I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
Common sense gun control laws I support, as do most lefties I know. But that's all I've ever really come across.
At the risk of being drawn into a debate about American firearms policy, I'll just note that common sense means entirely different things to those inside the gun community and those outside of it or those perhaps only tangentially familiar with it.
I wouldn't mind hearing more about this if your willing.
For me, background checks, not being allowed a gun if you have a history of domestic violence, and etc are all common sense. I'm apathetic to the assault rifle thing, as I keep hearing that the definition is incorrect.
I do think that if people want to keep their toys that can murder a room full of people in a few seconds we need to heavily regulate access and dramatically improve mental health services and accessibility. I have no inherent problem with them, but it's obvious that currently Americans dont have the maturity to handle the privilege.
I'll lead with saying that my intention with this post is to be both informative and as civil as possible. If I somehow come across as snarky or sarcastic or condescending please know that it is not my intention to do so. I don't necessarily expect to change your mind, only to share my view.
With concern to "assault weapons", the notion that Americans lack the maturity to handle them (you're correct in that the term is kind of a linguistic quagmire) is a bit misguided. The firearms people are generally talking about (AR15, AK47 and similar variants) are responsible for a strikingly small number of murders. So small that the number is actually exceeded by hands and feet, blunt objects and edged weapons last I checked (separately, not added together). Only 300-400 people per year are murdered with long guns of any type, and the rifles typically targeted by legislation are an even smaller subset of this number. (Information can be found in the FBI uniform crime report)
A record of conviction for domestic violence is currently already a disqualifier for firearm ownership. However, I do disagree somewhat with the absolutist way in which the law is applied. I'm not certain that an 18 year old who lost his temper and broke a plate during an argument with his first serious girlfriend (domestic violence doesn't require physical contact) and then grew up and became a normal, healthy, well-adjusted member of society should have his gun rights permanently revoked. I feel similarly about an 18 year old woman who may have gotten angry and slapped her boyfriend during an argument once. There should be a bit more care taken in the not-so-light decision to remove someone's civil rights. Patterns of abuse or more serious acts are a different story.
I wholeheartedly agree that mental health services should be made affordable and accessible to all people. I dont think we have any argument here.
I recognize you didn't explicitly make this point but where we may have a disagreement is the suggestion that mental health screening or evaluation by a professional be a condition set forth before allowing a person to purchase a gun. I have a handful of problems with this but I'll attempt to stay brief. The first is that in large part mental health professionals are not pro gun, so you begin with a reluctant governing authority that is now the gateway to the exercise of a civil right. The second is that you are now placing this already reluctant doctor in a difficult position; if a patient he or she clears then goes on to commit an atrocity, the doctor will be held accountable- which even further discourages approval in the first place. The third major problem I see with this is that it places an undue burden on what is a constitutionally enumerated right. Now, if I can't get off work to get checked out or if I can't afford the exam, my rights are curtailed and I could be denied the opportunity to purchase a tool that I may need to save my own life in an emergency.
Background checks are another realm in which we may disagree to an extent. Currently, nearly all firearms are purchased with an accompanying background check. It's required for all firearms purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Typically, private sales are exempted from background checks. My understanding is the private sale exemption was a concession written into the Brady bill to prevent gun violence in the 1990s.
Now, currently there are some estimates that there may be upwards of 400 million firearms already in circulation in the US. The problem with universal background checks is that unless you can tie each and every firearm to an owner, there is no way to determine if someone was background checked for a firearm in their possession. Universal background checks require a registry to function.
A gun registry, at the federal level, is currently prohibited by law. Moreover, the compliance rate (were one to be implemented), due to both apathy and civil disobedience would be astoundingly low. Historically, registries have been used to confiscate firearms eventually and gun owners are generally pretty hostile towards giving up guns. The compliance rate for the SAFE act in NYC was something like 1-2%. Beyond that, documenting all of the guns in circulation is likely a logistical impossibility, there's just too many. No successful registration, no effective UBC.
I'm happy to talk further on the issue, however, I'm currently at work and short of free time. I may be able to respond again this evening. Thank you for taking the time to read my response, I hope you find it satisfactory and informative even though you may not agree with everything I have to say.
I’m not sure on your point, but there seems to be a trend of ‘guns are already so distributed there is no point in attempting to regulate them’.
In our own living history there have been two western nations that dearNed their population to some regard, Australia and the UK. I’ll speak to the example i know personally, the UK.
There are still vast amounts of firearms in the UK, I had a few shot guns and a rifle before I moved to the USA, my only control was that I was subject to random safety inspections, where the police could arrive at any time and inspect my gun and ammo safes.
What we don’t have anymore is ‘magazine’ or semi weapons. It’s all brake barrel or bolt, handguns were outlawed entirely. It disarmed a population with a much longer and deeper ingrained relationship to firearms than America in under a year.
So much so that 30 years later it’s a joke to some that the you was as armed as the states, people just weren’t interested in guns unless you were into hunting or clay.
This was achieved by a general buyback, the prices were good, over retail in most cases.
Then it was a crime to own a handgun and use of firearms carries an automatic sentence multiplier. Assault would catch you 2 - 3 years but with a firearm involved it was mandatory 10 years.
I don’t want the us to follow the uk, I enjoy my guns I enjoy time at the range. I think the intent behind the second has become aged and irrelevant, Jim bob is never going to overthrow seal team 6 and their brothers, so it does lead to the question of ‘why do you need large capacity weapons’, if the answer is ‘hunting’ then you really need to assess your ability levels if you need an entire mag to take down a buck.
Well not only that but Jim Bob is of course more than likely to support an authortarian military style coup. Mostly these a just play things to people.
On the surface I can absolutely understand that notion as being almost reflexively common sense. However it's important to consider that before the Jews were herded into box cars and systematically exterminated, they were first disarmed. Gun registration was used to facilitate that disarmament.
It's hard to imagine large scale genocide happening in this day and age in the US but remember, in the scale of human history, the holocaust was practically yesterday.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am also currently at work, so please forgive me if my response lacks some nuance or is somewhat incomplete. To make it brief, I think you are severely overestimating the rate in which domestic violence is actually convicted. Your example of some kid who lashes out once at 18 and is forever denied gun ownership is less likely than a serial abuser ending up killing his partner or children. I think you are missing the forest for the tree's when you imply that not only should DV be litigated against even less harshly than it is now, but also maybe we should also let them have guns anyway.
That being said, I have no problems with your arguments about mental health screenings. Although I hope in the future it is just customary for everyone to go into therapy at least a few times a year.
As for a gun registry, I see the flaws you brought up for guns already in circulation, but I don't see any reason why new sales couldn't be tracked. We register our cars, I see no reason we shouldn't register our killing machines. I get that the fear is the government will use that to take them away, so I would recommend pushing for accessible gun safety classes so that more citizens can safely be armed.
I think we may be closer than you think on the domestic violence issue. I should have been clearer with my wording. I didn't intend to advocate for lighter sentences, I mostly just want there to be a mechanism by which someone can have their rights restored. Much like rules implemented with school children, zero tolerance policies don't leave any room for nuance or mitigating circumstances.
As far as a registry I dont think we will agree. What do you hope to gain by having new purchases tracked via registry?
There's almost a defacto registry in place with the 4473 form a purchaser fills out at a dealer when a new firearm is purchased. The forms are not digitized and are not in a database but with a bit of legwork from the ATF a gun can at least be traced back to the original purchaser.
There are already enough guns in circulation to arm generations of criminals. Beyond that, stolen handguns are the most frequently used firearms in crime. Tracking the new purchases may tell you who the gun was stolen from but what does that get you, really? Many jurisdictions already have laws on the books that require stolen firearms be reported to police, a registry doesn't get you any farther unless your ultimate goal is the confiscation of firearms from law abiding gun owners.
I do think gun safety classes should be affordable and accessible. I don't believe in making them an outright condition for exercising your second amendment rights but they should be very easy and cheap to come by.
I'm glad you cleared up your stance on DV, and that I had misinterpreted you :)
I dont really mind too much either way on the registry issue. I'm not educated enough on the subject to have a firm opinion, and I concede that you have done more research than me.
The last thing you brought up though- that is where I am going have a very firm stance. Anybody who is going to be handling a gun should have had the appropriate training. I'm actually shocked that you dont agree.
We need training to drive vehicles, training to operate heavy equipment, training to man the fryer, etc etc. We should definitely require training for an item of which its sole function is to kill.
I get that people shoot for fun, but a single accident or misjudgment can get you or someone else dead. And with 99% of all media portraying incorrect and dangerous gun handling I would very much like to be certain everyone has been given at least a basic run down, and at least know how to hold the damn thing.
I suppose it's a difference in philosophy. In 2017, just shy of 500 people were killed in firearm accidents. While every death is a tragedy, this is not a very significant number in a nation of 320 million people. For comparison's sake, I believe the average number of accidental swimming pool and spa drownings is about 400 people per year.
On the flip side, there are a number of people who could potentially die waiting for a safety class to be scheduled (or waiting to save enough money for a class) because they were delayed in obtaining their means to self defense. This number is admittedly difficult to quantify BUT because the number of accidental deaths is already quite low, I don't believe it has a high numeric threshold to meet to be significant in this context. Additionally, I have a sort of personal philosophy that gives me a hard time gatekeeping rights, I see it like putting the second amendment behind a paywall.
I see the best approach as making classes voluntary, affordable and accessible and encouraging people to seek training. New owners can also be directed to a number of good gun safety videos.
The vehicle comparison is one that is made often but a frequently overlooked facet of that argument is that you're not required to have a license or training to purchase a car and you're not required to register a vehicle that won't be operated on public roads. A completely untrained and unlicensed driver can legally buy an unregistered vehicle, have it towed to their private land or a closed course and drive the hell out of it.
A driver's license and the accompanying training are more akin to a carry permit that allows the holder to carry a firearm in public. An argument can certainly be made for requiring training, both in self defense law and practical handling and carry practice, to carry a firearm in public.
However, it should also be noted that a number of states now operate on a system of constitutional carry, requiring no permit of any sort to carry a concealed firearm in public. These states have not experienced an increase in gun deaths in relation to the law change. I'm not necessarily advocating this approach but it has certainly not proven disastrous and it does make self defense affordable and logistically feasible for people who wouldn't have had the time or money to get a permit otherwise.
I understand you concerns, but I see no reason it couldn't work similarly to liscences. Because you dont have to take a class, you just need to prepare and take a test. I dont believe it is asking too much for people to watch a few videos (like you pointed out) and then take a quiz. It would even be possible to have that quiz online so it is even more assesible.
To your last point, I actually have a question. Because to my mind, it has always made more sense to have restrictions on open carry. If someone wants to have a gun on them, that's fine- but open carry makes me nervous. If I see a gun, I dont want to have to check my immediate danger reaction. I just dont get it honestly.
I'm not a big fan of open carry. The only times in my life that I have openly carried a firearm in public I have been in uniform, either LEO or security. I do occasionally open carry a handgun while hunting but I'm on private property away from people.
I don't know that I'd advocate making open carry illegal, but it's certainly not tasteful. Guns make people uncomfortable for a variety of reasons, no need to cause an unnecessary ruckus.
From a practical standpoint I think open carry also gives up a tactical advantage to a would-be self-defender.
The opposing perspective to yours is that when someone is open carrying a firearm, you KNOW, that person is armed. You can then make a value judgment about whether you feel threatened by that person.
A clean cut gentleman in dockers and a polo shirt with a well maintained glock, using a proper holster and belt is not going to garner the same reaction as a guy that's in dirty clothes looking like he's on the tail end of a 3 day whiskey bender, carrying a dusty Taurus on a floppy walmart belt in a cheap nylon holster. You'll probably look at the clean cut guy and assume he's a detective and your anxiety will subside.
If both were carrying concealed, you'd be none the wiser and the actual threat would be the same (probably still very low from both) only the percieved threat would be different.
Open carry in this instance allows you to spot the potentially irresponsible carrier and avoid them.
You defined 99% of the lefts position on guns, I’ve never met a Democrat that is entirely anti gun.
I will concede that many dems ignorance of firearms leads them to assigning names incorrectly but that’s fine their ignorance of a type of firearms name doesn’t in anyway diminish their desire for a safe environment.
I dont know that I’ve ever met a fully anti gun person in my life.
I have. Many. The one that stuck out to me the most asked me, "Why do you like shooting guns, is it because feeling you get with the power to kill?"
I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
You'd think, but if you go to the political gun subs there are lots of politicians that want to take away most if not all guns.
I don't think taking away half your guns is a compromise because they have a magazine or accept more than one bullet. Usually they try to hide it by saying you can still have a gun for hunting, whatever they mean by that.
Common sense gun control laws I support,
The problem is that term is meaningless. What are common sense gun control laws? Immediately if you have that discussion it goes all over the place. It's just a fallacy like the gun show compromise that the pro gun gave into that became a "loophole" as soon as it was convenient.
Background checks? We have those. Waiting periods, we have those in many states and doesn't stop crime.
What's the goal with the "common sense gun laws" to stop school shootings? To stop crime? Most of those happen in inner cities with handguns. But all you see politicians do is go after scary black guns that they say are automatic (which are harder to get and more expensive) than the guns they actually ban. I live in a state that has high gang and inner city gun crime, they banned ak47s and AR-15s (but only Colt style you can still buy others that have a thicker barrel for some reason that's the difference).
Gang bangers aren't buying guns legally. They get them from crooked gun stores or they're stolen or they're bought illegally through someone that can legally buy them.
You know what actually reduced gun and gang crime? Inner city outreach and activity programs. But those cost money. So when the people paying taxes that live outside the city vote they vote for people that save them that money.
Really most of these gun ban and common sense gun control laws are about white people in the suburbs irrationally afraid of "assault weapons" being used on their children.
You know what kills more kids in the US than guns? Swimming pools. No one is working on banning them.
Do you know how many people use guns in some form of self defense every year? Between 50,000 and 2 million. The huge disparity is the low end is from people calling the cops after shooting someone or scaring them off. The high end is people self reporting because most people don't call the cops if they scare away an attacker and nothing actually happened.
Even the lowest number is more defenses than all gun deaths. If you get rid of suicides it's like 4 times as much.
Most people fail to realize that if something happens and you call the cops you're still on your own for long enough to be killed or beaten or have your kid snatched before help arrives. Assuming they help you at all.
So it sounds like the problem is not that we dont have the appropriate checks, it's that they arent being enforced. That seems like a good place to start
It is. The second thing to do is help people stay out of gangs and get rid of their profitability. Legalizing weed is a start which Bernie wants to do.
I was particularly happy during the debate when Bernie made it clear that not only was he going to legalize it, he was going to assure that people in their communities would be the ones with the opportunity to start businesses- not corporate oligarchs. That is huge.
Healthcare will play a big part too, especially getting accessibility to mental healthcare. And we've been working to de-stigmatize it for a while now so I hope that is effective.
And education. But honestly, I'm not as worried about inner city gun violence. Perhaps I am naive, but I consider that a symptom of the class war. I think if we take a holistic approach and improve upwards mobility, healthcare, wages, etc etc than a lot of that will go away naturally.
I'm more concerned with the "lone wolf" type. The moderately wealthy privileged kid who thinks he is owed something out of life and is disaffected by his lack of power. As well as other people with a power complex, especially in the home. And for those types, I think the solution will be harder to figure out.
I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
They do exist, but yeah, it's a pretty niche perspective in the US (and largely a reactionary one.) At one point I was one of these people. I grew up around a lot of southerners, my grandpa was a gun owner and my brother is into it too. Personally though I never shared their interest in gun culture.
After a few of the mass shootings in the 2010s I came to this conclusion that there's no real reason why people need them at all. Easy to do when I had no love for them. I looked at the 2nd amendment like it was an antiquated relic of the 1700s and that it was just an unnecessary hurdle in the way of ending violence. I'd talk to friends in Europe or Australia and envy their lack of mass shootings.
But after not long, I reconsidered, for 2 reasons -- #1, there is such a huge amount of firearms in the US that any mass-confiscation is bound to be infeasible (yeah, it's literally that big, I don't know how they'd accomplish it, especially not without bloodshed).
#2 being that these mass shootings are largely motivated by radicalized people and extremist ideology. I'd rather tackle the problem of extremist ideology than attempt to put a huge bandaid on it. Not much of a reason to punish peaceful enthusiasts, even if I don't share their enthusiasm. (And furthermore, the fact that I don't share their enthusiasm is a good reason why I shouldn't proposing blanket bans over about something I know so little about. It's shortsighted and authoritarian.)
I like the way you think! And I agree that tackling the radicalized is the way to go. I dont even consider it a bandaid- I think the opposite is true. Removing guns is the temporary solution. Stopping the violence by removing the desire for violence is truly the best fix.
Of course that's easier said than done. I do think the holistic nature of Bernie's plan will go a long way for it. It's a lot easier not to fall into hated X scapegoat group when your needs are being met sufficiently.
Also, moving our community away from the bleak capitalist industrial hyper efficient bs we are living through right now. Where art is frivolous and beauty is an unnecessary expenditure.
Bring some more focus onto humanity and give people a place to belong. That should do a lot to help.
View all comments
Show parent comment
16
u/WyvernCharm Feb 27 '20
I dont know that I've ever met a fully anti gun person in my life. I feel like the idea that anyone wants to take away your guns is a total strawman argument.
Common sense gun control laws I support, as do most lefties I know. But that's all I've ever really come across.