My Vision Of Gun Control In The USA

[Swammerdami]

One of the arguments one hears frequently is:

No point in banning the AR-15; the killer could have killed as many with a Glock.​

Not necessarily! Shooters are able to aim more rapidly, fire more quickly, and cope with recoil MUCH better with the AR-15 than with a Glock hand-gun. Sure a trained expert could kill a lot of people with a Glock; but for the typical estranged 25-year-old incel or Trumplicker?

Nah! Without the convenience of an "assault rifle" like the AR-15, many wouldn't be earnest or daring enough to even pursue mayhem with the more difficult weapon.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm certainly making the point I think I am making; Whether I am making the point YOU think I am (or should be) making is up to you.

After having read this post, the point that I inferred was not the point you were attempting to make. This post makes your point much clearer.

My point is that these places all have different rules, and different levels of ease with which firearms can be obtained; Yet they all have FAR lower gun crime levels, and FAR lower gun deaths, than the USA.

It's very obvious that the absurd claims from the NRA lobbyists that small amounts of regulation achieve nothing, and that the only way to achieve reductions in gun deaths and gun crime is to pass unacceptably draconian laws, are utter bosh.

In fact, many nations have very liberal laws, but still manage to have far better outcomes than the US with its insanely lax regulatory environment.

If the US government proposed to adopt gun laws identical to those of Austria or Switzerland, the NRA would scream blue murder about "gun grabbers" seeking to destroy the rights of Americans to defend themselves.

But as you note, those countries in fact have very limited regulation of firearms.

This problem isn't particularly difficult to solve - but the gun lobby are determined to persuade Americans that it is in fact impossible, or at least unacceptably difficult. But the only real obstacle is the gun lobby itself.

Not one of those OECD countries in my list has banned private ownership of guns. Not one. Gun bans aren't something anyone involved in this debate should have to consider - because they are an entirely fictional issue. Regulations aren't bans. And regulations are sufficient to solve the problem of excessive gun deaths, gun crime, and gun violence.

The US just needs to give maximum prominence to the "well regulated" part of the second amendment, and far less weight to the "shall not be infringed" bit.

I don't disagree in principle.

I don't think that Ziprhead's proposal of a ban on AK/AR style rifles accomplishes much of anything useful. The overwhelming majority of both murders and suicides use pistols.

Personally, I am more inclined to require training and licensing for firearms. Not dissimilar to what is required to legally drive a car. And different training for different classes of firearms, just as there is different training and licensing for motorcycles and large transport vehicles. That includes periodically having to re-test. We expect out military and law enforcement personnel to qualify on a regular basis, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect civilians to do the same.

I encourage the use of safes, but I wouldn't require it. I think it would be reasonable and beneficial to heavily subsidize the cost of gun safes, so that they're not available only to those who can afford them. In tandem, I would institute legal repercussions if a person's firearm is used in a crime or a suicide and it was unsecured. Nobody would be required to keep them in a safe, but they would be liable for the consequences if they did not. That at least gives some leeway for people to display firearms if they choose. We have a few pistols and rifles that are damned near works of art; at some point I'd love to put my grandfather's WW2 rifle on the wall.

Contrary to many pro-2-am people, I don't have a problem with registration. It's a bit of a pain to implement, especially if a person has antiques. Mostly, I don't think that a registry is going to in any way result in those firearms being seized because the government has a list. In my opinion, people who worry about that... well... I think they don't personally know any law enforcement, military, or relevant government employees. The vast majority of people in those services actually take the constitution pretty seriously, and seizing firearms would be a massive and blatant violation of our rights - one that I don't think any of those organizations would be willing to take part in.

But the draconian approaches, the bans, the "lets make it harder to get ammo" and similar efforts to wiggle around our rights is something I have little patience for. Especially when such actions are proposed under the guise of reducing crime. I really don't think that our gun laws are the actual problem, and I don't think that more convoluted and massively limiting gun laws are a solution of any reasonable sort.

 

[Emily Lake]

Guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people. And people with fancier guns kill more people.

You're right that people with guns kill people. As do people with knives, blow torches, axes, and fists. Guns certainly make it a bit easier, but as you say, it's people.

As for fancier guns killing more people... well no. The vast majority of people who get killed by someone else wielding a firearm are killed with some pretty basic, un-fancy pistols. The vast majority of people who kill themselves with firearms use basic un-fancy pistols.

 

[Jarhyn]

Guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people. And people with fancier guns kill more people.

You're right that people with guns kill people. As do people with knives, blow torches, axes, and fists. Guns certainly make it a bit easier, but as you say, it's people.

As for fancier guns killing more people... well no. The vast majority of people who get killed by someone else wielding a firearm are killed with some pretty basic, un-fancy pistols. The vast majority of people who kill themselves with firearms use basic un-fancy pistols.

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

People with knives much more often wound people. People with fists generally are going to have a very hard time killing without spending a lot of effort and rage far past a bursting point.

Semi-automatics are "fancy guns". Semiautomatic pistols are "fancy guns".

There is nothing basic about a machine that is "bullet per trigger pull".

The solution is to not allow the weapon in the space where it doesn't belong, because the instant availability is directly pursuant to use.

Allowing deadly weapons in public makes "being out in public" more deadly. Allowing semi-automatics weapons in public is even worse.

The fact is, a teacher with a chair can almost certainly successfully disarm a student with a knife, blowtorch, or axe.

Several people so armed with simple chairs can keep such a person at bay, safely, fairly indefinitely.

Throw a gun in? Not gonna happen.

Even were one of the victims responded with a gun of their own, there is no defending against that, and the response puts everyone "downrange" at risk.

 

[Emily Lake]

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

What do you think constitutes a not-fancy firearm?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people. And people with fancier guns kill more people.

You're right that people with guns kill people. As do people with knives, blow torches, axes, and fists. Guns certainly make it a bit easier, but as you say, it's people.

Make it a bit easier. Must be why people love killing people with them. The fancy ones make it damn near impossible to defend against.

Yes, people use handguns to kill themselves, and generally to murder other people. I'm not certain why trying to stop mass murders by limiting access to guns that make self defense a joke is bad.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

What do you think constitutes a not-fancy firearm?

The kind that you have to put a new bullet in the gun every time you want to fire.

 

[Elixir]

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

What do you think constitutes a not-fancy firearm?

The kind that you have to put a new bullet in the gun every time you want to fire.

I like the kind you have to throw at someone. That kind isn't often used in suicides, either.

 

[bilby]

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

What do you think constitutes a not-fancy firearm?

A matchlock musket is basically just a pipe with a hole in it.

 

[Patooka]

You're right that people with guns kill people. As do people with knives, blow torches, axes, and fists. Guns certainly make it a bit easier,

You think? Last time I checked Navy SEALs aren't equipped with Honda Civics or fucking Sunbeam Irons. Not a lot of mass shootings involving a fucking keyboard.

But you keep dying on that hill. Because whilst what I just said was a metaphor, it's going to be on your news yet again sometime next week.

 

[Derec]

One of the arguments one hears frequently is:

No point in banning the AR-15; the killer could have killed as many with a Glock.​

Not necessarily! Shooters are able to aim more rapidly, fire more quickly, and cope with recoil MUCH better with the AR-15 than with a Glock hand-gun.

At the same time, handguns do offer advantages, esp. in close quarters like a school. They are much lighter. They are wieldier because they are more compact.

Sure a trained expert could kill a lot of people with a Glock;

Or a virtually untrained college student. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. That's >5x the number of killed and >8x the number of hits compared with Audrey Hale.

but for the typical estranged 25-year-old incel or Trumplicker?

Incel? Isn't it time to retire that particular stupid insult.
Trumplicker? Audrey Hale wasn't a "Trumplicker". In fact, probably quite the opposite.
We should not paint with a broad brush when it comes to trans people, but you are doing the same thing, and it's just as wrong.

Nah! Without the convenience of an "assault rifle" like the AR-15,

AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

many wouldn't be earnest or daring enough to even pursue mayhem with the more difficult weapon.

I do not think that is true. If Audrey Hale had no access to the AR-15 derivative rifle, she had plenty of other choices, two of which she brought with her. And note that handguns are responsible for a lot more homicides than rifles of all types (of which so-called "assault weapons" are but a subset). They are definitely not "difficult weapons" to use.

 

[Derec]

Not a lot of mass shootings involving a fucking keyboard.

There's a lot of firepower behind this keyboard.

Not to mention the joystick.

 

[Patooka]

Not a lot of mass shootings involving a fucking keyboard.

There's a lot of firepower behind this keyboard.

Not to mention the joystick.

You make an excellent point. Whatever the fuck you think it is.

 

[Derec]

Guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people.

Not just with guns (see figure), but yes. People are the problem.

And people with fancier guns kill more people.

Do they? How do you even define "fancier"? Price? How well it looks above the fireplace?
Do you consider AR-15s fancier than Glock 19s? Why?
And if you do, then you're wrong. Handguns kill a lot more people than rifles. In fact, more people are killed using "hands, fists feet" than with rifles. I guess a fist is "fancier" than an AR15 ...

And saying that the reaction is "omg guns!!!!1" is really short-sighted. The teen walks into Sandy Hook with a large knife, someone can get hurt, but the ability to fend him off by staff is enormously much more plausible than with an AK-47.

Or with a couple of Glocks. A defender would actually have an easier time grabbing the barrel of a long gun during a reload, esp. in tight quarters than grabbing the short barrel of a pistol.

My largest complaint regarding your post, and those like it, is this apparent acceptance of the fait accompli of school shootings (some even suggest it is such a small number of total gun deaths, why do anything?).

It's not "why do anything?" It's "why obsess single-mindedly over a class of weapons responsible for fewer deaths than assailants' limbs?"

The problem is people like you mock those that come to a reasonable assessment that guns are a major problem with GUN violence.

AR15s and AK47s are a minor problem with US gun violence. Obsessing over them, spending political capital forever trying to ban them, etc. is counterproductive. Better use of time and political capital would be something like licensing.

 

[Derec]

You make an excellent point. Whatever the fuck you think it is.

You brought up Navy Seals apropos of nothing. I was continuing the military theme.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Pistols are quite fancy, as firearms go. As are revolvers.

What do you think constitutes a not-fancy firearm?

The kind that you have to put a new bullet in the gun every time you want to fire.

Like the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[Derec]

The kind that you have to put a new bullet in the gun every time you want to fire.

How about the one that fires the whole bullet? That's 65% more bullet per bullet.

 

[bilby]

Incel? Isn't it time to retire that particular stupid insult.

Not while it remains apt.

There's little more dangerous to society than young men who can't get laid and won't countenance masturbation. That's why priests are so infamous for sexual assaults, and why incels are infamous for going postal.

 

[ZiprHead]

I agree with Derec. Handguns are a huge problem and should be gotten off our streets.

 

[Rhea]

EDITED: I’m in the wrong thread - I was replying as if this was in School shootings. Oops!