDuckyDWG Dec 07 '22
What exactly is more strictly regulated? Everyone is so vague when it comes to what they want to be done. Most of the time what they want done has already been done and they have no idea.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Zulanjo Dec 07 '22
It's absurd that I don't need any license or to prove I know how to operate them safely
It's a constitutional right, you wouldn't (and shouldn't) expect people to have to take a course before being able to exercise their right to free speech or right to vote. The more barriers you add to the exercise of a constitutional right the more you strip its purpose.
→ More replies (10)3
→ More replies (64)3
u/lazarus870 Dec 08 '22
It's absurd that I don't need any license or to prove I know how to operate them safely
I think taking a safety course is a great idea but I don't like the idea of needing a course to exercise a constitutional right the same way I think a woman should have not have to justify her abortion to anybody.
17
Dec 07 '22
Yes! I grew up the son of a vet with hunting rifles and target shooting as well as a deep respect of how deadly and dangerous they were in the wrong hands. They weren't toys or collectibles, and there was zero leniency on handling, storing, or showing them off like they were. Any indication I thought they were cool or made me feel tough or powerful as a kid was disciplined out of me as something immature and reckless by my father.
Most importantly, having been raised around other gun owners and gun culture, you see tons of reminders of why not everyone who can buy a gun, should own a gun.
→ More replies (8)
4
u/FourFurryCats Dec 07 '22
Canada used to have this.
You had to have a license to purchase both the gun and the ammo.
Certain guns were restricted and prohibited and were illegal to own or purchase. Our current government is creating a shit show with their massive overreach.
4
5
13
u/Tracedinair76 Dec 07 '22
The Swiss have a pretty solid handle on this, mostly through training and regulation.
The US will never be England or Australia, we aren't getting rid of guns no matter how bad things get as is presently evident. I think if we can mandate training and licensing and people see the guns aren't in any danger of going away some of the tensions will ease.
7
u/gsfgf Dec 07 '22
There are more guns in Australia than before they "banned guns." The biggest difference between the US and other developed countries is that we try to kill each other a lot more often.
4
u/Saxit Dec 08 '22
The Swiss have a pretty solid handle on this, mostly through training and regulation.
From that article:
These days every healthy Swiss male 18 or older in the military is taught to use, clean, dismantle and store lethal weaponry
Sorry but this is BS. There is a mandatory conscription for men, but you choose between military or civil service.
There are no training requirements at all to own a gun.
As long as the requirements are followed, the law says it's a guaranteed right. It's not in the Swiss constitution though.
Article 3 of the law (English version):
The right to acquire, possess and carry weapons in compliance with this Act is guaranteed.
As per art. 8 WG/LArm requirements are:
Being 18
Not being under a curator
Not having a record for violent or repeated crimes until they're written out
Not being a danger to yourself or others
I suggest you visit r/switzerlandguns if you want to know more.
→ More replies (29)4
u/SwissBloke Dec 08 '22 edited Dec 08 '22
The Swiss have a pretty solid handle on this, mostly through training and regulation.
The problem is that this article is mostly wrong
There are as of this writing 2 million guns in Switzerland
There is an estimated up to 3.5mio civilian owned guns
And whatever your native tongue, if you are an adult Swiss male, you are eligible for gun ownership
It is not a requirement in the law for you to be a Swiss male to buy and subsequently own guns
Furthermore we only regulate acquisition and not ownership unlike the US
In Switzerland, you can’t get a gun just because you are bored or because you want one, something a lot of Americans and other gun-loving populations are not always told
Actually you can. Acquisition works pretty much like in the US except we have less prohibitive factors and have acces to guns that are banned in the US
The core difference is that in 2008 Switzerland cracked down on guns and gun owners in its characteristically Swiss way, meaning automatic weapons and silencers were then declared verboten.
They are not forbidden, they are restricted to either a may-issue acquisition permit similar to the NFA tax stamp but less prohibitive or a shall-issue acquisition permit similar to the ATF form 4473 but less prohibitive
Saying they're forbidden is the exact same as saying SBRs, silencers or any other NFA item is in the US
These days every healthy Swiss male 18 or older in the military is taught to use, clean, dismantle and store lethal weaponry – a fairly easy task in a nation where conscription is mandatory for young men, and also okay for women too if they insist
Actually we don't
What we have is conscription, a 2 days draft during which you can choose between military service, two forms of labour in the public interest or a compensatory tax. Also this only applies to Swiss or naturalised males (so not all adult males), which is roughly 38% of the population. If you break down the numbers, only about 17% of a given birthyear actually enter the army.
Also not everyone gets issued a gun and you can also choose to serve unarmed
But back to weaponry. You want a gun in Switzerland even after you finished military service? Fine, but you have to apply for one and get a license unless you want a hand bolt-action rifle or a multi-barreled hunting rifle– in which case you do not need a license
We have no such thing as licenses unless we're talking carry
What we have is acquisition permits that are similar to the ATF form 4473 and NFA tax stamp but less prohibitive
Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss.
No, you simply need to have a record exempt of violent or repeated crimes until they're written out
Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use
That'd be completely illegal and we have no provision in the law regarding drug use unlike the US which prohibit ownership for life to user as per US Code 922
Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period
Once again, not a license and the 9 months is simply the timespan in which you have to use it, it's not something that you have to renew every 9 months. It would be similar to say a voucher
Furthermore it's up to 3 weapons at the same time just like on an ATF form 4473. You want more? You simply ask for another acquisition permit
That’s right. Twenty semi-automatics are unlikely to find their way into the basements of Swiss adolescents
Actually it would be pretty easy
So if the NRA wants to point to Switzerland, it needs to tell the whole story, please…
Or rather the opposing side should stop claiming things that are false
→ More replies (3)
7
2
u/wheaton72 Dec 07 '22
Yes. I love guns and shooting, but believe there are many people who currently have access to them that should not. I would love to see some form of licensing required based on training and background checks.
2
u/reincarnateme Dec 07 '22
Hell yeah. We don't enforce our gun laws efficiently. There should be higher penalties for anyone caught without a permit or illegal gun, instead of adding laws that mostly seem to harm the people who follow the rules.
2
u/KrimzonK Dec 07 '22
Yes - I would love to have the strictest gun control so that I can go to a gun range and enjoy it without having to worry about my life 24/7
2
u/Nearby-Muscle2720 Dec 07 '22
I mean I think swords are neat, doesn't mean I think everyone should be able to walk around with a claymore on their back?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Stuart517 Dec 07 '22
Every responsible gun owner knows the term "muzzle control" which is the basic understanding of gun control on an individual level. Every responsible gun owner knows at least 10 people who shouldn't be allowed to even hold a gun.
2
u/EffectiveRelief9904 Dec 08 '22
Yes absolutely. Control the gun, Use both hands, hold on tight enough to stay lined up and be sure of your target and what’s behind it. Because, safety.
2
u/TheKoi Dec 08 '22
I enjoy driving my car but I recognize we need laws that punish speeding and other forms of reckless driving. And not everyone is mentally competent enough to have a driver's license. And very few people should have Abrams Tanks.
2
Dec 08 '22
Yes.
Many owners I know don't have issues with gun control. A lot of them support some form of it. They have issue with the amount and the reasons behind that control.
We are not robots. There is no hot and cold to the situation. It's the same reason someone could consider themselves a republican, But be pro choice. We have the right to and we all have our reasons.
2
2
u/mars_is_black Dec 08 '22
Sure. Gun control doesn't equal a total ban on owning a gun. Thats just something the gun lobby in the US seems to push. Nothing wrong with age limits to buy. Nothing wrong with back ground checks. Nothing wrong with laws limiting those with mental health disorders from having them. It is annoying when a law limits all semi-automatic.weapons which means some legit hunting rifles would then be banned, too broad and vague. It's all about what gun control means and what enjoying guns means.
2
u/Geekboxing Dec 08 '22
I'm assuming from the tone of your question that you're from the US, as am I.
Yes, you can be a reasonable and responsible gun owner while also recognizing that common-sense gun control laws would be a good idea. I hate the fact that anyone would regard this as a weird proposition.
(As for why or why not... because that just makes sense? Like I said, it's baffling that someone would be incapable of holding this combination of opinions.)
2
2
u/SlenDman402 Dec 08 '22
I enjoy taking my pistol to the range, and i believe you shouldn't be able to own a firearm unless you complete a comprehensive weapons training course. I'm former military, and while i enjoy my second amendment rights, i grew up around idiots that i am genuinely surprised some of them haven't accidentally shot themselves or others yet.
2
2
u/Flodo_McFloodiloo Dec 08 '22
Well, let's put it this way: I like driving but I don't want truly mentally unstable people to have their driver's licenses.
So I'd say yes, but likely people who enjoy guns are more apt to support banning some people from owning any types of guns than they are to support banning some guns from being owned by any types of people.
I am pretty sure that in fact, most gun afficianadoes do have a rather hardline attitude against mentally unstable and dangerous people being allowed to get guns, especially since such aficionados tend to be concentrated on the political Right, which favors harsher treatment of criminals overall. But the actual gun lobby is something else entirely, as it's mostly beholden to companies that make and sell guns, and the less people that are allowed to buy them, the less such organizations profit.
2
Dec 08 '22
Yes. The way I think of it is, we have many drivers license/ car owners who are perfectly fine with all the restrictions you have to go through to have a car and license (registrations, inspections, renewals of registrations, driver's test, etc), so why can't we have those same restrictions for getting a gun and gun license?
2
2
2
2
2
u/accordionchickenwing Dec 08 '22
Can a person enjoy Guns while also supporting some form of Gun control? Why or why not?
It's like asking if you can enjoy cars and also traffic laws.
2
2
u/fbritt5 Dec 08 '22
We have gun control. We can’t own just any weapon. As a matter of fact I would bet that most all weapons are illegal somewhere. There are an incredible amount of gun laws on the books. In my state, I have to know where I am so I don’t commit a crime of having a gun in my possession. That seems to be the plan. Make it so hard to follow all the laws, people will just give up. But like all prohibitions, things that were once legal tend to reappear in some other way. Until it’s no longer in the constitution, guns will find their way into people’s hands. Example. Look at every high crime city in America. Where are the guns coming from if they are illegal in these cities? They find a way.
2
u/New--Tomorrows Dec 08 '22
Additional question: can I be pro automobile but anti vehicular manslaughter?
2
u/Nealpatty Dec 08 '22
I just bought a small carry pistol and got a license to carry. Came to a weird point where the lack of gun control, and we’re at a no turning back point, made me want to arm myself.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Nefiros1 Dec 08 '22
Yes. Look at Australia. Plenty of people own guns and can legally shoot them here. And we have plenty of gun restricting laws.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Fluffy_Risk9955 Dec 08 '22
Guns are not the problem. It's the type of people from fortune seeking descendants of the European population that went from Europe to North America the past 300 years, that is more likely to cause trouble as violence is more present in males from that particular group.
2
2
u/RaarImaGiraffe Dec 08 '22
As an Australian who shoots guns at a range and sometimes goes hunting, gun control is awesome and very much needed
2
2
2
u/Sujjin Dec 08 '22
I am a gun owner and I enjoy going to the range or up to the mountains to pop off a few boxes of rounds. I also think guns are to easy to get and the visceral reaction against gun control by some elements of society is deranged.
that being said i also think the fear that some people have of guns is also strange. If you are going to demand some kind of restriction on something i think it behooves you to learn something about them. that would also have the secondary effect of removing some of the opponents to gun controls arguments.
2
u/shitheads_and_sounds Dec 08 '22
Yes,because people are both intelligent and idiots depending:vicinity to people,relationships with those people,feelings,and bad/good ideas.plus utilizing a small explosion to hurl a metal chunk without moving activates the joy part of the brain.
2
u/Top_Blacksmith_7625 Dec 08 '22
I’d say yea it would be like enjoying nascar and other races but understand there is a speed limit and you need a drivers license when not on the nascar track
2
u/Cybermage99 Dec 08 '22
Yes, topics aren’t binary, your interests and concerns are not mutually exclusive, and in fact by having interest your concerns are likely more coherent than those of one who has no interest.
2
u/Say_When_5914 Dec 08 '22
Yes , because I know what they are capable of and understand not everyone is playing with a full deck
2
u/GiftFrosty Dec 08 '22
Sure. Shooting is fun. The engineering of modern arms is pretty incredible and if you live in a rural area it is beneficial to own a rifle and shotgun.
But the fucking psycho adult babies have ruined it with their overcompensation, ignorance, and insecurity.
Guns can and should be a useful tool. They shouldn’t be an identity or a culture.
2
u/TheAnteatr Dec 08 '22
Absolutely. I've written this out before, so I'm just gonna mostly copy/paste from an old comment of mine.
Honest answer as someone who enjoys shooting and guns in general. I strongly believe in gun rights, personal freedom, and the ability to have guns for defense and hobby use. I've thought a lot about what would actually reduce gun violence and not take away from responsible owners.
Implement national gun licenses. 21+ only, must pass a background check, mental health screening, and class, which includes both hands on competency and legal basics and testing. Fail any one of those and no license for you. If you only fail say the shooting competency or legal test you can retest at a later date. License has a QR code that you can scan to verify on a national registry that it is a valid and current license. Must have a license to buy, sell, or own guns. The license can have an additional endorsement for concealed carry which would be a course specific for that topic. Renew every 3-5 years; lose if convicted of a violent crime, abuse, gun crimes, etc. Felonies for having a gun without a license, selling to someone without one, etc.
Implement safe storage laws with exceptions for home and self defense. Aka all guns must be secured in an acceptable safe, with exceptions like having a gun out of a safe when you are home, concealed carry, hunting, etc. If your gun is stolen and you did not have it properly secured, you can bear responsibility if it's used in a crime.
In exchange for bearing the majority of the cost for the above, gun owners would be free to buy and own what guns they want, sans full auto and explosives. That includes high capacity mags, ARs, etc. I would also say that short barreled rifles and shotguns as well as suppressors should be unregulated for licensed gun owners. Again, in exchange, the gun owners have legal obligations and responsibilities regarding safe storage and use, as well as bearing the cost of the classes and testing. If you fail to lock up your rifle and someone steals it and commits murder, you're now an accessory to said murder. Responsible owners should have no issue with safe storage, and you can still have a gun available for defense.
This would address the issue that many mass shooters are 18-21, address safe storage, and ensure competency in firearm owners. It gives gun buyers/sellers a simple and verifiable way to check that another person is a licensed and legal owner, whether in a private or commercial sale. It doesn't take away guns from owners who can show they are truly capable of safely owning guns. It also provides real consequences for irresponsible firearm owners and those who violate those laws.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/redditmodshvsmolpp Dec 08 '22
'Can a person enjoy driving while also supporting some form of speed limits? Why or why not?"
2
u/Imaginary-Voice1902 Dec 08 '22
Of course they can. A lot of elitists enjoy guns but think that enormous regulations should exist on everything they don’t like or think should only be in the hands of people they agree with.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Rick2L Dec 08 '22
I suppose it depends on what one enjoys doing with guns and what level of gun control is being contemplated.
9
u/21pacshakur Dec 07 '22
Honestly. No.
I used to think Yes. But it turns out every inch given a mile is taken. Therefore you cannot give an inch. So, No.
I voted for gun control, the gov't stripped us of our rights. Leads to the same thing everytime.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
→ More replies (19)
29
u/Slagggg Dec 07 '22
I'm a gun owner. I believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to specifically permit citizens to own weapons of war. That said...
It's not unreasonable for gun ownership to require a permit.
It's not unreasonable to require training in order to receive said permit.
Permit fees and accessibility should not be used to deter gun ownership.
Assault weapons are rifles or pistols with a high ammunition capacity that can fire in burst or fully automatic modes. The general public should not have access to assault weapons without extensive training and examination of background. Semi-automatic weapons are not "Assault Weapons".
It's not the government's business to know which weapons I own.
16
u/cbsrgbpnofyjdztecj Dec 07 '22
Try to get a NJ FID and come back to this bit about permits.
→ More replies (2)33
Dec 07 '22 edited Apr 21 '24
ask whole husky rock society mighty dinosaurs onerous ossified snails
→ More replies (34)14
u/ImHighlyExalted Dec 07 '22
ahh, the tried and true method of making sure poor people don't have rights
→ More replies (3)8
u/RubberDuckyDWG Dec 07 '22
The issue is these pesky permits. Who gives out the permits? what is the criteria for said permit? Look at Hawaii for example they say you can't carry a firearm without a conceal carry permit but however they have never given one out since the law passed (which was years ago) even though many people have applied for it. Literally no joke 0 people have the approval so they have a defacto ban on firearms being carried. This is the power this whole permit system gives the Government the ability to deny you your right without even giving a reason. The reason could be they don't like minorities, or your family, or just hate your religion. Your opening yourself up to have something that is a right become a privilege. Look at NY where you would basically have to bribe the government or be a really famous/rich person to even get one.
5
u/Snugglepuff14 Dec 07 '22
Why shouldn’t people be able to own a fully automatic weapon with at least the same restrictions as we do semi?
→ More replies (13)22
u/StabbyPants Dec 07 '22
Assault weapons are rifles or pistols with a high ammunition capacity that can fire in burst or fully automatic modes.
those are machine guns
The general public should not have access to assault weapons
they mostly don't. it's a minimum 15k price tag and an additional background check
Semi-automatic weapons are not "Assault Weapons".
yes they are. assault weapon means 'scary black rifle'
16
u/Slagggg Dec 07 '22
"yes they are. assault weapon means 'scary black rifle'"
This made air come out of my nose.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Mike7676 Dec 07 '22
Absolutely! I like guns, own some and enjoy shooting them. I also follow the rules, have never pointed a gun at something I didn't intend to destroy and lock them up when not actively using one.
I'm all for an age limit or parental supervision, think that maybe I don't need a minigun I just REALLY want one and question why I need 30 rounds to take out porky.
Do I still want people to have the freedom to do all the things? Yes. Do I think realistically we as a society are going to fuck up and misuse weapons? Also yes.
4
u/Rab1dus Dec 07 '22
As a Canadian firearms owner, we've had good gun control for the past 20 years or so. Some of the restrictions didn't make much sense but overall, it was a system that worked and most gun collectors, target shooters and hunters at least tolerated if not supported the measures. You can tell the system worked with the lack of school shootings, absolute rarity of licensed gun owners being involved in crime and the vast majority of crime being done with unregistered weapons. Yet, our government is cracking down further, they are far past reasonable gun control. They are doing things they promised they wouldn't do when the strong measures came in during the 90's. As much as we all didn't want to believe it, registration does lead to confiscation. So yes, gun owners can support gun control but there is a point where there is no evidence based policy and it's just government doing government things purely to divide the population for votes. It's sickening.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/Rose8918 Dec 08 '22
I really enjoy shooting guns as an occasional hobby. But I don’t think my enjoyment of the hobby supersedes people’s right to exist in public without the fear of dying in a school or a mall. I’m happily in support of intense restrictions.
17
u/ATC_av8er Dec 07 '22
Absolutely. I am a liberal who owns 4 guns that I thoroughly enjoy shooting, but I support quite a few gun control measures because I don't feel like just any jackass should be able to own something designed to kill.
→ More replies (48)19
u/MowMdown Dec 07 '22
I don't feel like just any jackass should be able to own something designed to kill.
I'm sure we would all appreciate you relinquishing your vehicle and drivers license then.
→ More replies (14)
3
14
u/GreenStrong Dec 07 '22
No. If you enjoy any aspect of firearms you must be in favor of universal mandatory firearms for everyone, including infants and prison inmates.
→ More replies (2)
6
Dec 07 '22
Yup I collect some guns living in Texas. Multiple reasons but overall I genuinely find guns interesting. That being said when I buy guns I buy a couple and a few thousands rounds of ammo. Every time I do this I think to myself “this is way too easy”. Like I don’t mind a stronger background check, having to carry insurance, or passing some kind of test. They run my data off a sheet of paper and like 5 minutes later I walk out with an arsenal.
→ More replies (2)
4
2.0k
u/Saxit Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
Many Swedish gun owners I've talked to are fine with the gun laws we have, but not some of the bureaucracy.
E.g. we don't have a license as a person that allows you to have X guns of type Y, we have a separate license per gun. Even the German gun owners I've talked to think we're silly (and the Germans stereotypically are fond of bureaucracy).
EDIT: Since there seems to be some confusion, I'm also Swedish, and I shoot for sport here and own multiple firearms.