> It's clear that this is the way Americans wish to live
That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world.
There is some amount of friction, different in each country but not zero anywhere, between “what people want” and “what is the law”. Do you think North Koreans prefer living under a corrupt dictatorship? Why don’t they just make the dictatorship illegal?
That’s an extreme example of course: the US political system is closer to European-style proportional parliamentary systems than it is to North Korea, but it’s still very different from them, and in many meaningful ways is not actually a democracy.
The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world.
Because other people don't have this problem. And when you get right down to it, they have megaphones and placards, while their opponents have guns. Amazingly, the gun owners have more political power.
My views on gun ownership are complex and don't fit neatly into existing pigeonholes - I'm very much in favor of the right to own weapons, but also in additional social responsibilities that ought to accompany that. I have a lot of sympathy with the gun control crowd even though I disagree with many of their arguments, but the fact is their tactics are simply not working. Unfortunately they don't want to change their approach because they're so locked into the moral dimension of their argument that they're unwilling to consider any other approach. Likewise the 2nd amendment absolutists are so intransigent that they keep retreating to a hardline position of 'shall not be infringed! shall not be infringed!' and then complaining about how unreasonable their opponents are.
The US anti-gun movement seems to be more a part of the culture war than something founded in reality or that could ever lead to a healthy culture around guns, unfortunately. They seem to particularly like pointing to the country where I live (the UK) as proof that their measures work whilst misleading people about what the UK's strict gun laws actually restrict and then pushing for almost the exact opposite. They insist that pooor rural conservatives are deluded if they think guns help with self-defense, but that the powerful, wealthy Hollywood celebrities with the correct political views using their power and wealth to push for gun controls should absolutely get to keep their armed security using utterly nonsensical arguments that are treated as obviously right by the media. (This doubly wouldn't fly in the UK - it's not a legal reason to own or carry a gun and the kinds of guns they use are basically completely outlawed for private individuals.) They're proud of their ignorance of even the most basic aspects of what they want to regulate, and the media supports them in that worldview and spins caring about the actual facts as a sneaky pro-gun trick.
It basically boils down to everything, but for example the post-Dunblaine total gun ban that US gun control advocates point to was actually a total ban on handgun ownership - when they've been pushing heavily on the idea that rifles are obviously more dangerous than handguns and that it's nuts for them to be less heavily restricted. It's basically only the pro-gun side who seems to argue handguns are more of a problem, even though they do seem to be overall in the US too. (It'd also mean no more private armed security for left-wing Hollywood celebrities, an idea prominent gun control supporters dislike.) They get close sometimes for a moment, for instance the UK does have stricter gun licensing than the US - but we also let 14 year olds get gun licenses to create a culture where guns are seen as tools which can be used by those who show they can be trusted with them, something which would be unthinkable to US gun control supporters. (Until quite recently I don't think there even was a lower age limit.) They also like to point to scary-looking black small-calibre bolt action rifles as examples of guns too dangerous even to be sold to 18 year olds; as far as I can tell that's typically what a 14 year old would use as their first gun both here and in the US. It's outside my and most UK resident's area of personal experience of course, which is one big difference from the US.
Honestly, a lot of the UK stuff seems to almost have more in common with US gun owner culture than their anti-gun campaigners, though obviously organisations like the NRA would not be happy at all with UK levels of gun ownership restrictions. The fact that self-defence is not a valid reason to have a gun or any other weapon here would also be unacceptable to pretty much everyone in the US from what I can tell, not to mention unconstitutional. (This includes stuff like pepper spray.)
Interesting, thank you! I'm confused about the lisence for 14 year olds though. If it's a total gun ban how do they obtain rifles? Are they just licensed to shoot at a range that owns the guns? Also, when you say small caliber, do you mean .22s? I think the most lambasted rifle here is far and away the AR-15 which is (correct me if I'm wrong) .762 or .556.
> I think the most lambasted rifle here is far and away the AR-15 which is (correct me if I'm wrong) .762 or .556.
You're pretty close. Those rounds are measured in millimeters instead of caliber, so they should be 7.62mm (really 7.62x39mm or 7.62x51mm) and 5.56mm. The equivalent in calibers is .30 and .223. Notably, .223 is also an actual round and some rifles can fire either .223 or 5.56 (iirc, the cartridges are the same dimensions, but the pressure ratings are different).
AR-15's are typically chambered in 5.56mm. An AR style rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm would be an AR-10. Although you can get AR platform rifles chambered in pretty much whatever you want, going all the way up to .50 BMG. It's pretty uncommon to see anything like that, though.
It's not actually a total gun ban even though American campaigners like to call it that - rifles are still legal to own and keep at home, with restrictions, and although under-18s can't buy them it's perfectly legal for them to be gifted or lent one so long as they have the appropriate license. (Unlike in the US I think you generally have to be licensed just to own or use a gun, which is why giving licenses to 14 year olds is necessary. Currently, gun-owing adults in the US don't need to get gun licenses for their 14 year olds to take this approach to teaching their kids to respect guns because it's purchasing that's restricted, but if the US introduced UK-style licensing with the existing age limit of 18 or even 21 they wouldn't be able to - and I just don't think there's the political will to give gun licenses to under-18s.) The UK does have a really strict handgun ban though, with even shooting ranges not allowed to own them for use within the range anymore. Also, I really do mean that US gun control campaigners have been fearmongering about bolt-action .22 LR rifles because some of them are black and scary-looking, and as far as I can tell thinking that this is stupid is outside the range of acceptable pro-gun-control viewpoints.
> It'd also mean no more private armed security for left-wing Hollywood celebrities
Where does this strawman come from? Can you imagine the negative publicity if celebrity's bodyguard shot and killed someone? How often do you think celebrities are assaulted by attackers armed with guns?
Celebrities who choose to be in the public eye should not be allowed to be protected by people with firearms that the same celebrities campaign against.
As another outsider, I can remember seeing reports of mass shootings in the US every year or two for the last 30 years or so. Each time I thought "this time they have to do something" and yet the pattern continues. So to me it also seems "clear" that there isn't _enough_ will in the US to act on this.
Yes. There is even precedent in other western countries. Australia radically restricted its gun ownership laws after a single high profile massacre. This was done by a conservative government no less! The same one that followed the USA into Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you look at rates of violence over time, the gun laws you're talking about had no effect. Violence continued to decrease at the same rate it did before.
It is extremely challenging to look at gun violence/firearm homicides in Australia, because the numbers are already so low that drawing statistical correlations is difficult if you're being responsible.
That being said. America, 300M people. 19,000 firearm homicides last year. Australia, 20M people, 27.
> This was done by a conservative government no less!
It is entirely consistent. Law and order is something conservatives claim to support, so it is logical to want to remove instruments of crime and disorder. The fact that we can find it surprising now tells more about the intellectual trajectory of conservatives over the years. To the point that modern mainstream “conservatives” would have been seen as quasi-fascist rabid nationalists just 20 years ago.
They have and they do. If you recall, there were marches and protests across the US after the Parkland school shooting.
However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns.
There are Senators today suggesting that schools be turned into prison-like places (Cruz with his "one door in and out" nonsense), that others are suggesting arming teachers, while ignoring the fact that the school protection officer and local law enforcement engaged the murderer in this school shooting but failed to apprehend or stop him and the SWAT team took 40 minutes to engage the murderer and eliminate the threat.
People have been marching and protesting and demonstrating continuously and yet there is a specific party, the Republicans, and specific lobby groups, that have stopped any change.
> However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns.
Well, there's the political interpretation (NRA lobbying) and the factual interpretation as well: "low population rural states" i.e. where guns are used for hunting & self-defence (low population but also huge, so low density, so the nearest police/neighbours are so far away you can't always rely on their help)
> If enough people actually cared about this, then you’d have people marching on the capitol, like after a certain president was not re-elected.
THANK YOU! Say what you will about those supporters but the fact they went that far to support something they believed in (albeit dumb honestly) is admirable.
Meanwhile the people with actual good values are just sharing senators' edgy tweets thinking that makes a difference.
There's nothing admirable about the January 6th attackers. Do you also admire the 9/11 hijackers? How about the gunman in this most recent school shooting? These are all "true believers".
Most people exist in the expansive middle ground between regurgitating Tweets and insurrection.
> If enough people actually cared about this, then you’d have people marching on the capitol, like after a certain president was not re-elected.
People do care, and they do protest and march, and like most protests anywhere it does not change anything. Sorry but you seem to have a very naive view of the effectiveness of protests.
By the way, the pro-Trump protests didn’t achieve anything either (other than furthering the US’s slide into bitter ultra-partisan division and total erosion of trust in institutions). Notably, they did not successfully enable Trump to remain president. So what is your point?
That amendment was written back when a gun was more powerful than words or information, and when gun ownership was more prevalent and necessary.
In our modern day information, speech, and and privacy are the guns that ensure rights are not stomped on. It’s no longer the wild wild west.
To think that rules written hundreds of years ago never need to be changed is spitting in the face of our founders who realized that the process of amendments are necessary because things change. The irony is that people are defending the second amendment by claiming it cannot be amended.
By the time the KGB come knocking at your door it’s already over.
What we need is an amendment guaranteeing our right to encryption and privacy, so that the KGB won’t even know which door to knock on.
Back then your arms were pretty well matched against the government. Today, not so much. Civilians and their small arms are no match for the KGB or modern US military. If we really wanted a way to check the physical power of the US military we’d need a bit more than some semi automatic rifles. They are literally in their current form just play things for the wealthy who don’t want to give up their gun hobby, and liabilities for the rest of civilian society due to the criminally insane.
January 6th is somewhere in the neighbourhood of the kind of scenario your referencing.
Ubiquitous guns change the equation for all kinds of theoretical events. They may be a boon in the "armed populous saves country from corrupt gov't" case, and a curse in another case.
Were a more extreme version of Jan 6th to occur in the future, adding civilian firearms into the mix may not be a good thing.
The only person shot was an unarmed terrorist that, after repeated warnings not to proceed, while attempting to break through a barrier that was keeping a mob away from elected representatives, broke through that barrier.
I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
And it is untrue that "civilians" "chose" not to bring guns. There were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
Untrue, there was no warning. Crowd was let in (there is security footage of this), funneled to a location, and a killzone was setup without their knowledge. The antifa person filming the death was the only person hurling threats in that specific interaction. Both hands of the civilian shot were visible when climbing through the window. Officer could have arrested when she made it through. I guess we're for shooting on sight now.
> I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
Yes let's praise cops for not killing more unarmed civilians than they did, very high bar!
> there were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
What a long way to say they didn't bring guns to the event. Any CCW holder has preparations to be armed.
> sedition
Point to a case, noone is being tried for sedition, only trespassing.
The parent post pointed out that an armed population could prevent a dictator from taking power.
I'm saying it's also possible that a portion of an armed population could be manipulated by a dictator to seize power.
And there are lots of other ways this ubiquity of guns change things. Some positive, some negative. If we're talking about a theoretical rebellion then we should also talk about different types of rebellions.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are many different theoretical scenarios for revolutions and rebellions, beyond the one scenario the parent comment theorized, or events similar in spirit to the American Revolution.
For example, the degraded ability for society to agree on what is true may be an avenue for a hostile state to cause civil unrest. That scenario may play out better for the targeted society if the population is not widely armed.
Nothing that said dictator would need support from the military (which has demonstrated it is not necessarily keen to go that route), how well will your "well armed" people fare against well trained soldiers with, um, "tanks" (using tanks here as a catchall for all their weapons.)?
Ah yes, the "the gov. is too powerful so what's the point of fighting tyranny" talking point.
The tank premise is almost as stupid as Biden's nukes / jets threat against the American people.
A country is not going to carpet bomb, send tanks in, or nuke its own people / land.
It takes a lot of brainwashing to get your soldiers to do that to their own people and direct force like that will lead to instant revolts.
What is much more likely is a KGB like secret police that goes around black bagging people, etc. You're much less likely to be able to do that when you know the civilian population has more guns than your secret police.
We only have more anti-gun-violence activists because we have more gun violence. I forget where we are on the murders per capita scene, but I think we rank somewhere around Uruguay and Cameroon.
Great company while pretending to be "the leader of the free world."
I never claimed we are the leader of anything, and in fact I explicitly said that the US is not a democracy by many meaningful definitions of that word.
I am the furthest thing from a US ultra-patriot who thinks we’re the greatest country in the world, so please don’t ascribe other people’s opinions to me.
Tangent: other than their moderately elevated murder rate, what’s wrong with Uruguay? Is that supposed to be an example of some kind of uniquely shitty country by global standards? (It’s a bad one, if so — Uruguay is a wealthy and highly developed liberal democracy.)
What specifically makes you assume that the US should be doing substantially better than Uruguay or be held to a higher standard?
I never specifically mentioned you, and I was referencing the rhetoric from our hyper-partisan anti-American "patriots" who fervently believe that the US is #1 in virtually everything.
> That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world.
Well, you don’t really need activists if you don’t really have a problem. So it is not really surprising that countries with saner gun control policies have fewer activists.
Also, the number of activists does not correlate with the opinion of the people overall. Even though the US is not perfectly democratic, the situation does seem to reflect how a majority of states and a large fraction of the people want to live. This is utterly terrifying to us watching from the other side of the pond, but that’s the way it is.
I don't want gun violence, but I 100% want the 1986 National Firearm Act repealed.
I believe fully automatic assault weapons and machine guns should be available for purchase, new, just like any other weapon. (Fully automatic weapons are legal to buy and own right now in the US, if you pay a $200 stamp tax and wait 9 months for the ATF to process the paperwork, but you can only buy "NFA" regulated machine guns that were registered in 1986 or before ... which means they're all collectors items now, and the cheapest machine guns are $15-20k and up).
Most people I know would like to see the existing laws enforced, and don't want anything new passed or put in place.
I know you’re being facetious, but
It’s fun to point out that you can purchase an Apache if you can find a government to tell you one.
The missiles are separately regulated, and likely not legal for private ownership. Missiles and high explosives are licensed and legislated for separately.
Any weapon that’s part of a standard infantry soldiers load out should be available, new from the manufacturer. I don’t have a problem with the background checks that are required for a class 3 weapon, like an m16 or a Thompson sub machine gun (https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-tran...), but as it stands only wealthy people can still afford to purchase them.
> The missiles are separately regulated, and likely not legal for private ownership. Missiles and high explosives are licensed and legislated for separately.
So we -can- put limits on the ownership of weaponry, then?
I would also like to see my children grown up. I’m aware that insane/evil people will do awful things, but that you don’t suppress the rights of everyone to stop one or two bad apples.
In my local community groups I see people demanding metal detectors be installed in our schools.
This is in response to: An attempted murderer being chased by police, going into a school he doesn’t belong in, barricading himself inside and murdering children.
It’s feel good security theater. If you’re in the middle of a killing spree you’re not going to stop because of a metal detector. If you’re dealing with kids bringing weapons to school, that’s different — but the responses to this event from people local to me are about 90% make-believe security.
To use a real world example: Columbine was a failed school bombing because their detonators didn’t work because the product they used for the detonator’s changed between their testing and when they purchased the final “real” devices.
The guns were intended to keep everyone terrified and in place until the bombs could kill everyone.
A fluke manufacturing change to the product (I think a clock) between their detonator tests and their actual attack is the only thing that stopped nearly everyone in the school from being killed that day. They even set a bomb outside of the school to kill the first responders when they arrived — again, it was a horrible tragedy, but what happened was so much less than what was intended.
That’s not clear at all. The US has more anti-gun-violence activists than anywhere else in the world.
There is some amount of friction, different in each country but not zero anywhere, between “what people want” and “what is the law”. Do you think North Koreans prefer living under a corrupt dictatorship? Why don’t they just make the dictatorship illegal?
That’s an extreme example of course: the US political system is closer to European-style proportional parliamentary systems than it is to North Korea, but it’s still very different from them, and in many meaningful ways is not actually a democracy.