Of course there will be a benefit, how is that even debateable? Yes any loon can start shooting up a mall or a school with any gun they can get their hands on, but that type of determined crazy will kill a lot fewer people with a bolt-action hunting rifle than he will with a semi-auto AR-10 and several 30-round magazines. The aim is to remove, control or limit access to weapons with increased lethality, not to take everyone’s guns away.
Again, with the proposals I’ve made here, hunters can still hunt, people can still defend their homes and recreational or sport shooters can still enjoy their firearms responsibly, but crazies will have a harder time getting their hands on weapons that can kill lots of people quickly. If you have to change the Constitution to make that happen, then change the damn Constitution. Why do people insist on revering the 2nd Amendment as the unalterable word of God?
If there is a demonstrably useful purpose to bans - if they can actually save lives, why wouldn’t you be willing to curtail some of your freedoms for that? What on earth would you be losing in comparison to what you’d gain? The “right” to have handguns? The “right” to an AR-10?
The right to own handguns is in fact of critical importance to me, and I would fight any proposal to ban their ownership. Regulating ownership is fine (and we already do that, to varying degrees in different states). I would also fight any proposal to ban legal carry of handguns, as there is no proof whatsoever that legal carry (as opposed to criminals carrying) causes any increased risk to society.
Want to reduce handgun deaths? Require tough background checks to own one, confiscate and destroy handguns found on criminals, make owners civilly (and possibly criminally) liable if they don’t store their handgun in a safe or report a stolen gun promptly and that gun is later used to commit a crime. That’s enough regulation.
Sorry - I should have included this in my previous post.
That may be your aim - but a lot of people are saying they want to completely stop these sorts of killings, which is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. We’d still be hearing big outcries when the occasional loony shoots up a public place with a bolt-action rifle and a shotgun and kills 5-10 people.
Because changing the Constitution is risky. What other rights will we decide to alter or abolish, after we abolish the Second? We have tinkered with other amendments (notably passing and then revoking the Eighteenth), but the first ten amendments have never been altered; they’re regarded by most Americans as core guarantees we shouldn’t discard.
That is not what I’m saying. I am not saying that we should not address gun violence because alcohol kills more people. Not at all.
As you try to make people more and more safe, you eventually reach the point of diminishing marginal returns, where you are drastically reducing people’s freedom in exchange for a minimal improvement in safety. Many gun owners feel that blanket restrictions such as those proposed in the OP reach this point. As tragic and horrible as mass shootings may be, they just do not happen often enough to restrict the freedoms of 100,000,000 law-abiding gun owners as dramatically as some people are calling for.
Do we need better gun laws? Definitely yes. Do we need to ban 75% of the guns in this country, as the OP proposes? Definitely not.
I brought up alcohol simply because I thought it might help some people who have trouble understanding this view see it from the gun owner’s perspective in a different context. Unquestionably we could reduce the number of needless, tragic deaths in this country by promoting laws intended to limit alcohol consumption. Should we? That is a different question, and the answer is not obvious. I really don’t give a shit about alcohol and it would be easy for me to say “Oh hell yeah, we should have a law that proposes enforces a federal 300% tax on alcohol, that will really cut down on the drunkards!” Just like it is easy for people who don’t give a shit about guns to propose these sweeping bans without any consideration for other people’s rights (and existing private property!)
Of course these things will reduce the number of deaths. That’s not the absolute only factor you can ever consider.
Well, the problem is, my voluntarily limiting ANY of my gun-related rights will do jack shit for gun violence and gun crime. I and people like me are not the cause of the gun violence problem in this country.
So, I support a very strict licensing and regulation regime that would require people to obtain a license to own and use any gun, pass a test, pass a background check, obtain liability insurance, whatever, so that there is a mechanism for responsible, law-abiding people to obtain whatever gun they want. I do not support any blanket bans, which punish law-abiding people inordinately more than any improvement in safety they bring about, nor any restrictions based on “need” that would lead to some government bureaucrat deciding that no one in his jurisdiction really needs a firearm.
I agree, completely stopping these sorts of killings is impossible as long as ordinary citizens are allowed to own ANY guns. It’s delusional to think that gun deaths will stop entirely, but mitigating them, reducing them - surely that’s something that’s worth aiming for, even at the expense of some of your freedoms.
Isn’t it?
If you DECIDE to to alter or give up some of your rights, if you collectively choose through due democratic process to amend your own constitution to better suit the needs of Americans as they live today rather than hundreds of years ago, why is that a problem? Such a decision will not, CANNOT be forced upon you externally. But what you’re presenting here is the “slippery slope” argument - that if you ban high-capacity semi-auto assault weapons today, you’ll be forced to give up your grandpa’s breech-loading double-barrelled shotgun later on.
That won’t happen. Even in the UK it hasn’t happened. But if it DOES happen, it’ll be because the majority of Americans *chose *it to be so. What I’m seeing today is the lack of will amongst the majority of Americans to make that change. I only pray it won’t take more massacres before you find that will.
Until then, the rest of the world will continue to look on at America and shake its head in bafflement and disbelief, while US gun-advocates continue to clutch desperately at their weapons like an old lady clutching her purse tight in a bad neighborhood.
The answer to the question you have posed here, is “not necessarily.” It is not a foregone conclusion that it is worth sacrificing an unspecified amount of freedom to “reduce” gun deaths by an unspecified amount.
If you can sacrifice a little freedom to reduce deaths by a lot, sure. If you must sacrifice a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little, no.
Many people view the kinds of restrictions you and others are proposing as sacrificing a lot of freedom to reduce deaths only by a little. As easy as it may be for someone who knows jack shit about guns to say “Who needs a semi-auto anyway?”, most gun owners disagree.
“I mean, who really needs hard liquor? I think beer and wine should be enough for anyone. And they should be limited to 5% ABV so that it is less likely people will get dangerously drunk.”
I know – the Border Patrol hasn’t had any work to do for months since the rest of the world disdainfully regards the US as such a dangerous place. No one wants to come here, that’s for sure.
Then I think we’ve hit upon the crux of our disagreement. I think these proposals will reduce deaths by a lot, while you think they’ll reduce deaths by only a little. I therefore think giving up some freedoms would be worth it, while you don’t. Fine, I get that.
I think the only way to persuade someone otherwise would be to provide solid statistical proof that the majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns and other semi-autos. We’d probably still quibble over how many deaths would be “enough”, but at least we’d be getting somewhere.
And btw, I know more than jack shit about guns, thank you very much.
Sarcasm duly noted. But you know very well that I was specifically talking about international reactions to America’s gun laws and gun culture, not the attractiveness of the US as a whole. Don’t be disingenuous.
I would dispute this. Not you specifically - but when applied to ‘people like you’ in general. You and people like you are part of the cause of gun violence in this country. There are tens of millions of people ‘like you’, law abiding gun owners who keep their guns perfectly safe and secure. Until something screws up in their life or they make a mistake.
This past week:
Nancy Lanza was a legal gunowner with no criminal history. Her AR-15 gun was stolen from her and she was shot.
Jacob Roberts stole a AR-15 from an acquaintance, a legal gun owner, and shot up a mall.
From the reports, these crazy people probably didn’t have contacts with gangs or the black market to purchase their AR-15’s. By far the easiest method for them was to simple take it from someone they knew.
So, really you are asking me to put my trust in you, and all of the people like you - and in addition everyone you know as well as everyone that knows people like you. This represents pretty much the entire population of the country.
I do not have any mentally-disturbed sons, or any mentally-disturbed friends. But in any case, I think stricter liability laws are a great solution to your concern.
You didn’t answer my question. You’ve made it clear that you’re cool with condemning as many people as necessary to death in order to achieve your goal. How many of them are you willing to kill personally?
What a lame argument. Sure, we border a country with conditions much worse than ours. Doesn’t mean the rest of our peers don’t consider us to be barbarians.
It seems that you’re making an argument for allowing guns for self-defense. In that case, semi-auto is a pretty big deal. When firing a weapon defensively, one will want to take multiple shots quickly to ensure a hit. That is, if I’m in a life or death situation, I’m not going to take the time after each shot to make sure my target is disabled, I’m going to take no less than two or three shots. Semi-auto makes this a lot more responsive and, thus, makes it a lot more effective for home defense. So I can’t agree with this one.
Terrible idea. Handguns are a lot more manuverable inside a home. Trying to use a rifle or a shotgun through hallways, doorways, just isn’t very effective. Basically, the entire design intent is for personal and home defense, so it just doesn’t make sense to take those out of the hands of the people who want to use them for that purpose if we’re trying to make concessions for it.
Let’s also pass a law that no more than 1 person may invade a home simultaneously. Seriously, if you get a couple or more people invading at the same time or you miss, 6 shots may not be enough. Sure, one probably doesn’t need a 30-round magazine, but 10-12 rounds isn’t unreasonable for home defense. And round capacities like that just make more sense in detachable magazines.
Besides, if I wanted to commit a crime and have more than 6 shots, all you’re really doing is forcing the criminal to carry extra guns if they can’t get their hands on one with a detachable magazine. Sure, it would be a burden if I thought I’d needed to carry around half a dozen guns to rob a bank, but if I’m going to mug someone or break into their house or hold up a gas station, one or two 6-round guns is plenty.
I will agree that silencers and suppressors aren’t justifiable as reasonable home defense precautions. Thing is, short of actually going on a shooting rampage, they don’t really serve much purpose for crime either, where they add bulk to a weapon, making them harder to carry and conceal, and they typically aren’t going to fire them anyway. Further, as I understand, it’s not to difficult to make a half-way decent one with basic materials, so I don’t really know how this would really be enforceable or really accomplish much.
Again, I don’t think a 12-gauge is anywhere near as effective for home defense as something like a 9mm handgun. Besides the added manuverability and higher rate of fire to downing an intruder, I could also keep the weapon closer because of it’s compact size, like in the night stand.
I don’t even personally own a gun, but I don’t see how this would reduce gun crime at all. I can still hold up a gas station shot-gun, in fact, I’ve seen plenty of those videos precisely because they’re already easier to get than handguns. All you’ve really effectively done is take effective defensive weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
It would impinge hobby shooters. There are plenty who enjoy shooting handguns, there’s handguns competitions as well. Yes, handguns are used a lot in gun crimes, but I just don’t think banning them will make them all that much harder for criminals to get their hands on. Further, even if we could get rid of them, I’m sure you’d just see those same people modifying rifles and shotguns and using those for similar purpose. A rifle or shotgun with the stock shortened or removed and a shortened barrel isn’t going to be all that much more difficult to carry and conceal and use in gun crimes than a handgun.
Simple - a person who is carrying legally (in the majority of states, at least) will have a permit on their person. Someone carrying illegally will not. Oh, and criminals rarely use holsters, while legal carriers generally do.
Scumpup would balk at killing his favorite uncle just because said favorite uncle won’t surrender his firearms to the controlling legal authority. Scumpup doesn’t like shooting people; Scumpup is not a misanthrope.
On the other hand, foolsguinea is a misanthrope, and a vicious little vector of wrath, who was once puzzled that armies have a hard time getting raw recruits to pull the trigger on the enemy.
Maybe Scumpup doesn’t really understand how people can intentionally kill each other with guns. Or maybe he doesn’t understand why anyone would look at his deadly weapons and see a threat.
But foolsguinea understands how one can do it intentionally, and unintentionally, and accidentally, and a whole gradient in between.
I can see the rage in my own heart, and the recklessness in my friends. The world is dangerous enough without explosives slinging hot lead through your buddy’s head because someone has a bad day.
The law is written to govern people like me. The law is not capable of distinguishing “angels” like you.
