The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Gun Control in the USA
Elki
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
get busyModerator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
Here's a thread to talk about gun control policies. Municipal, state, and national laws and how they interact, etc.
Remember to not be an asshole.
Don't jump into the weeds of making this about any election.
This is just about gun-control, not about knives, bombs, or other killing devices real or imagined.
Remember to not be an asshole.
Don't jump into the weeds of making this about any election.
This is just about gun-control, not about knives, bombs, or other killing devices real or imagined.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Steam: adamjnet
Cynical answer, minorities using these weapons against cops on a recurring basis. Racists fear-mongering is what got many of the 60s and 70s gun laws passed. And I think I we were to see a steady reoccurance of Dallas style attacks on LEO, we'd probably start to see some -some- rightward support of new gun control measures.
Other than that, IDK. GOP identity politics is so strong they can convince people to vote against their self interest on just about every other issue. If you can get grampa to vote to gut his own medicare, he'll stick with you on guns as well.
"We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power."
Everyone having guns doesn't make us more safe. It means everyone is going to get fucking shot whether by a "good Samaritan" on accident, an active shooter or the police. When someone wrestled the gun away from the Gabby Giffords shooter, he was very nearly shot by police mistakenly. I think he had the presence of mind to throw the gun down immediately.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Why can't we just make it illegal for non-human entities to purchase guns? Corporations and the like don't have 2nd amendment rights.
1) No new gun sales.
2) Disarm the public.
3) Disarm the police.
2 & 3 can happen at the same time. We don't need people with guns, period.
Because pre-pre-law levels of legal sophism aren't going to fix this problem? You aren't going to trick a judge with something like this. Replace guns with "printing press ink" and give it 2 seconds of thought.
Yup. That said it's a recent invention pushed by conservative groups that the 2nd applies is as strict as it is currently interpreted. So unfortunately it's probably a long game of either getting the right to stop being stupid (hah) or appointments of judges who don't buy the revisionism.
And calling it that is important, I think. Defuses the founding father BS that gets shoved in
How would you prevent people from making firearms? There are at least hundreds if not thousands of guides on the internet for the sole purpose of telling you how to walk into home depot and make a submachine gun.
Additionally there are relatively large numbers of people in this country, many of them veterans, who have promised a revolution if their right to keep and bear arms is infringed. Would you wage a war to get rid of firearms? What if you lost? The US was founded by a group of people who felt their rights were being infringed and their government had gone too far.
A specific example of a group that would in large numbers almost assuredly ignore the law and would likely be key in any revolution is the Mormons. US government agents hunted down Mormons shortly after their founding. They have every reason not to trust the government, and to believe that any gun confiscation is really a first step in a final solution to the Mormon problem. Would you completely deny the right of a group that has been persecuted by government any ability to defend itself from that government?
IANAL, but I'm not sure if there exists in US law a mechanism for 2. I'd be interesting in hearing actual lawyers weigh in on it, but most of the USGs power to regulate is in regulating commerce. I'm not sure if there is a mechanism by which they can compel you to give up property you legally own. That's part of the reason everything under the sun has grandfathering clauses in it. I'm not even talking a 2nd amendment discussion here. If the government decided no one should own [non-gun object] ever for a valid reason, I don't know that it has the power to confiscate all the [non-gun object] people already own. Not sure if something equivalent has ever been done, even prohibition allowed you to keep what you had purchased prior to it coming into force.
Voting, volunteering for organizations that help people vote, etc. It changes when the people in charge are changed out with people who hold better views and enact better legislation. Which is a long, hard, boring process.
If printing press ink storage proved to be toxic then we can easily regulate a non-human entity's ability to purchase it. This is essentially the same tactic that multiple states have used to go after abortion. That has proven to be an effective means of attack.
And I think that the problems with gun violence in America will only change as it culturally moves away from this concept
Which it is, to be fair, actually doing IMO. We can thank feminism, black lives matter and so on for that.
Better legislation and better judges is basically your only hope. Honestly, you are better off working on the legal side. That's the weakest link. The Right in america and also the rest of the gun-rights nuts are gonna keep swinging no matter what and are unlikely to suffer serious defeats on the legislative side any time soon. Or maybe ever.
20 dead toddlers didn't do it. I doubt this will. So it just kinda .. is.
The gun-rights side and general logistics have completely neutered any legislative solution at the non-federal level. And you'd still need the judiciary on your side there too.
There's been grassroots movements on gun control for ages now. They've gotten nowhere. Or they've gotten somewhere and then been stepped on.
In order:
1. And most of those are going to be utter shit. You can find the same sort of guides to making bombs, but A..many of those fail to detonate B. following them is illegal so you have a chance to stop things ahead of time.
2. I find a veteran threarening treason not a terribly useful point. This same point could be argued for: the federal government existing (Cliven Bundy, Timothy McVeigh) a Democratic candidate winning (any number of GOP politicans), abortion, gay rights.. really anything. We aren't going to cede law making power to armed fanatics. End of story.
3. See 2. Also the Mormon are more often in the position of persecutor these days. Still, any religious minority that tries to defend itself in that fashion is going to lose. Badly.
I learned to fire assault rifles at school with the cadets (13-18), I was only in the air cadets but my brother who was an army cadet also learnt light support weapons. Our school was a little unusual in this regard having been converted from navy barracks, but the weapons were stored on site in the armoury (and for other local clubs). Since we had the armoury we also had air rifles for more general sport shooting and a few targets on the side of one of the buildings in the quad.
The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, and an unarmed police force. But you'd be mistaken if you thought that meant there was no gun culture, it's just tied so much more in the traditional elements of sport and utility. Self defence is just not recognised as being a reasonable justification for owning a gun.
You win Congress and the White House and begin filling federal court and SCOTUS positions and passing legislation once you have cover in the judiciary.
Alternatively, start electing a lot of state governments and federal congresspeople and amend the constitution.
From a high level, that's basically the only moves at this point I think. Local level control is basically useless on multiple levels at this point and I'm not sure state level is all that much better.
How about a law that allows people to purchase and own up to 2-3 guns, one of which may be a handgun. People can still own guns for hunting / self defense but people would not be able to have arsenals.
Basically:
Allow people to have guns for defense and utility use (hunting, target practice) but restrict the amount.
Pry as many guns as you can from people's cold hands with cold hard cash.
Reduce incoming supply and shrink the market.
You don't need forcible disarmament if you've cut off new supply. If what you want to do is to have a fewer overall number of guns floating about, a buyback system is the way to go. Restricted sales + strict registration laws + government buyback program.
Make it illegal to privately own, import, sell, and manufacture guns. All of it. Blanket ban.
If you want access to guns, they will be available from a tightly controlled and regulated agency, which will require that you undergo rigorous and regular training and screening before allowing you access. You want your well-regulated militia, you'd better commit to it.
Institute a grace period during which a massive buyback happens, like what Australia did. Use that to help stock all the friendly new government practice ranges and training facilities.
As long as we have more guns than actual people in the US, the pro-gun crowd's ceaseless refrain that more regulations won't change much will hold true. We have a literal gun problem, as in there is a ludicrous amount of real, actual guns readily available and it is a problem.
I think you could see a coalition of religious groups coming together to fight the government. Many of them believe they are persecuted by the government, that the government itself is nefarious, and that ultimately the government will try to exterminate them. In some churches they cite biblical texts to argue that Jesus ordered gun ownership. Particularly Luke 22:36. I realize that not everyone interprets that verse the same way, but that is beside the point. I'm an atheist now, but when I went to church they taught that eventually the anti-christ would take over the government, probably in our lifetimes, and that it would be necessary to rebel and most likely die.
I generally don't trust the government either to know what the right thing to do is, or to do the right thing. I don't want to give it any more power than it already has.
NNID: Hakkekage
The government already has virtually unlimited power and no one lifted a finger with any of the post 9/11 invasive shit or spying or really anything else. The cool boy scout club with guns and don't tread on me posters all over isn't going to do anything.
Meaningful campaign finance reform. Take away gun lobbies ability to donate big to candidates of their choice and candidates that aren't afraid of them stand a better chance at getting elected. The NRA isn't that big. They have 5 million members which is pretty small compared to say the AARP which has 37 million members. But they been spending a lot of money on campaigns the last 20 years and it's evolved into a feared electoral juggernaut.
It would be a slow process but I'm willing to bet a lot that even the turtle man himself Mitch McConnell's first on record objection to Merrick Garland wouldn't have been Garland's F-rating from the NRA if he hadn't received how ever many hundreds of thousands of dollars he's received in campaign contributions over the years.
They want to own guns, to have the actual physical thing in their possession, because it soothes fears by providing a sense of power and control. It is theirs now, and no matter what happens in the big scary world, nobody can take that away from them. This is why trying to accommodate what guns are actually used for is pointless, because for many it's not about that.
These are, of course, unfair and overly broad generalizations, but then life is a caricature these days.
All guns are required to have ballistics/whatever tests on file, for easier tracking in the event of gun crime. I have no clue how much of a difference this would actually make, my knowledge of forensics is limited to TV shows.
Whomever the gun was last legally registered to is liable for any shenanigans the gun gets involved in, unless they have a compelling reason to not be (theft of the gun, presuming it was promptly reported as stolen). In regards to gun theft, improperly securing a weapon should itself be some degree of crime.
None of this gun show walk out the door with a sack full of guns crap, you want a gun, you wait in line and get your paperwork like everyone else.
Assuming we can't get enough states to agree to modify amendments, set up some actual militia regulations/guidelines. You wanna SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, you'd best be up to Uncle Sam's cut. A militia is no good if it's a bunch of untrained losers.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Not to say that isn't an issue, it certainly is.
But it's not even close to the only issue.
There is a very large fictional narrative sold to many people here in the USA. One that relies on fear mongering and ignorance more than anything.
How do you defend your home from a burglar/home invader? (even if you live in an area where you are more likely to be struck by lightning).
How do you protect yourself from the big bad federal government?
How do you protect your family from an assailant?
How do you defend yourself against terrorists?
Etc, etc, etc.
The answer is always (to them), GUNS!
This narrative is being sold to people all across the country, and has been in some fashion or another for a long time.
So I posted something about this in one of the other gun control threads. But while the numbers 'speak for themselves' the actual experience of people doesn't match the numbers. My dad is a huge NRA guy, lives in a suburb that demographically I know is filled to the brim with other NRA guys with caches of all the same black plastic tacticool guns that worry people so much. The murder rate there is something like 0.5 per 100,000. There literally hadn't been one in 10 years(~35k population) when I last looked the numbers up, but I added in some of the neighboring suburbs and found a couple and back calculated it that way.
For my dad, guns are controlled perfectly right now. He can go buy whatever he wants with a 5 mile drive, and there is no gun crime where he lives.
and if you want to get into the darker component of it. He has a gun incase those people who live 15 miles away - where the homicide rate is 50x what it is by him - break into his house or something.
Has there been a Supreme Court ruling on what the italicized above means? Is there any reason why the federal government couldn't pass a law saying that owning a gun meant that you had to be a member of a well-regulated militia, aka subject to something similar to military laws regarding their ownership and use?
That's why they're dangerous, and a force to be reckoned with.
I think that the available arsenal for a shooter is a factor.
All of this comes with the absolute need for mental health services that people should be able to access. If your only outlet is rage then your only path is a bad one.
3D Printed/Ghost Guns tend to not be a problem because the only people willing to go through the trouble to make a firearm that way are ultra-nerds who are so deep into the hobby that doing something illegal with them would be like making a vampire lie on a heap of silver crosses. The sheer rarity of anything above the quality of a pipe gun being used in the commission of a crime in the US, paired with the ready availability of schematics, materials, tools, and ammunition to make and operate a DIY firearm point to the fact that this is not where problems lie in the US. It really is that much easier to just buy a gun, even illegally, than make one yourself. I will also note that guns are very simple machines, and in terms of complexity are not all that high up there especially considering that you don't need to make 100% of the parts to assemble an untraceable weapon of excellent quality.