I am a gun owner. I am responsible, have a lot of training in the use and safe handling of pistols, rifles, and shotguns, and consider my right to own firearms something that it is my duty as a gun owner to uphold for my son. I take people who have never shot before to the range with me so that they can experience what I call the zen of target shooting. I can hit an apple at 100 yards over and over. Shooting is a part of my life that I do not want to lose.
However, I recognize that the cost of my free ownership of these firearms usually falls to others. Though I am responsible enough to be entrusted with these tools, there are many who are not. Those people use these tools to do terrible things that I would like to stop, not only for the simple humanity of the issue, but to stop the issue from reaching a boiling point at which I will lose more rights than I am willing to give freely in service of society.
In light of the reality of the situation I would like to hear sincere suggestions that I may consider in order to form my ongoing opinion on firearms law reform.
I do ask that in your suggestions that you consider the following:
You have been told a lot of facts about guns that may or may not be true. Please, if you are going to cite something, do your research as well. I would like this thread to be a wider discussion rather than a polemic bashing.
Never in the history of debate has it been respectable to not understand what you're talking about. I'm not referencing how effective certain gun reforms are, but simple terms like assault rifle, bolt-action, magazine, etc. Consider this a soft practice for arguing with someone you actually need to convince; if you say that an AR-15 is an assault rifle, you will lose credibility with your intended audience. The NRA loves it if you don't know what you're talking about.
So let me hear your best ideas. I would like to expand my horizons and I need your help.
EDIT: The NRA was right to warn me. You all just want to take my guns.
I'd outlaw guns. Society moves at the pace of its slowest citizens and these fucks have ruined it for the responsible gun owners. That's the simple wildly implausible answer. Say only outlaws will have guns? Yeah, outlaws with $34,000 lying around to buy what's now a $1,000 Bushmaster. Well, those people are mentally ill. That's the worst sidestep argument. Every country has mentally ill people and in every country it's hard to treat them. I'm mentally ill and it's hard to treat me. I know the system. So is it a coincidence that the country with the most liberal gun laws has the worst gun violence? It's a simple question with a seemingly simple answer but every time this happens the gun people look at every possible answer but guns to try to downplay the involvement of a "tool." It's not a tool, it's a weapon designed to kill things and suggesting otherwise is NRA semantic wordplay. I'm sorry for people who like guns and can own them responsibly, but in my fantasy land, getting a gun would be like getting a medical cadaver, possible but not easy. Am I taking an extreme point, yes, but when the NRA doesn't even want the kind of rigor that goes into licensing a motor vehicle, pretty much every reform you throw out is well intended fantasy.
Agreed. I really like Jim Jeffries's bit where he compares guns to drugs. After all, irresponsible drug users have ruined it for all the responsible cocaine addicts out there! And why would I want drugs legal? Because I like using them, it's as simple as that. I find it's the only valid argument for weapons too. I would be fine with restricting gun use to shooting ranges and hunting spaces where you would either keep your personnal gun at all times or rent one out. I'm canadian tho so our gun laws are already more restrictive than in America. Hopefully we won't go further in the direction of liberalising gun ownership like we have been for the last couple years :( Damn conservatives...
Not only that, but also designed to kill, kill easily, from a distance and with little effort or skill to do so.it's a weapon designed to kill things
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3o7z84/fbis_national_instant_background_check_system/ A lot of the top comments on this thread are pretty good... Please read and consider that outlawing is probably not the right answer in the real world.
I appreciate that it sounds like your mind is open, but it’s silly and a pet peeve that people who have no interest in being anywhere near a gun ever should have to know what distinction you and the NRA are drawing between an AR-15 and an assault rifle. Wikipedia doesn’t know the difference, either. People who have zero interest in violence shouldn’t have to go to the shooting range to feel the zen of shooting. Though my depression, combined with a reasonable IQ, combined with a beautiful family have made the decision for me to never have a gun in my home, I do know about guns. I “grew up around guns”. So did my dad, and when his life took a bad turn, rather than turn things around, he used his .22 shotgun, bought cheap in the classified ads, to end his life. The night before he shot himself, my mom awoke to find him standing at the foot of the bed, watching her sleep. My sisters and I had been sent to stay with family, probably because my parents knew shit was hitting the proverbial fan, but every time I think about how easy it is for sick people to have guns, I wonder how many synapses my mom, sisters, and I were from being one of the many many families that gets shot to death by their dad. There should be universal, effective background checks and waiting periods. Any sign of mental illness or domestic violence should be disqualifying (though I worry that this will prevent people from seeking help). Guns should be taxed like the death and disability machines they are. Guns shouldn’t be able to kill tons of people without reloading. We should do buybacks and whatever else Australia and Canada do. Gun owners should face prison time if their guns are stored so a child or criminal can get to them. When there’s a murder, we should all hear whose gun that was that killed that child and who sold/gave it to the loser who did it. I was thinking the other morning, “What if the NRA started using some of the money they make after these shootings to help people see the signs that they shouldn’t be around a gun? Feeling blue? Don’t buy a gun. Got a kid who’s a little weird? Don’t buy a gun. Have kids and you’re not so great at putting things away when you’re done with them? Don’t buy a gun.” And then I remembered that the NRA exists to sell guns. So. That’s what I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act The Brady Bill prevents felons and anyone with any domestic violence on their record (Or who's under a restraining order and considered a violent threat) from getting a gun, along with anyone with severe mental issues or who has been previously committed.Any sign of mental illness or domestic violence should be disqualifying (though I worry that this will prevent people from seeking help).
So? I can tell anyone, including my current medical provider, that I've never done so much as gone to a shrink before, but that doesn't make it true. And how are they going to check? All doctors take medical histories but they are completely dependent on the truth of the patients filling them out. If I said I'd never seen a shrink there isn't a receptionist on earth who would call the 50 counsellors in my immediate area to confirm that that's the truth. And since I wouldn't have told you who I had seen, that's what you would have to do.
As long as you have high levels of personal agency in a society you will have high potentials for violence. This whole debate is infuriating to me, because 'ban guns' is just playing whack a mole with the real issue which is 'How do you prevent individuals with antisocial tendencies from expressing them?' Outlaw guns, we'll see a rise in the amount of bombings. And TONS of things can be made into pretty lethal explosive devices with very little know how. Chlorine gas is toxic as hell and is made by infants on accident when they get into the cleaning supplies. We don't outlaw bleach, we keep it out of the hands of infants.
One answer is 'you limit the ability of individuals to access dangerous items.' I disagree. If the two were interchangeable, we'd see a nominal number of bombings in parallel with the gun violence we already see. That just isn't happening. Building a bomb takes a different commitment than shooting a gun. One requires time to research and construct the weapon. The other does not.the real issue which is 'How do you prevent individuals with antisocial tendencies from expressing them?'
Outlaw guns, we'll see a rise in the amount of bombings.
Which is impossible. No seriously, without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it. You cannot neuter the world enough, you cannot put enough bumpers on reality to keep dangerous predators in human shape from ever getting to significant materials/tools, and still have a functional civilization. The ability of a human being to cause the deaths of other human beings has been increasing since we started putting rocks in the heads of clubs. As technology becomes more advanced, high energy density materials become more available, and more easily understood and applied to cause death. As a species, we will either get to a point where basically everyone will have the ability to kill everybody else and choose not to, or we'll regularly suffer large, self-inflicted die offs. I'm ignoring the rest of the comment and focusing on this part not because the rest isn't valid, but because this is the part that I am most worried about. It's the fact that it's whack-a-mole. Cars kill shit loads of people every year on accident and would probably kill more if other forms of violence were more difficult.One answer is 'you limit the ability of individuals to access dangerous items.''
If the two were interchangeable
There's your problem right here. It's deeply ingrained that Americans need handguns for protection, and I don't see that changing, in spite of the fact that statistically, you are much more likely to be harmed than protected by your gun. I don't know the answer, but I can tell you that here in NZ, if you say you want to get a gun for self-defense or protection, you will be declined, because that's not seen as a valid reason to have one here.No seriously, without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it.
Correct. Banning guns in the UK has lead to bats and knives being used to perpetrate violence instead. Britain has a higher, or at least on par, violent crime rate than the U.S.... though it has a far lower murder rate. What can we glean from that? I dunno.
I don't follow. Are you suggesting places like England have failed societies? The suggestion is not to encase humanity in giant pillows. But it isn't whack-a-mole. That's my entire point. There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it.
It's the fact that it's whack-a-mole.
Umm, to put examples to what OftenBen said... Happy Land fire, Boston Marthon bombingBut it isn't whack-a-mole. That's my entire point. There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.
If only we had just two cases of mass murder every 25 years. I think that would be hailed as a national success.
I was being sassy because you're ignoring the frequency of gun murders compared to bombings. I won't bother listing shootings for you. My point remains valid, even if you choose to ignore it.
I was only responding to your direct point about the damage non-gun killings can do. Neither of us can really confirm or deny OB's point because it's a prediction: If you add more barriers to guns, people will resort to other tactics for mass killings. It's slightly corroborated by evidence from other countries where strict gun laws are coupled to greater violence of other forms, but it's still basically impossible to confirm or deny without making changes to the law. Rather it's something to keep in mind when trying to design a way forward. And for the record, I'm fine with background checks, but I think most gun legislation presented post-shootings is reactionary, poorly thought out, and usually ineffective. (See: magazine capacity limits)
I don't disagree that a non-gun killing can be similarly or more deadly compared to a gun killing. The point I take issue with is that they can be interchanged such that a person who would commit a gun killing would instead commit a non-gun killing with similar effectiveness. I also agree when comparing US deaths to deaths in, say, England, it's inappropriate to suggest the sole difference is access to firearms. It is certainly a variable that can't be ignored, but it's one of many variables. I'm cynical to the point of assuming any legislation, whether reactionary, related to firearms, or something else entirely, is poorly thought out and ineffective. My point, which may have been poorly stated throughout this thread, is that we could do better than we are doing. I don't have good suggestions for how to get there, unfortunately, and with politics and culture the way they are, doing better may be impossible.
Pardon my lack of clarity. You can limit individuals access to guns, but not dangerous items. That's going to be a suggestion eventually. Seriously, people joke about it but if we keep up the track we're on it will be bubble-wrap undies for everybody. I'm glad we got to the meat of a sensible debate about firearm regulation. Which I am all for, in the same way that I am for the regulation of the operation of motor vehicles.I don't follow. Are you suggesting places like England have failed societies?
The suggestion is not to encase humanity in giant pillows.
There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.
Mass shooters are generally not going out on a whim and murdering, they are planning this stuff out. Dylan and Eric had bombs, and that was 1999, Breivik had a bomb too. Those are just the first two off the top of my head. In the information age, finding out how to build a bomb is not difficult.One requires time to research and construct the weapon. The other does not.
Ben, I quite enjoy you as a human being, but there's a point where I can't follow your feelings, and I'd like to express it here. I feel like bombs and other home made weapons at least present a certain barrier to entry that guns don't. No toddler is going to accidentally build and detonate a C4 or similar explosive. No cavedwelling creton who lacks basic intelligence will be successful attempting to follow more complex construction or scientific steps that are a part of building weapons. I could download the Anarchist's cookbook and make whatever any time I want but I can't be arsed to. Yes, for those who intend to commit mass killings, these factors won't stop them. But there are other pieces involved if we are talking about just gun deaths in America.
I'm not even against sensible gun policy. Mandatory background checks? I can dig that. Registrations? I can dig that too. I'm for the sensible regulation of any and all potentially hazardous materials and objects. What I am against is un-nuanced positions like a complete prohibition on firearms. I firmly believe that over the long term, more lives will be saved by identifying those with violent antisocial potential and somehow addressing the threat that they pose. That process will take a long time, but I'm fairly certain that we have the technology and resources to do such a thing, if it were made a priority. Here's an analogy that made a lot of sense to me. For a long time, big cats were a serious problem for Homo Sapiens. We couldn't see them coming most of the time and they would specifically target our young and unsuspecting members. Because this was a big enough problem, we started killing big cats. Now there are only big cats where we permit big cats to live. They kill some people, but it's a comparatively low number and nobody is particularly bothered by that fact.
The idea of nearly outlawing guns is practiced in literally tons of democratic states across the planet with research that doesn't support the claim at all. Look at places like Australia that had extremely rapid policy change in terms of gun reform, and there hasn't been a statistical increase in bombings. Outlawing guns doesn't mean we are going to stop violence in it's entirety it means making it that much harder to commit an act of violence.Outlaw guns, we'll see a rise in the amount of bombings. And TONS of things can be made into pretty lethal explosive devices with very little know how.
In places like the UK though there have been increases in stabbings, which has lead to tightening of knife laws. That's unfortunate because knives are are extremely useful tools. I agree that there likely won't be an increase in bombings, but there will likely be an increase in stabbings. So, like you said we won't stop violence, it will just start looking different. Less deadly maybe, but knives inflict a different kind of damage that is still extremely traumatic. It is hard to commit mass murder with a knife though.
The last bit you mentioned is very important. The thing about the UK is that in comparison betweens guns and knives they have still had a whole lot less violent crime. I haven't delve to deep into the statistics, but some reports had crime overall at a lower rate. Guns make it a hell of a lot easier to kill people, and in some cases easier to kill a lot of people.
Very true, and it also takes a braver person to commit suicide with a knife vs with a gun. Handguns especially make it easy to do certain things that should be difficult to do.It is hard to commit mass murder with a knife though.
It does. The fact that more women than men survive suicide attempts is down to the fact that more men use guns in their suicide attempts (whereas women more often use drugs/poison, which are easier to survive).
Why what? Why do more men buy guns than women? Why do people commit suicide? What are you talking about? You didn't think the method of choice was relevant to the outcome, but it is. I'm not calling anyone a coward, very far from it. That's your interpretation, not mine. Please don't put words in my mouth. ETA: I see - you though I was responding to the "braver person" part but I was responding to the easy/difficult part.
I do - less access to guns --> fewer suicides, I suspect.
Repeal the second amendment, the whole idea of the "right" to bear arms. Why is it a right to own a gun? It should under every circumstance be considered a privilege. The fact that it is considered a right makes it hard to meaningfully regulate it. I'm all for outlawing guns, but honestly any form of gun regulation is a fantasy at this point. I would love for them to restrict guns to literally gun ranges and hunting space. You shouldn't be able to carry open guns around in public for any circumstance from a civilian standpoint. Obviously the process of attaining a gun must be expanded/secured. The basic premise is coming to terms that just because you want to own a gun doesn't mean you are going to get one. I'll try to go into more detail when I'm not on my phone.
Well, placing strict regulations on how one attains a firearm is the first step whether it is through some combination of federal/state legislation and possibly even municipal. The next step is to make sure that those who are qualified to own a gun are in continuous safeguard of their firearm. We do this by restricting where they can actually carry them. There really is no point to carrying a firearm outside of a gun range, or designated hunting space. If anything having larger area's of carry leaves the gun owner to unnecessary risk involving theft/loss of the firearm. The loss/theft of a firearm is a very serious issue.
I was initially disappointed by your insistence that everyone be an expert in firearm terminology before being allowed to argue, but I've come around. If someone wants to "control" something, but can't articulate what they want controlled, there are not arguing for any policy that can be implemented. You may have seen this dialog in "Talking Productively About Guns." https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers. You: So what do you propose? Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog. You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?" Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs. You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds? Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs. You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now. Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds. You: What the fuck. Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own. You: Can we?
I'm having a scary moment. I can't find much of anything I disagree with regarding the major points in this Bill O'Reilly commentary on gun regulation in the US. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4686927800001/the-truth-about-guns-in-america/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips I think this means I am officially old.
Oh that's an excellent analogy. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to learn about a piece of machinery that they are not overly fond of but it is, in my mind, very difficult to take someone seriously when they themselves don't take the subject seriously enough to learn about it. It's a significant advantage that conservative voters have in the debate; it's serendipitously easy to find a picture of an anti-gun advocate talking about gun safety while holding a gun in a completely unsafe manner for example. These aren't the actual focuses of the argument in any way, but they do immediately discredit the opponent and make it seem like they're not willing to make any effort to work on the problem.
I would take this one stage further and focus on the culture the media creates through its endless cycle of fear-mongering before a shooting even occurs. This leads to other people being viewed as a potential threat and an active and conscious concern about personal safety. I would say that is the most noticeable difference when traveling through the US when compared to other countries in regards to gun violence.
and the amount of people that die from overdoses each day is about the same as if a 747 crashed full of passengers each day: http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates Should we stop prescription drug sales too? Im not trying to change the subject, I'm making the point that people die from legal things all the time. Car crashes kill people -- should we outlaw cars? I have reasons to say that we should not mass broadcast mass shootings, especially when it is a single man or woman who acts alone and for motives that can only logically be described as a self promotion/remembrance. 9/11 was a well orchestrated and funded terrorist attack that required many participants and, as you stated, lead to the deaths of many many people, changed the landscape of an entire city and ultimately a nation. Shootings and 9/11 are only alike in the fact that people die/died. I would like to turn the question to you -- why SHOULD we mass broadcast a school shooting. Releasing the name of the shooter and in effect "celebrating" them by making them the topic on the news for weeks?
Some gun owners seem to have this idea of armed revolution being a good idea, but yeah... Besides, the era where small arms alone were any good for that sort of thing is long gone. It's harder to get a ham radio license than it is to buy a gun in the US. Just think about that for a moment. Access to the RF spectrum is considered a privilege, access to weapons is considered a right.. Finally, it's sad that no one in the US mainstream seems to care about mental illness until something like a shooting happens
The Taliban has been fighting the U.S. military, the Afghan National Police, and the Afghan military for coming on 15 years with only small arms. They took a major city (Kondoz) within the last few weeks. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the power of an armed group. Not that anyone should want something so terrible as a civil war, but I don't think your argument is correct. The ham radio license is a very compelling comparison though. I wonder how effective a licensing system would be and what the qualifications to own firearms would be like in a system like that.
RE: licenses, a friend of mine pointed something out: sweden has a surprisingly large number of guns, but there has to be some kind of reason to own one. Usually some sort of club (hunting, pistol shooting, home guard). In other words, quite social and with a sense of responsibility. Not just "i want a gun".
Reading a couple of the replies here, my pie in the sky addition is to make gun ownership as repugnant as drunk driving.
Talking gun ownership is like talking religion or politics. What's the point in discussing EDBSs (Emotionally Derived Belief Systems)? Most religiously defend their views on all of these topics because that's how Earth Monkey came out of the oven.
It's a complicated problem that won't be solved with one solution. It needs several solutions implemented one at a time to determine what does and doesn't work. One idea that I had was ethics and philosophy courses being required for high school freshmen. Young people should be encouraged to think about morality in a classroom setting. Just thinking about morality encourages people to be more considerate of one another (at least in my opinion).
The issue that would develop with a required ethics course would be that the state cannot completely prescribe morals. Religious freedom requires a certain degree of autonomy there, as do political impartiality requirements. Also, any quality course of philosophy is going to also expose students to thinkers like Robert Wolff, who believe that the individual defines morality. I don't know when you last interacted with freshmen, but I don't think most of them are mature enough, or have seen enough practical applications of philosophy in other subjects to have a philosophy class be successful. Finally, national legislation of education requirements can be both controversial and difficult to pass/implement.
Yeah, I'm aware of the issues with implementation. It doesn't necessarily have to be required by the government. Not sure why you're talking about the state prescribing morals. Ethics courses wouldn't do that; they would encourage people to think about morality, which is a powerful way of developing a moral compass. I don't see a problem with juniors or seniors learning about Robert Wolff; moral compasses should be as diverse as music preferences, and like i said before, thinking about morality rationally cultivates more considerate behavior in my experience. Obviously this is just my opinion and I could be completely wrong. I think you're probably right about freshmen being too immature. Obviously it isn't set in stone; juniors and seniors could probably handle it. I'm taking an ethics course at the moment and it mostly revolves around understanding concepts proposed by Kant, Mill, and other philosophers. It has nothing to do with coercing people into certain moral frameworks.
You reckon that will stop mass shootings? How so?
There are two sides: First, from the victim side: if people didn't freeze, the gunman would be taken down before it became a mass shooting, it would just be a (attempted?) murder in a public place. Second, from the shooter side: once it becomes less plausible to get in the New's high score list, the kind of mind that wants such a thing will be less likely to pursue it.
What you are asking is literally every US citizen to do is learn not to be afraid of death? The second point is taken from a rational point of view, which we cannot assume the shooter in a mass shooting is working from.First, from the victim side: if people didn't freeze, the gunman would be taken down before it became a mass shooting, it would just be a (attempted?) murder in a public place.
Second, from the shooter side: once it becomes less plausible to get in the New's high score list, the kind of mind that wants such a thing will be less likely to pursue it.
No, educate them to realize that a gun does not imply death. The only people who should die in such a situation are before anybody realizes that he has a gun - and obviously they aren't the ones I expect to react. Once it is recognized that the hostile has a gun, the worst possible thing (as measured by kill count) is for everybody to give him control of the situation. Without their cooperation, it is impossible for him to get a clear shot on anyone. A common misconception about people with mental illness is that their brains are incapable of reason. This is blatantly untrue (otherwise they would not be able to dress themselves, much less operate a gun); rather they simple have an extremely skewed sense of values. So the shooter is certainly rational, we don't have to assume.What you are asking is literally every US citizen to do is learn not to be afraid of death?
The second point is taken from a rational point of view, which we cannot assume the shooter in a mass shooting is working from.
From what rational point of view is it that one decides to go and kill any number of innocent people? You assume that every mass shooter has the intention of racking up some "score" but that isn't the case. Many of these shooters would have done what they did whether they killed 5 people or none. Being able to cloth yourself or use a gun isn't rational thought either. There are plenty of irrational people dressing themselves(look at politicians), and plenty more who own guns. Except if they are in an office, classroom, church, or any other enclosed space where someone can't "take control" of the situation. What else does a gun imply outside of a gun range, hunting ground, or in the hands of police officer?So the shooter is certainly rational, we don't have to assume.
Without their cooperation, it is impossible for him to get a clear shot on anyone.
No, educate them to realize that a gun does not imply death.
Rational doesn't mean "thinks like a typical person" (or more often "thinks like me"). Rational means "able to follow some consistent set of rules". All politicians are rational (just highly self-centered). Wanting a place on a scoreboard is one possible value that allows mass shootings. Another is feeling wronged by "normal" people, or people associated with some particular group, and seeking revenge. If the media didn't make up the "what's your religion? Christian?" thing, this shooter also exhibited the latter. Provided that you aren't miles away from civilization? Merely an inflated hospital bill, at least in America. But that's a different problem.What else does a gun imply outside of a gun range, hunting ground, or in the hands of police officer?
Then what is irrational? Rationality is defined by the society in which one resides. For example many people look at the middle east and see laws among numerous countries there as irrational, but that is because it is in comparison to our own set of rules. Politicians act irrational by denying that climate change is not a real issue when 99% of the scientific community agrees it is. In US society it is irrational to want to kill someone for no reason. In most place on the earth it is irrational to want to murder people. There is no rationality to mass shootings or mass shooters, so we cannot expect them to act in a rational way by any means.
Rationality is the quality or state of being agreeable to reason. The idea of committing mass homicide is not reasonable and anyone that could come to the conclusion that it is an answer to any question is being irrational. What I should have said was no "good" reason. For example if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. I've still killed someone, but with the justifiable reason that I was defending myself with an equal amount of force.