# Right to Open carry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535 "2018-07-25T02:17:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/321 "2018-08-02T18:02:52Z")
Yes, the gun lobby does indeed at the forefront of advocacy for improved mental health care. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/322 "2018-08-02T18:20:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > If you use ALL nations, no cherry picking allowed, the USA falls right in the middle, we are average in murders and violent crime. So you keep saying, but [the facts say otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_note-54). In that list of 75 countries sorted by firearm homicide rate in ascending order, the US is 60th out of 75. (The US fares even worse when comparing overall firearm death rate, coming in 66th out of 75.) The only countries in that list with a higher firearm homicide rate are Uruguay, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Mexico, South Africa, Philippines, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Swaziland, Venezuela, and Honduras. Notice any commonality among those countries? They are all countries with recent histories of widespread violent armed conflict, often involving dictatorial regimes and political violence and/or gang warfare. If you think comparing the US with those countries is more valid than comparing it with Australia, Canada, the UK, or western Europe, and patting yourself on the back for having a lower firearm homicide rate while being a violent outlier compared to actually similar countries, then you are welcome to your meaningless stats, but it doesn’t lead to reality-based conclusions or rational dialog. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/323 "2018-08-02T18:22:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, the gun lobby does indeed at the forefront of advocacy for improved mental health care. :rolleyes: Nobody is, the fear and wedge politics have removed that possibility. Plus male fragility won’t allow these discussions in the US right now, because some how incels are a better state than standing up and dealing with social problems. Prohabition and the Drug wars are a pretty good evidence that we should try something else though. But ya just like on this board if you want to look at anything that isn’t the pet causes you these these type of non-sequiturs. “Guns are scary” or “Brown people are scary” are the only thing that seems to drive policy today. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/324 "2018-08-02T19:34:16Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Maybe. And if so, _so fucking what ?_ > Australia has yet to see a repeat of the Port Arthur massacre, and their crime rate is dropping. I’d say their gun ban, while obviously totes 'orrible and unconscionable and all that has worked out pretty well for them. > I must say, as a non-American I am bemused as to why you guys are so fucking in love with those things. That, and prisons, and for-profit healthcare. Those are the three things that fuck me up a wall re:the modern US. And it’s thoroughly fucked up that I can grok “why Trump. Seriously, like… just… WHY ?!” better than those, isn’t it ? So you admit it is not about reasonable regulations but about gun bans? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It doesn’t matter if they “look scary”. You say that like the left is just over reacting as though are no real problems but only perceived ones. > > Bottom line is guns are a scourge on our society. There is abundant evidence of the problems they cause. We get denial or if not denial pious proclamations from gun owners that they are responsible gun owners and should be allowed their guns even if others use them in bad ways. > > But we have little upside for the guns. We are told they are needed for self defense but on the whole we do not see much of that (yes it happens but in vastly smaller numbers than gun crimes). > > Imagine in the US we sell a Widget. It murders [30 per day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) and injures/kills [19 children per day](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486) and [58 people per day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) use it to kill themselves. > > What other product could do that and we’d be fine selling it in the US? If 30 people get food poisoning in the US we pull products off the shelves en mass. If a toy chokes a half dozen kids the toy is pulled. But guns do far worse and we are ok with them. So you admit it is not about reasonable regulations but about gun bans? That is my objection. Your side says that we are making shit up when we say that you want to ban guns; you claim that you merely want reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and felons. When we ask what those reasonable regulations are, you reply “assault weapons ban.” When we point out that what you call assault weapons are really no different than most hunting rifles, you claim that is why guns need to be banned! I wish your side would simply admit that it is for banning guns and we could have a debate about that instead of this charade about how your side “supports the Second Amendment” and merely wants reasonable regulations. That has been shown to be false time and time again. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/325 "2018-08-02T20:44:33Z")
What’s a reasonable regulation again? Banning guns from criminals? Banning guns from the insane? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/326 "2018-08-02T21:12:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So you admit it is not about reasonable regulations but about gun bans? > > So you admit it is not about reasonable regulations but about gun bans? I think that Bone’s “So, I’m wrong” rule does apply very well here, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/327 "2018-08-02T21:12:23Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So you admit it is not about reasonable regulations but about gun bans? > > That is my objection. Your side says that we are making shit up when we say that you want to ban guns; you claim that you merely want reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and felons. When we ask what those reasonable regulations are, you reply “assault weapons ban.” When we point out that what you call assault weapons are really no different than most hunting rifles, you claim that is why guns need to be banned! > > I wish your side would simply admit that it is for banning guns and we could have a debate about that instead of this charade about how your side “supports the Second Amendment” and merely wants reasonable regulations. That has been shown to be false time and time again. But the “gun ban” scaremongering fantasy really is making shit up, and it’s not hard to see why the gun side likes to make it up, and why it isn’t true. Time and time again, the gun control story is the story of what the rest of the civilized world is doing, like those 22 countries I cited and every economically advanced country in the world, all of which have very low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Have any of those countries banned guns? No, they have not. What gun control advocates are seeking is for the US to follow the lead of the civilized world, nothing more. But the “gun ban” fantasy makes a good scare story for the gullible because it paints gun control advocates as unreasonable lunatics, when all they want is some modicum of civilized regulation and licensing of the kind that exists everywhere else in the world. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/328 "2018-08-02T21:19:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But the “gun ban” scaremongering fantasy really is making shit up, and it’s not hard to see why the gun side likes to make it up, and why it isn’t true. Time and time again, the gun control story is the story of what the rest of the civilized world is doing, like those 22 countries I cited and every economically advanced country in the world, all of which have very low rates of gun violence compared to the US. Have any of those countries banned guns? No, they have not. What gun control advocates are seeking is for the US to follow the lead of the civilized world, nothing more. But the “gun ban” fantasy makes a good scare story for the gullible because it paints gun control advocates as unreasonable lunatics, when all they want is some modicum of civilized regulation and licensing of the kind that exists everywhere else in the world. Do you seriously contend that the UK and Australia have not “banned guns”? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/329 "2018-08-02T21:40:42Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > What’s a reasonable regulation again? Banning guns from criminals? Banning guns from the insane? Both of those groups are already taken care of, Well for felons and those that have been adjudicated insane. Note question 11 sections b,c and e. [https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download) When people talk about new laws related to mental illness they are talking about removing the rights of individuals with mental health challenges who haven’t been adjudicated. It is popular on both sides to blame mental illness, but it is a tiny portion of the crime and people who have access to services and are themselves not subject to violence tend to be similar to the general population in offending rates. [https://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(14)00147-1/pdf](https://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(14)00147-1/pdf) > [@](#): > > Conversely, participants in the study who merely had a diagnosis of serious mental illness but did not have a history of violent victimization, were not exposed to neighborhood violence, and were not abusing drugs or alcohol, had annual rates of violent behavior in line with the general population without any mental illness But everyone is obsessed with finding new ways to strip these people of their rights to due process because they are a scapegoat which allows most people to ignore the larger societal issues that need to be addressed. When “mental illness” is so vaguely defined gun debates, those people who suffer from mental illness without an elevated risk of violence are stigmatized and will avoid seeking treatment and these isolated individuals have an elevated risk of suicide. The urban poor, people who suffer from mental illness and domestic violence victims are blamed because it is easy to debase these groups. People view people of color, the mentally ill and those addicted to substances as sub-human and the outrage only rises when an event happens which busts the ‘normal’ persons safety bubble. A large part of this is pandering to the electorate, who drink the Kool-Aid when the blame can be shifted to some ‘others’ but are unwilling to address the fact that this is a much more complex problem. The extreme sides of this debate, which are both driven by pure fear, monopolize the subject while the majority loses out on a chance to improve situation and save lives because they are used as fodder for this wedge issue. To clarify, gun control is probably a part of the solution here, but unless the political will exists to intact a ban and confiscate the firearms the effects are not going to be significant, especially in isolation. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/330 "2018-08-02T22:35:42Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Both of those groups are already taken care of, Well for felons and those that have been adjudicated insane. > > Note question 11 sections b,c and e. > > [https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download) > > When people talk about new laws related to mental illness they are talking about removing the rights of individuals with mental health challenges who haven’t been adjudicated. It is popular on both sides to blame mental illness, but it is a tiny portion of the crime and people who have access to services and are themselves not subject to violence tend to be similar to the general population in offending rates. > [https://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(14)00147-1/pdf](https://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(14)00147-1/pdf) So in other words there are existing gun bans that are totally okay. (And which somehow pass muster under the second amendment.) People aren’t worried about gun bans. They’re worried about _their_ guns being banned. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a problem that society needs to be concerned with, when it has the negative societal effects of every third person and their five year old daughter being armed to deal with. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To clarify, gun control is probably a part of the solution here, but unless the political will exists to intact a ban and confiscate the firearms the effects are not going to be significant, especially in isolation. Things would get plenty interesting if they just banned carrying them without confiscating them. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/331 "2018-08-02T22:57:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So in other words there are existing gun bans that are totally okay. (And which somehow pass muster under the second amendment.) > > People aren’t worried about gun bans. They’re worried about _their_ guns being banned. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a problem that society needs to be concerned with, when it has the negative societal effects of every third person and their five year old daughter being armed to deal with. > > Things would get plenty interesting if they just banned carrying them without confiscating them. I can’t talk for gun enthusiasts, but in general people are OK with individuals losing rights through due process. People tend to be a bit more passionate about ceding rights to the government. Well except when they mistakenly believe that it won’t apply to them. This is the case on both sides of the aisle were Trump and Feinstein are talking about violating the due process rights of people who happen to have a medical condition. It is a risky game to weaken these rights which were the basis for cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. But who cares about fundamental rights to due process when it wins you an election? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/332 "2018-08-02T23:08:33Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Do you seriously contend that the UK and Australia have not “banned guns”? Yes. A lot of people think there aren’t any guns in Australia any more, but there are. By some estimates there is one gun for every seven people. My local suburban pistol club has 300 members. My sons have been shooting since they were 12 and both have rifle and pistol licenses. > **[What it’s Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control](https://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/)** > > An Australian gun lover debunks some myths We Have an Extensive Range of Sporting and Hunting Firearms for Sale in Melbourne Gun Emporium also provides a comprehensive range of guns and ammunition for our customers. We have the following types of firearms in stock: [ol] [li]Handguns: from Glock to Berettas and everything in between, we have a wide range of handguns to suit the need of every shooter[/li][li]Rifles: our range of rifles covers the vermin shooter, deer hunter and extreme long range hunter, with everything in between. If we don’t have it, we’ll get it for you.[/li][li]Shotguns: to please avid Victorian and club shooters[/li][/ol] [https://www.gunemporium.com.au/](https://www.gunemporium.com.au/) [It’s similar in the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom), where sporting rifles and shotguns are common, though handguns are tightly restricted. It’s similar in Canada. Lots of people have rifles, but few have handguns, though you can get legally get handguns if you’re really enthusiastic about such things. I once knew a gun nut who had about six of them. But there are strict regulations and licensing and transport restrictions, and again, the low gun violence figures speak for themselves. The issue here seems to be that the gun advocates hear about these sorts of restrictions and immediately see inconvenience that they don’t want to accept, and interpret them as a “ban” or a slippery slope to a ban or something, and they stop listening and go back to their fairy tale about how gun control advocates want to “ban guns”. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2018, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/333 "2018-08-02T23:32:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes. > > A lot of people think there aren’t any guns in Australia any more, but there are. By some estimates there is one gun for every seven people. My local suburban pistol club has 300 members. My sons have been shooting since they were 12 and both have rifle and pistol licenses. > [Gun Control: What It's Like to Own Guns in Australia | TIME](http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/) > > We Have an Extensive Range of Sporting and Hunting Firearms for Sale in Melbourne > > Gun Emporium also provides a comprehensive range of guns and ammunition for our customers. We have the following types of firearms in stock: > > [ol] > [li]Handguns: from Glock to Berettas and everything in between, we have a wide range of handguns to suit the need of every shooter[/li][li]Rifles: our range of rifles covers the vermin shooter, deer hunter and extreme long range hunter, with everything in between. If we don’t have it, we’ll get it for you.[/li][li]Shotguns: to please avid Victorian and club shooters[/li][/ol] > [https://www.gunemporium.com.au/](https://www.gunemporium.com.au/) > > [It’s similar in the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom), where sporting rifles and shotguns are common, though handguns are tightly restricted. It’s similar in Canada. Lots of people have rifles, but few have handguns, though you can get legally get handguns if you’re really enthusiastic about such things. I once knew a gun nut who had about six of them. But there are strict regulations and licensing and transport restrictions, and again, the low gun violence figures speak for themselves. > > The issue here seems to be that the gun advocates hear about these sorts of restrictions and immediately see inconvenience that they don’t want to accept, and interpret them as a “ban” or a slippery slope to a ban or something, and they stop listening and go back to their fairy tale about how gun control advocates want to “ban guns”. So if you aren’t going to significantly reduce availability, how do you also claim that you are going solve suicide? If anything has increase the availability of guns it is the paranoia caused by these proposed ineffective laws. The production records hit historic rates after calls for Gun control. Post Sandyhook 10.8 Million, and due to fear about Hillary a record 11.5 million sales happened. This is where I want information before jumping aboard, the 265+ million firearms out there already will still make them common enough for generations if there isn’t confiscation. But in the UK and AU yes if you are rich and white enough you can own firearms. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/334 "2018-08-03T00:12:06Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So if you aren’t going to significantly reduce availability, how do you also claim that you are going solve suicide? How do you define “availability”? That Australian gun shop ad reads like it might be in the US, basically “we have lots of different guns, and if we don’t have what you want, we can get it for you”. The difference that gun control makes is not availability, but screening and tracking and generally some type of justification, which tends to limit gun ownership to those with a real need or the real enthusiasts who belong to organized shooting clubs. This, in turn, tends to limit the proliferation of guns, and the hierarchy of restrictions tends to limit guns commensurately with the risks of the different kinds. There may still be a lot of guns around by any reasonable measure, but certainly not the ridiculous flood that exists in the US, where there’s more than one for every man, woman, and child, and perhaps their dogs and cats, too. There’s also I think a kind of synergy between gun laws and gun culture; one may debate which affects which, but I think there’s some influence in both directions. Gun regulations that ask you to explain why you need a particular gun have a direct relationship to a culture where, instead of a new gun being admired as a terrific toy to be envied, evinces the question “Why? Why do you have this thing?”, which is something I see as a fundamental distinction between American gun culture and that of other countries. Of course if you like guns and shooting that might be a perfectly satisfactory answer if all your friends do, too, but the legal thing ensures that it’s reasonably safe for you to own guns and are serious about the need or the hobby, and the cultural thing tends to keep it to the minority of those with real needs or serious interest. Regarding your suicide question, the bottom line in the real world is simple. Someone who becomes suicidal (or, for that matter, homicidal) in most countries is not nearly as likely to be able to get his hands on a gun as he is in the US, at least not quickly and easily. And the deeper screening process makes it more likely that someone with a disqualifying history will be identified. And – obviously, from the gun violence statistics – in many cases these extra processes that gun lovers reject as such an inconvenience make all the difference to saving lives. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/335 "2018-08-03T00:36:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > How do you define “availability”? That Australian gun shop ad reads like it might be in the US, basically “we have lots of different guns, and if we don’t have what you want, we can get it for you”. The difference that gun control makes is not availability, but screening and tracking and generally some type of justification, which tends to limit gun ownership to those with a real need or the real enthusiasts who belong to organized shooting clubs. This, in turn, tends to limit the proliferation of guns, and the hierarchy of restrictions tends to limit guns commensurately with the risks of the different kinds. There may still be a lot of guns around by any reasonable measure, but certainly not the ridiculous flood that exists in the US, where there’s more than one for every man, woman, and child, and perhaps their dogs and cats, too. > > There’s also I think a kind of synergy between gun laws and gun culture; one may debate which affects which, but I think there’s some influence in both directions. Gun regulations that ask you to explain why you need a particular gun have a direct relationship to a culture where, instead of a new gun being admired as a terrific toy to be envied, evinces the question “Why? Why do you have this thing?”, which is something I see as a fundamental distinction between American gun culture and that of other countries. Of course if you like guns and shooting that might be a perfectly satisfactory answer if all your friends do, too, but the legal thing ensures that it’s reasonably safe for you to own guns and are serious about the need or the hobby, and the cultural thing tends to keep it to the minority of those with real needs or serious interest. > > Regarding your suicide question, the bottom line in the real world is simple. Someone who becomes suicidal (or, for that matter, homicidal) in most countries is not nearly as likely to be able to get his hands on a gun as he is in the US, at least not quickly and easily. And the deeper screening process makes it more likely that someone with a disqualifying history will be identified. And – obviously, from the gun violence statistics – in many cases these extra processes that gun lovers reject as such an inconvenience make all the difference to saving lives. You do realize that due to the fact that concepts like [stare decisis](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis) and case law makes your idea of making gun buyers explain why they are buying a firearm a no-go, and due to SCOTUS decisions we cannot arbitrarily remove peoples ability to exercise rights without due process. We cannot require a firearm licence to possess or use a firearm based on those criteria. This is the point I have been making, any law that would even approach what you are suggesting above would be overturned which is part of the reason that most gun proposals are centered around focusing on features that don’t reduce their utility for suicide or murder but just focus on fashion trends. The regulation that Trump rolled back is a perfect example of this. Basically Obama forced the social security administration to share records of who was: A) Receiving social security based on “mental illness” B) Had there benefits managed by an executor. So if someone had ADHD, and was unable to manage their personal finances they would have had their rights infringed without the action of the courts. Here is the bummer about fundamental rights, the cases that typically protect them are often individuals that a typical person would find objectionable. Consider the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case as an example. There is absolutely some improvements that could be made to law but what typically happens is that the Left expends political capital on rules that will not improve safety but will significantly change the body of the legislature. The AWB is a perfect example of this and now through gerrymandering and vote suppression it is very hard for the Democrats to gain power. If they could have gained power we could have had a better healthcare act, and that better healthcare act would have had far more impact on suicides by providing services and funding campaigns to target stigma like the UK and AU did. But we are stuck with a super crappy mental health system that hasn’t been addressed for almost 40 years now after SCOTUS rightfully said that involuntarily commitment without cause was a violation of…wait for it…due process and other rights. it is 100% certain that any potential gains in the legislature will be tempered by increase turnout by the pro-gun voter block this year and while I think you intend well nothing above is really addressable without massive changes to the constitution. As we lost the last election and a SCOTUS seat is up, any chance we had to temper those rulings is probably gone for the next decade or more. But I can be convinced, what law can we pass right now that will reduce access and not violate other core rights like the right to a trial or due process? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/336 "2018-08-03T01:42:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you keep saying, but [the facts say otherwise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_note-54). In that list of 75 countries sorted by firearm homicide rate in ascending order, the US is 60th out of 75. . Nations sorted by overall _firearm_ homicide rate. I sorted by all homicides, because many nations dont have stats by \*gun \*homicides, but they _all_ do by overall homicide. And see, your list has only **75** nations. while this list: > **[List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)** > > The list of countries by UNODC homicide rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 100,000 individuals per year. A homicide rate of 30 (out of 100,000) corresponds to 0.03% of the population dying by homicide. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary. Only UNODC-vetted data is used in the main table below. In some cases, it may not be as up to date as other sources. See further down as to why its data is used over other sources. > Homicide rates may be under-report... has **219** nations, or ALL of them. On that list, _of overall homicide rate,_ the USA is in the middle. Again, if you are lying dead in the gutter, murdered, it doesn’t matter to your dead body whether it was a gun, a knife or a club. \*Dead is dead. \* And of the 26 nations in _the Americas,_ only two have a lower homicide rate. Every other American nation has a higher homicide rate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/337 "2018-08-03T01:55:11Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But we have little upside for the guns. We are told they are needed for self defense but on the whole we do not see much of that (yes it happens but in vastly smaller numbers than gun crimes). > > Imagine in the US we sell a Widget. It murders [30 per day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) and injures/kills [19 children per day](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486) and [58 people per day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) use it to kill themselves. > > What other product could do that and we’d be fine selling it in the US? If 30 people get food poisoning in the US we pull products off the shelves en mass. If a toy chokes a half dozen kids the toy is pulled. But guns do far worse and we are ok with them. Again stats have shown it happens more often than crimes. We have many such products: 40,000 Americans die each year on the road. But indeed, cars are useful. Tobacco kills nearly **500,000** (five hundred thousand) Americans a year, about **50,000** from second hand smoke. And tobacco has _no_ useful purpose. Alcohol kills about **90,000** Americans a year. Useful?:dubious: Prescription drug overdoses kill about **25,000** Americans a year. (Some are suicides, of course) [Drug Overdoses Spur Rise in Accidental Deaths, Says Report](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fifty-ways-die-report-finds-accidental-deaths-n377131) Take a look at this graph: > **[Preventable causes of death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#/media/File:Preventable_causes_of_death.svg)** > > Preventable causes of death are causes of death related to risk factors which could have been avoided. The World Health Organization has traditionally classified death according to the primary type of disease or injury. However, causes of death may also be classified in terms of preventable risk factors—such as smoking, unhealthy diet, sexual behavior, and reckless driving—which contribute to a number of different diseases. Such risk factors are usually not recorded directly on death certifica It... Now yes, firearms are too high, but comparatively low. And if you take out suicides, the rate is quite low. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/338 "2018-08-03T01:58:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And what the figures always invariably show is that the US leads the world among economically advanced countries in ALL gun deaths from ALL causes, and by very wide margins. For example, in the US the firearm homicide rate per 100,00 is 3.6; firearm suicide rate 6.3; unintentional firearm death rate 0.2; undetermined 0.1; total firearm death rate 10.2… > > But one can see that the US firearm homicide rate is still more than 7 times the second-highest rate in the group, and similarly for the other gun violence stats. If one were to draw a chart of gun violence in these 22 other countries, the US would be literally way off the chart and you’d have to rescale the graph to accommodate it. Whatever discussion one wants to have about gun violence in America, claiming that “it isn’t a problem” is a denial so irrational as to render the discussion useless… What [**DrDeth** actually pointed out back on page 2](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21110966&postcount=90) was that the United States “sits right in the middle of world wide homicide rates”. _Not_ “firearms homicide rates”, just total homicide rates. Presumably the point of gun control is to actually lower the rate of homicide, not just to shift to some different method of homicide. And yet, “homicide rate” constantly gets morphed into “_firearms_ homicide rate”, as if we should care about what instrument is being used to murder people. The underlying claim of gun control proponents is, of course, not merely that guns can be used to kill people–which is not actually in dispute by anyone–but that guns are uniquely enablers of homicide or suicide. So why not just compare the rate of _all_ homicides or _all_ suicides (as **DrDeth** was doing when he noted that the U.S. sits somewhere in the middle of homicide rates, when compared to all countries, not just “developed” countries). If guns are truly enablers of homicide or suicide, this will surely still be reflected in the _total_ stats, since it’s universally agreed to that Americans are probably the most heavily-armed civilian population on Planet Earth. > [@](#): > > Treating firearm suicides as part of the gun problem along with homicides and accidents is valid because guns provide an easy means to suicide, and one that is fatal in a high proportion of attempts compared to many other means. It’s really not much different than the argument about guns as enablers of homicide. They are effective instruments of death, period. And yet: Looking at the [member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development](http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378) (as a rough proxy for “the first world”, to concede to the claim that it’s improper to compare U.S. stats to those of, say, Sri Lanka or Outer Mongolia), here are the reported crude suicide rates per 100,000 (for both sexes) for those 36 countries for 2016 (from the [World Health Organization](http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE)): Lithuania: 31.9 South Korea: 26.9 Latvia: 21.2 Belgium: 20.7 Hungary: 19.1 Slovenia: 18.6 Japan: 18.5 Estonia: 17.8 France: 17.7 Switzerland : 17.2 Poland: 16.2 Finland: 15.9 Austria: 15.6 **United States: 15.3** Sweden: 14.8 Iceland: 14.0 Portugal: 14.0 Germany: 13.6 Luxembourg: 13.5 Australia: 13.2 Czech Republic: 13.1 Denmark: 12.8 Slovakia: 12.8 Netherlands: 12.6 Canada: 12.5 Norway: 12.2 New Zealand: 12.1 Ireland: 11.5 Chile: 10.6 United Kingdom: 8.9 Spain: 8.7 Italy: 8.2 Turkey: 7.3 Israel : 5.4 Mexico: 5.1 Greece: 5.0 Guns are a comparatively easy and effective means of suicide; and yet, although Americans are undoubtedly more likely to kill themselves _using firearms_ than the citizens of other advanced industrialized nations are, Americans are not markedly more (or less) likely than the citizens of other advanced industrialized nations are to kill themselves, period. In terms of suicide, the U.S. is a pretty average country. In terms of homicide, the U.S. is a pretty average country. In terms of homicide _compared to other advanced, industrialized nations_, the U.S. is high (although, again, the only number that it makes sense to care about is the _total_ homicide rate; the U.S. total homicide rate–which, after a sharp, twenty-plus-year-long drop, has spiked worrisomely in the last couple of years–is less than twice as high as the total homicide rate for Europe as a whole, while on the other hand the U.S. homicide rate is less than a third of the average homicide rate for the Americas as a whole). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/339 "2018-08-03T02:25:13Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > If guns are truly enablers of homicide or suicide, this will surely still be reflected in the _total_ stats, since it’s universally agreed to that Americans are probably the most heavily-armed civilian population on Planet Earth. > > And yet: Looking at the [member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development](http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378) (as a rough proxy for “the first world”, to concede to the claim that it’s improper to compare U.S. stats to those of, say, Sri Lanka or Outer Mongolia), here are the reported crude suicide rates per 100,000 (for both sexes) for those 36 countries for 2016 (from the [World Health Organization](http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE)): > > … > Guns are a comparatively easy and effective means of suicide; and yet, although Americans are undoubtedly more likely to kill themselves _using firearms_ than the citizens of other advanced industrialized nations are, Americans are not markedly more (or less) likely than the citizens of other advanced industrialized nations are to kill themselves, period. In terms of suicide, the U.S. is a pretty average country. In terms of homicide, the U.S. is a pretty average country. In terms of homicide _compared to other advanced, industrialized nations_, the U.S. is high (although, again, the only number that it makes sense to care about is the _total_ homicide rate; the U.S. total homicide rate–which, after a sharp, twenty-plus-year-long drop, has spiked worrisomely in the last couple of years–is less than twice as high as the total homicide rate for Europe as a whole, while on the other hand the U.S. homicide rate is less than a third of the average homicide rate for the Americas as a whole). Good points, Yes, I would concede the USA has the most civilian guns per person. > **[Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)** > > This is a list of countries by estimated number of privately owned guns per 100 people. The Small Arms Survey 2017 provides estimates of the total number of civilian-owned guns in a country. It then calculates the number per 100 people. This number for a country does not indicate the percentage of the population that owns guns. This is because individuals can own more than one gun. > See also: Percent of households with guns by country. It gives the percent of households with guns. It is furthe... I do want to point out that several nations arm their populace with military weapons, Like Switzerland. And at least according to my Army Intel buddy who spent _way too much time_ in Afghanistan, there are a \*metric craptonne \*of civilian guns there. He thought \*more than one gun per person. \*Admittedly unscientific, but just try and get the tribesmen or ISIL to let you count their guns . (He did note however, that a great many guns were in a condition he called “I wouldnt let even my old Drill Sgt shoot that gun”.) It is interesting to note that Canada actually has a lot of guns, but a very low violent crime rate. Same with several Scandinavian nations. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/340 "2018-08-03T02:37:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > How do you define “availability”? That Australian gun shop ad reads like it might be in the US, basically “we have lots of different guns, and if we don’t have what you want, we can get it for you”. The difference that gun control makes is not availability, but screening and tracking and generally some type of justification, which tends to limit gun ownership to those with a real need or the real enthusiasts who belong to organized shooting clubs. I think one point that’s getting lost in this sub-section of the discussion (about whether or not this or that country has “banned guns”) is that “guns” are nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, not even in the Second Amendment. What the Second Amendment talks about–along with [the constitutions of over forty of the states](http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841)–is the “right to keep and bear arms”. Or to restate it slightly, the _right to be armed_. Not simply “the right to own some kind of gun, if you have what the authorities consider to be a suitable need for it, and if you keep it safely locked up when you aren’t using it for skeet shooting or practicing for the biathlon or culling agricultural pests”. From the [firearms laws of New South Wales](https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/whole#/part2/div2/sec12): > [@](#): > > An applicant does not have a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant intends to possess or use the firearm for any of the following reasons…personal protection or the protection of any other person… Being armed for the purpose of self-defense (let alone any kind of idea of an armed populace as a counterbalance to the power of the state) is not permitted under the laws of that state, whereas in the United States, being armed for the purpose of self-defense is protected as a constitutional right. That’s the heart of the difference between American attitudes about arms and those found in other countries (even countries as historically and culturally similar to the United States as Britain or Australia). The American people are not _disarmed_, whereas–regardless of whether or not Farmer Hoggett is permitted to own some sort of gun for shooting rabbits–the Australian and British people _are_ disarmed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=18)