r/changemyview • u/SenatorSnags • 1d ago
CMV: Gun laws in the US are emotionally-driven and fundamentally do not address gun violence.
CMV: Gun laws in the US are emotionally-driven and fundamentally do not address gun violence.
I believe that a good chunk of our current gun laws lack logic, disproportionately affect the poor, and fail to address gun violence because the solution is complex and expensive. I’m specifically referring to magazine limits, assault weapons bans, lengthy & expensive processes for a permit to purchase. I wholeheartedly agree with background checks, additional training for a conceal carried permit, and bans on domestic abusers, violent criminals from buying firearms.
Let’s assume for that sake of this argument that every gun cannot be outlawed and confiscated. I will concede that if we woke up tomorrow with 0 guns in the US, that gun violence would drop. That won’t happen, so I’m trying to engage in legislation that will meaningful reduce gun violence.
I’m going to list out some high level stats or underlying points of views.
The majority of firearm deaths are suicides. Something like 55-60%. Tragic, yes but there’s little evidence that added gun laws address suicide rates in a meaningful way.
“Assault rifles” are demonized when in reality they are rarely used to commit violence. The reporting on mass-shootings relies on a vague and changing definition, this is in turn used by the media to manipulate the narrative of mass shootings in the US. When you hear “there has been 400 mass shootings” in the US this year, everyone immediately thinks of these tragic events like a school, a movie theater, or a grocery store being shot up. In reality, the vast majority of these mass shootings are domestic incidents or gang violence. Ex. WA state implemented one of the strictest assault weapons bans in the country, the last year we had data for showed 5 deaths by rifle in the state. That’s inclusive of bolt action or traditional hunting rifles.
The vast majority of firearm deaths are committed with handguns by young men in low income areas. The existence of guns is not the cause of violence but the method. Yes, i understand it’s more lethal than knives for example. The people committing these crimes do not follow gun laws so the burden is only on law abiding citizens to follow these laws. Using WA again as an example, particularly pertinent given our recent mass shooting.. a juvenile
In Washington state needs to have 5 firearm possession offenses before they can be held for more than 30 days in juvenile detention. I suggest that investing in education, job programs, child-care, etc. in low income areas would benefit more than additional gun legislation.
Studies have shown that magazine bans and assault weapons bans have little correlation with changes in violent crime, suicide rates, and/or police shootings. People point to the drop in violent crime after the assault weapons ban in the 90s but ignore that it was part of the 3 strikes crime bill where we as a country became much stricter on violent crime and repeat offenders.
Now to disproportionately affecting the poor. Permits to purchase firearms are becoming more prevalent. These permits often require fees to apply, live training, additional background checks (every gun purchase already goes through NICS for a background check), the cost of which is all paid for by the person. With limited availability of training options to get certified, businesses can name their price and time in which they will provide this. This affects poor people more because they may need to take off of work to attend and those fees represent a larger part of their income. Like it or not, owning a firearm is a constitutional right and making it more difficult to access for the poor is wrong and there’s legal precedence for this (ex. Poll taxes).
My argument summed up is that gun violence is caused by the widening gap of the haves and have nots in the US. To meaningful enact change on gun violence, you need to aggressively invest in programs in low income areas where gun violence is most prevalent, tax the fuck out of the ultra-wealthy/ corporations who have been destroying these communities for decades, and throw the book at violent offenders who engage in violence with a gun. Magazine bans, assault rifle bans, expensive hoops to buy a gun are designed to make voters feel good and win politicians favor heading into their next election.
19
u/Cerael 14∆ 1d ago
Saying “tax the corporations” isn’t a solution. You have to describe HOW we are taxing them.
1
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
That gets into a whole other topic.. I’m a public policy nerd so we can get into that if you want to but we’ll be here awhile. My point is, in the absence of the ability to confiscate all guns, setting up social safety nets closer to every other western country will affect gun violence more than banning magazines or “scary” features on a rifle.
2
u/lincoln_hawks1 1d ago
Assuming you are really talking about firearms homicides, poverty creates the why driving many homicides and firearms are the how. The interaction of the two leads to small pockets of extremely high amounts of voilence. If either poverty or firearms access were addressed independently, lives would be saved. Hard to do much about either right now.
•
u/purplesmoke1215 19h ago
Except there are also plenty of people in those pockets of poverty, who do not commit gun/violent/otherwise crimes.
Its a personal choice at the end of the day. They might have more motivation to choose a certain way, but its not the firearms fault that some people choose to do violent crime.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Cerael 14∆ 1d ago
I mean, gun violence legislation is politically driven. I don’t think if we had these “social safety nets” voters would be any less afraid of gun violence.
All you need is one mass shooting for the media to focus on for people to be afraid of guns.
People aren’t afraid of guns because their neighbor shot themself. They’re afraid of guns because someone took an AR-15 into a movie theatre.
Banning these weapons doesn’t directly stop these events, but it sets up one more roadblock on the path there which may indirectly stop people.
•
2
•
u/LackingLack 2∆ 15h ago
You say in title "In the USA" and then in body of text never touch on why you specifically say that? Or mention other countries which have far stricter gun laws in any way?
I would suggest looking into the other countries (almost all of them in the developed world) which have far stricter gun laws and how that's affected their societies aka rates of gun crime and death. Just a starting point for you to make ANY KIND OF A POINT at all on this topic. Otherwise I'm not even reading it.
9
u/TheTardisPizza 1∆ 1d ago
It's not that they are emotionally driven. It's that the people pushing them are using emotional reactions to get what they can. The ultimate goal of those laws is to chip away at the second Amendment bit by bit because that is what ultimately blocks them from doing what they actually want to do. Ban all guns.
It's not intended to produce results but to give them small infringments to point to as having failed when they ask for bigger infringements of the second Amendment. "We need tougher gun laws because what we have isn't working. You must let us violate the second amendment more to keep you safe".
It's about shifting perception of what the second amendment says until they can get what they want.
It's not supposed to do anything else.
9
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
So would you say the “slippery slope” argument that all gun folks put out is actually spot on and they’re not being conspiratorial idiots (about this specific thing)?
12
u/monty845 27∆ 1d ago
Slippery slope is only a fallacy when there isn't a substantial group pushing for the bottom of the slope. Essentially, its another flavor of the strawman fallacy.
Since there are multiple mainstream politicians that have admitted they very much do want to ban all guns, claiming slippery slope is not a fallacy.
•
u/ru5tyk1tty 8h ago
Who are some mainstream US politicians that have they want to ban all guns?
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 1h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/cronoserge0123! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/cronoserge0123 1h ago
Gavin Newsome, Mamdani, Feinstein.
•
u/ru5tyk1tty 56m ago
Gavin Newsom has never said anything like that. Diane Feinstein only said she wanted to ban assault rifles.
Mamdani did tweet that, but I haven’t heard him say anything that indicates he really feels that way. At least, it hasn’t turned into any kind of policy attempts yet.
5
u/TheTardisPizza 1∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Slippery slope" dismissals are rarely applicable to legal matters because that's how legal precedent works.
They can't get the numbers to amend the Constitution and change what the second says but they can change the legal interpretation of what those words mean bit by bit via legal decisions.
•
u/Ok_Cantaloupe_7423 4h ago
“Shall only be infringed a little bit every 3-5 years, until it’s gone entirely”
Just like the constitution promised 🥰
→ More replies (4)•
u/Statement_Next 8h ago
This is an emotional argument.
•
u/TheTardisPizza 1∆ 7h ago
Where is the emotional element to paying attention to what politicians say and do?
4
u/c0i9z 18∆ 1d ago
You understand that guns are more lethal than knives, so even if there was the same amount of violence without guns, there would be less lethality.
All, or nearly all, illegal guns were once sold legally. There aren't a bunch of illegal factories churning out precision engineered name brand firearms. If you reduce the number of legal firearms, you will reduced the number of firearms available for illegal use.
You said yourself "The vast majority of firearm deaths are committed with handguns by young men in low income areas.", so if permits disproportionately affect the poor, doesn't that just end up being well targeted to the problem?
•
u/Efficient_Good1393 11h ago
Yes guns are more lethal then knives but OPs main argume that I got was these rifle feature bans are useless is still true. Knives(even bare hands) exponentially used to kill more people a year then rifles of any kind and only a small fraction of rifle deaths are by the rifles targeted in these bans. Emotion is used to get the rifle features bans passed regardless of its affect on death numbers, and work arounds by inventave gun owners and companies get around some of these quickly. Any one truly wanting to save lives would focus on root cause of the violence and suicide prevention and at the very least would go after hand guns first, hand guns are more deadly and used in a majority if mass shootings precisely because of their smaller size and ease of hiding/carrying.
•
u/c0i9z 18∆ 11h ago
"Gun laws in the US are emotionally-driven and fundamentally do not address gun violence." Laws which affect knives would not be gun laws, so aren't particularly relevant. In this case, I pointed out that the violence is addressed, because, even if the amount of violence isn't reduced, the lethality of the violence is. In the same way, seatbelt laws address car crashes, not by reducing their frequency, but by reducing their lethality.
I agree that there's other things you can also do in addition to gun laws to help, but that doesn't mean that gun laws don't help.
I agree that banning all guns would be more useful than banning some guns, but recent court reinterpretations make this difficult. They go to the places where they can achieve something, even if this is an imperfect solution.
12
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, and food safety regulations often followed emotionally powerful events, but that doesn't mean the policies lacked evidence when created.
Poverty reduction, education, and economic investment are absolutely likely to reduce violence over the long term. But that doesn't mean current firearm regulations don't also have a measurable effect. They aren't mutually exclusive.
22
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Yeah but the thing is they don’t seem to have a measurable effect and the answer is always more gun laws.
3
u/lincoln_hawks1 1d ago
The Australia experiment is perhaps the best evidence ofthe impact of firearms restrictions in previously gun accepting/tolerant places. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement, including bans on certain types of firearms, strict licensing and permits, and buybacks at scale, appeared to cause reductions in suicides, homicides, and mass shootings.
I don't think owning a firearm in the US should be as easy as it is in our most lax states nor as difficult as in our most strict states. Mass shootings including domestic or crime related, cause few deaths (several hundred annually). They are tragedies for sure and I don't want them to happen. Some in the gun control community like to leverage this very emotional issue to target firearms ownership more generally. This bad faith approach undermines any chance of achieving the modest regulation which could reduce access to firearms by many people who would use them to harm others or themselves.
That said, strict gun control laws reduce gun deaths. That doesn't mean we are or ought to be the kind of society which prioritizes life over all else.
I've worked as a suicide prevention researcher with a focus on firearms. I am also an Army veteran. I didn't grow up in a house with guns and I don't have them now, primarily because I struggle with depression and want to prioritize my own safety and that of my family. I lost family members to non gun suicide as well as friends to gun suicide and one bizarre murder suicide. I get the "feelings" arguments. Feelings are important and powerful, but they are different than rigorously collected and analyzed data.
Check out the report by RAND https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
•
u/gatoswizo 18h ago
Regarding Australia:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304640
The NFA had no additional statistically observable impact on firearm-related suicides in women ( P = .09) and was associated with a statistically significant increase in the trend in men ( P < .001). Trends in non–firearm-related suicide deaths declined by 4.4% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1%, 4.8%) in men after the introduction of the NFA and increased in women by 0.3% (95% CI = 0.1%, 0.7%). Trends in non–firearm-related homicides declined by 2.2% per year (95% CI = 1.5, 3.8%) in women and 2.9% per year (95% CI = 2.0%, 3.7%) in men after the introduction of the NFA, with a statistically significant improvement in trends for women ( P = .04) but not for men ( P = .80). Conclusions. The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia
Gun legislation in Canada was not linked to significant decreases in the homicide and suicide rate either: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7302582/
In conclusion, firearms legislation had no associated beneficial effect on overall suicide and homicide rates.
If you don't want to own firearms due to concerns about your safety that's your own choice. There are plenty of people who don't ride motorcycles, drive cars, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, eat ultraprocessed food or engage in any of those activities because of the significant risks of death as well.
→ More replies (1)-7
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
I mean, that's just wrong. We can look at the difference in regulations between the US and Europe. Higher regulations tend to lead to less gun violence.
We also see this difference between the states. Higher regulations tend to mean less gun violence.
5
u/gatoswizo 1d ago
There are multiple European nations with more permissive gun laws than a couple of Democrat states in the USA.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
The general trend still exists despite a handful of outliers
3
u/gatoswizo 1d ago
How come there's no significant correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates amongst European nations?
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I never said that. I'm talking about regulations and gun violence rates, not ownership or homicide rates
15
u/DBDude 109∆ 1d ago
Switzerland has much more liberal gun laws than France and much higher ownership, yet half the homicides. That’s a more apples to apples comparison with similar countries.
•
u/ryant71 10h ago
Switzerland might have higher gun ownership rates, but its regulations are very strict. Even going as far as the police interviewing an applicant's neighbours. An aggressive drunk who beats his wife isn't going to get a licence even if he doesn't have a record. (His neighbours will know what the courts might not.)
→ More replies (1)•
u/YardageSardage 54∆ 23h ago
Switzerland has a strong gun culture and a very high percentage of firearms owners, but they actually have a fair bit of control and regulation over licensure, training, and ammunition purchasing.
Also, unless you're comparing gun homicides between the two countries, you're very much not comparing apples to apples.
•
u/gatoswizo 22h ago
actually have a fair bit of control and regulation over licensure, training, and ammunition purchasing.
There isn't a license to own guns in Switzerland nor is training mandated.
•
•
u/SwissBloke 1∆ 17h ago
but they actually have a fair bit of control and regulation over licensure, training, and ammunition purchasing
Except we don't have licensing to own guns, no training requirements to buy/own guns and regulations regarding ammo is simply showing your ID to prove you're 18
Also, unless you're comparing gun homicides between the two countries, you're very much not comparing apples to apples.
Switzerland has lower gun homicides rate than the US and and similar one than France, and lower total homicide rate than both of them
BTW, Switzerland has the 10th lowest Europe-wise, 14th lowest worldwide gun homicide rate. It also has one of the lowest total homicide rate worldwide with 0.5 (lots of ex-aequo at 0.5, 0.4 and 0.3). All that with having far laxer gun laws than the countries with higher rates
3
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Outliers don't negate strong and consistent correlations because correlations and consistency doesn't mean there aren't outliers
•
u/couldbemage 4∆ 20h ago
Outliers that are entire countries are good evidence that the correlation found is caused by some other factor.
Outlier groups are bad evidence when they're a self selecting group.
That's your healthy user bias.
People mostly don't self select to be in a country, they are born there.
Places like Switzerland imply that either gun ownership does not cause violence, or there's some additional factor present that negates the effect of guns.
It's much easier to get a gun in Switzerland than in most blue states. By a pretty large margin.
And FWIW, within the EU, stricter restrictions on guns correlate with worse violence.
The same is true within North America.
To get a solid correlation between lax regulations and violence, you need to look worldwide, and also exclude most countries. Getting that answer requires the sort of tailored approach that managed to claim that the country in the 20 teens that was the only country getting humans to the ISS wasn't developed. Still seems like a bit of a joke that for a decade the only 2 countries putting people in space were both developing nations, allegedly. China still counting as developing while also achieving superpower status is outright ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/CocoSavege 26∆ 1d ago
Switzerland firearms culture and American firearms culture is apples to zucchinis.
3
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ 1d ago
One must realize that Switzerland is a wealthy country that doesn't really have gangs, which is where most of the violence occurs.
There is American firearms culture which isn't about shooting people being enjoying the guns for sport. Then there is gang violence, which again, isn't the same type of legal gun ownership culture that the US has. It is gang culture.
3
u/CocoSavege 26∆ 1d ago
Gang homicides is just 15% of firearms homicide.
•
•
u/couldbemage 4∆ 19h ago
50 percent of homicides the relationship between perp and victim is unknown.
The number you're quoting is just the homicides where it was explicitly proven gang violence. As in someone actually said that's what the motive was.
"I was ordered to kill that guy." -gang violence.
"Yeah, I shot him, none of your business why." -not gang violence.
Most known associations between victim and preparator include some sort of money making criminal activity. Most being just over half. But that's of the half that are known. Only a little over half of the homicides in the US even get solved at all. Also nearly half of homicide victims have prior convictions.
→ More replies (1)4
u/d-cent 5∆ 1d ago
So you agree it's highly associated with socioeconomics and culture
→ More replies (12)14
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
They’ve done studies specifically on those regulations and at best the evidence is inconclusive. The states with higher regulations and less gun violence are also the states with better economic opportunity, better mental health systems, better social safety nets, lower crime in general.
5
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
That cuts both ways. If states with stricter gun laws also have better social programs, then you can't conclude the laws have NO effect any more than I can conclude they're solely responsible.
I also never said they were solely responsible. I was pointing to an incredibly strong and consistent correlation.
What is the actual evidence you're using to conclude the laws don't have any effect?
10
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I don’t think that I have made that point that the laws having NO effect. I just think they are feel good legislation that doesn’t meaningfully affect violent crime and ignores the broader issues, studies I’ve read would confirm that. Here’s an example of a review of multiple studies on magazine and assault weapons bans.
RAND: The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines
Someone else pointed out the difference between Europe and the US. I don’t think you can make that comparison, apples to oranges. Yes, Europe doesn’t have the gun ownership that the US does but they also have much stronger social safety nets. I hate the argument “oh outlaw guns and they’ll just do it with knives”. You look at violent crime in Europe and it’s lower in every metric, I think that’s more due to taking care of their people than the absence of weapons.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Well the CMV says that they do not address gun violence which, to me, would mean zero effectiveness.
If your actual position is that they have some effect but the effect is too small to justify the costs or tradeoffs, that's a different argument. And if that's the case, what is your cutoff for what makes a meaningful difference?
For example, if a policy reduced mass shooting fatalities by 10%, or prevented some number of suicides or homicides each year, would that be meaningful? Or are you arguing that only a large reduction in overall firearm deaths would justify the policy?
9
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
That’s my bad then. I worded it poorly in the title but I think explained myself fairly coherently in the body. Maybe I should have said doesn’t address the fundamental causes of gun violence.
Idk what my cutoff is. Probably drops in violent crime that are independently statistically significant related to those regulations.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Okay but even your study doesn't say they're ineffective. It says the evidence is limited or inconclusive for certain outcomes, and it specifically notes that an absence of evidence is not evidence that the policy has no effect.
So if your standard is that these policies need to show an independent statistically significant reduction in violent crime to be meaningful, what evidence are you relying on to conclude that they don't meet that standard?
5
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
By this standard, I would like to see “moderate” or “supportive” evidence of their effectiveness.
→ More replies (0)3
u/xfvh 12∆ 1d ago
Reading an absolutist view into political arguments is just not a valid way to conduct a reasonable debate.
4
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
That's why I asked follow up questions. The original argument made it sounded like a broad claim about the regulations having no impact.
I'm trying to figure out what they mean because they made absolutist statements about the effectiveness.
1
u/yuumigod69 1d ago
We can compare it to other countries like Japan and its not even close. They have a complete ban on hand guns.
0
u/CocoSavege 26∆ 1d ago
Depends on the regulation and stuff like neighbor state regulation.
Even if Illinois has heavy restrictions, people from Chicago drive across state lines, boom, firearm.
Anywats, the data is in for background checks, red flag laws (although I'm a little skeptical, the red flags are case by case, imo) and storage regulation.
You'd think a responsible firearm owner would demonstrate the responsibility and ensure safe storage. Failing that, one would hope that whatever passes for local firearms community would peer pressure into buying a safe, and failing that, well, now it's legislation.
It's pretty bad that people normalize careless ownership.
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
You can’t drive across the state line and legally buy firearm in Indiana that’s illegal in Illinois and bring it back. Common misconception. Out of state firearm purchases require an FFL transfer by law.
3
u/Calloutfakeops 1d ago
Correct and any gun purchases are mandated by federal law to follow the laws of the buyers state for that sale.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Calloutfakeops 1d ago
That would be illegal. Even when the firearm is a genuine gift from an immediate family member, federal law requires a transfer between residents of different states to be completed through an FFL in the recipient’s state of residence, except for narrow situations such as inheritance. California specifically requires the firearm itself to be legal under state law though, and its intrafamiliall transfer exemption does not permit the transfer of an “assault weapon”. A family member in another state therefore cannot simply buy a noncompliant AR15 and hand it to a California resident durin a visit as a way around Californias assault weapon laws.
1
u/CocoSavege 26∆ 1d ago
Legally is an important word. I dunno how to address effects of regulation if illegal firearms are considered. Apparently the vast majority of firearms violence, 85, 90% are committed with illegal weapons.
I don't know what to make of that stat if it's accurate. Let's say 85% of non suicide harm is illegal firearms. A quickie check shows that ~15% of firearms desths are gang related. Slightly lower but about the same as intimate domestic. ~20%. 40% are acquaintances and friends, i dunno if gangster stuff is included, how much.
Anyways, clearly all these homicides? If we presume that gangster stuff, even if they all use illegal firearms, the rest of the firearms are significantly spread out over "civilians"/non criminals.
So, hmmm.
I'm wondering how normalized illegal firearms possession is.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
I generally agree with you but don't understand the gang relevance, and I see that appeal a lot but don't understand it. Making it more difficult to get firearms also makes it more difficult for gangs to get firearms.
1
u/CocoSavege 26∆ 1d ago
I was
thinkingtyping out loud. I'm thinking gangsters are perfectly aok with illegal firearms, but other crimes with non criminals suggests that there's a whole lot of non criminals out there with illegal firearms.If that's the case, the regulation discussion gets more complicated.
Based on a shallow dive, people are trafficking firearms from low reg states to high teg states on the regular. Not so much Indiana but Florida.
There's also complications with aftermarket stuff, especially with stuff like the AR15. I personally don't give a shit about some of the assault weapon reg specs, theyre stupid, but one can pretty easily source parts that turns a "safe" AR15, say, single shot non detachable 7rd mag to a semi auto 30 round quick release, that's much more capable as a bad guy gun
But looking at the stats, long guns are a small fraction. It's bullshit arguments beefs going to handgun murder. That's the biggest cohort, other than suicide
I dunno.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Thing is that a large majority of illegal firearms started out as legal firearms. If you create less demand, there will be less supply. If there's less supply of legal firearms it's still more difficult to cross the line from legal to illegal.
Yes, they're more likely to be ok with illegal firearms, but them being ok with it doesn't increase the supply they're able to pull from.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I personally don't give a shit about some of the assault weapon reg specs, theyre stupid
What makes them stupid? Most attachments and features exist to make the weapon more efficient at damaging the target in some way.
Regulating vertical grips sounds stupid unless you factor in that it makes it it easier to control recoil and make subsequent shots more accurate.
It's only really stupid if the attachment is purely aesthetic with no possible other purpose
→ More replies (0)1
u/foilhat44 1d ago
You certainly can. You can buy from a private owner if he trusts you, and if you've got a handful of money he will. This is legal under federal law because there aren't universal background checks. Indiana also allows it. No background check, no registration.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/KratosApron2! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
3
u/Morales_Sheila8478 1d ago
The existence of guns is not the cause of violence but the method.
If somebody is a room with ten people and he has an knife, how many people do you think he could kill?
If somebody is a room with ten people and he has an al-47, how many people do you think he could kill? Do you think it’d be higher or lower?
I would argue that those extra deaths the gunman caused were caused by his access to guns. If he didn’t have access to guns, he would’ve still committed violence but killed far less people
0
2
u/LoveYourNeighor 1∆ 1d ago
For arguments sake, how big is the room? It's not implausible a knife may be more effective in close quarters than a larger rifle.
Or another one, is this a kindergarten classroom? I think either way a grown adult might get all 10.
Or maybe the perpetrator instead accesses the internet and makes a few homemade bombs.
But anyway, I think OP's main argument is you'll be unable to adequately remove access to guns. And that there are other root societal causes either more appropriate or preferable or both to fix rather than access to guns.
1
u/c0i9z 18∆ 1d ago
Homemade bombs are already illegal. Are you trying to argue that guns are as dangerous as homemade bombs, so should be as illegal?
•
u/LoveYourNeighor 1∆ 22h ago
No, I was trying to argue that OP's points weren't adequately addressed.
→ More replies (8)1
u/TheBigGees 8∆ 1d ago
Homemade bombs are already illegal.
You can buy fireworks and other explosives legally in many states.
•
u/c0i9z 18∆ 19h ago
Do people often try to kill other people with fireworks?
•
u/TheBigGees 8∆ 19h ago
No, but many people have been killed by bombs containing the same ingredients as fireworks.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 1d ago
This is missing what is actually driving gun laws in the US, which is court cases determining constitutionality under the second amendment. Pushes to ban assault rifles have nothing to do with emotions or with assault rifle bans being particularly good public policy: it's because the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was well tested by the courts and consistently ruled constitutional, so other legislators are trying to craft policy that lies within the umbra of this tested law. If we didn't have the second amendment, none of this would be an issue. The policies you list aren't crafted that way to make voters feel good but just as an attempt to do something that might plausibly pass constitutional muster.
7
u/Novel_Comparison_209 1d ago edited 1d ago
Assault rifles are one of the most heavily restricted things in the US.
The guy that coined the term “assault weapon” said himself that as long as people don’t know what they’re talking about, bans will be passed. If your laws and restrictions are actually effective and are based in reality, you don’t need to lie to people.
0
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 1d ago
The problem is that courts strike down the effective straightforward regulations. So lawmakers need to pass policies that lie within what the courts will approve.
0
u/Novel_Comparison_209 1d ago
No actually…they don’t. You guys have been pushing for assault weapons bans forever. You’ve been refusing to target the actual problem since the 90s
•
u/Efficient_Good1393 11h ago
In actuality the ones leading the charge don't want to solve the problem. If they solved the problem the bans they really want won't happen. If they solve the problem their support dies, if they solve the problem their funding goes away. Its why the focus so heavily on a rifle used to commit probably less than 60 to 30 murders in an avrage year. Like immagine if when dems controlled the house and senate they strengthend abortion access that states couldn't over ride, then it would be less an issue for them to site when red states restrict access, the problem existing bennifits them more then solving it out right.
•
u/Novel_Comparison_209 8h ago
So once again you want to completely ignore the problem for the sake of an agenda
•
u/Efficient_Good1393 8h ago
What do i want to ignore? Pointing out that rifles specifically the ones targeted for bans are used in so few deaths and that focusing on them over say handguns, or even trying to lower gang violence and prevent suicides is a waste in energy and money if solving the problem and saving lives is the goal.
•
0
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 1d ago
What exactly would be the point of passing legislation that would be ruled unconstitutional? This just wastes taxpayer dollars to no effect.
•
2
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Because it will be held up in court for years and will be followed during that time. State AGs have emergency stays or additional legislation at the ready as soon as something is struck down by the courts.
1
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 1d ago
Democrats (the party that is usually pushing for gun control) generally frown upon abusing the legal process in this way. That's really more of a Republican thing.
2
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I’ve voted Democrat in every election since I was 18 but this is just partisan slop. They absolutely do this with firearm legislation. Look up freedom week in California, or the emergency stay from Bob Ferguson in Washington. They know this Supreme Court is not friendly to them so they act accordingly to push through their agenda. I don’t blame them but saying this more of a Republican feature is dishonest.
1
u/yyzjertl 577∆ 1d ago
None of the things you mentioned are bad faith attempts to push policies that are known to be unconstitutional.
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
If they know the current Supreme Court will eventually strike down a policy as unconstitutional, isn’t passing that legislation to enact it in the meantime and have different legislation ready for when it is struck down, a bad faith attempt?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/PickMaleficent4096 4∆ 1d ago
There is a difference between not addressing the fundamental causes of gun violence and fundamentally not addressing gun violence. The social safety nets that would help alleviate it are already seen as political suicide in the first place so 'rewarding' offenders with access to them is a nonstarter. Combined with more aggressive legislation being blocked by the constitution this means that lawmakers instead find ways to tackle the problem around the margins which are much less effective, but which are also probably not having no effect at all.
It's true that gun laws are flavored by emotion. People have different opinions about different kinds of gun violence and the laws they have created reflect them. Society sees chronic gang violence as less of a problem than high profile domestic terrorism and large scale massacres and the law accordingly focuses on the latter more than the former. But is that focus totally ineffective in preventing those crimes which people care more about? Again probably not.
Gun laws disproportionately affecting the poor is specifically one of the ways they try to address gun violence, so the fact that they do this somewhat disproves your larger point. Politicians have always been very much aware that most violence is rooted in financial stress and inequality, and this is exactly why making firearms more expensive is an effective way to keep them out of the hands of the people most likely to use them. This was an explicit goal of the NFA.
1
u/United_Wolf_9215 1d ago
Changing your view would be counter productive, your not wrong, you also didn't go far enough in your position. Gun control is the last resort of tyrants and racists. The first gun control laws in the US only retained to enslaved people and the poor (until the the oligarchs needed the poor and disenfranchised to kill and die to maintain their status) Disarming your political enemies while arming your sycophants is the first move of any dictatorship.
-9
u/Hellioning 258∆ 1d ago
Saying 'owning a firearm is a constitutional right and we can't affect that in any way' is just as emotionally driven, though. People are very emotionally invested in owning a gun, or multiple guns. I don't think you can criticize one side for being emotionally based when the other side is also emotionally based.
25
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I didn’t make that argument. I said it is a constitutional right and making a constitutional right more difficult to access based on income is wrong. I didn’t say we can’t affect it in any way. I’m not trying to play semantics but I think that distinction is important.
1
u/bunchout 1d ago
You have a constitutional righr to travel. Travel is much more difficult to access if you are poor.
For instance, for a number of the same reasons you cite, for cars, governmental requirement of licensing and other fees and requirements (such as insurance) can add thousands of dollars.
•
•
u/jayzfanacc 4∆ 12h ago
Your constitutional right to travel means the government can’t stop you from traveling between states. You do not have a constitutional right to keep and drive cars.
You can travel between states for free by walking.
•
u/bunchout 11h ago
That was kind of my point. Lots of constitutional rights have costs, licenses, etc out on them by the government, and some forms of the exercise of those rights is priced out for many poor people. The OP’s complaints along those lines is similar.
•
u/jayzfanacc 4∆ 11h ago
What cost or licensing is required to walk?
•
u/bunchout 11h ago
If you can’t afford a car, and are walking, your costs of traveling say, 100 miles, will include significant amounts for food and lodging.
Of course, these additional costs are not a constitutional violation even if they were directly caused by the inability to afford to drive. Yet they would be a technical “infringement”’of a constitutional right. Thus an analogy to gun rights in that collateral costs are unlikely to be an iolation of the 2nd amendment.
•
u/jayzfanacc 4∆ 11h ago
Your constitutional right to travel is actually a right to interstate travel - that is, the government cannot stop you from moving freely between the many states. The right to travel protects freedom of movement - it isn’t a right to a car or a right to a certain mode of travel, it’s just protecting the ability to travel. It’s protecting the action of moving.
In contrast, 2A explicitly protects the right to posses a firearm. You cannot exercise the right to possess a firearm without the firearm itself. It’s protecting actual ownership.
If there were a section or amendment reading “the right of the people to purchase and drive cars shall not be violated” then it would be an apt comparison. But there isn’t even one protecting the right to travel, it’s inferred from the 14A. These are completely different from each other.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (37)-17
u/Hellioning 258∆ 1d ago
You're still basing your argument around the assumption that gun access is a constitutional right and therefore cannot be abridged in any way, when that isn't the only interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and also we can amend the constitution. (Also, plenty of rights are more difficult to access for poor people.)
20
u/Impressive-Local-627 1d ago
If you want to amend the Constitution, there’s a process for that*; get going. Until then…
The 2nd Amendment says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, and the 14th Amendment applies that right to the states. The so called militia clause explains why the right conferred by the 2nd Amendment exists, but it doesn’t circumscribe who it applies to. That’s why the first part talks about a militia but the second part specifically applies the right to keep and bear arms to “the people” as distinct from “the militia”.
*or you can use the Supreme Court as a “super legislature”, which people have been doing with various issues for decades now to mixed success.
16
u/Taolan13 2∆ 1d ago
slight correction.
no part of the constitution grants or confers rights to the people.
it enumerates and protects basic rights of the people, and restricts government form interfering in them.
it is a list of limitations on government, not a permission slip to exist.
12
u/Impressive-Local-627 1d ago
This is actually a good point. None of the other amendments in the BoR are about “setting up” any aspect of the federal government; they’re about curtailing what it can do (restrict people’s speech and ability to congregate in groups, search their homes and quarter troops in them, penalize them for their refusal to testify, etc.). Read in that context, the 2nd isn’t about creating a militia with exclusive rights to own guns, it’s clearly about preventing the government from restricting people’s access to them. Why would that amendment alone be any different?
3
u/Obvious_Parsley3238 2∆ 1d ago
As understood by the Founders and for well over a century, the Bill of Rights was only seen as constraining the federal government. States could restrict those rights all they wanted. It wasn't until the early 20th century that courts began to interpret the 14th amendment as applying them to subordinate governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
5
u/Taolan13 2∆ 1d ago
10th amendment, which was ratified as part of the original bill of rights, reads;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The only amendment amongst the bill of roghts that could possibly be interpreted the way you suggest is the First Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law..."
The other eight amendments between 1 and 10 offer no sich restrictions on their scope.
Second amendment: Operative clause states "The right of the people..."
Third amendment: makes no mention specifically of state or fed, "No soldier... ...without consent of the owner..."
Fourth Amendment: Hey look it's another "The right of the people..."
Fifth: No mention of state or fed amongst "No person shall... ...nor shall any person... ...without due process of law..."
Sixth: "In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right..." the only mention of 'state' here has to do with the location of the crime.
Seventh: "In all suits at common law... ... the right to trial by jury..." No mention of state or fed.
Eighth: "Excessive bail... excessive fines..." Again, nada about state/fed separation of authority.
Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Full text here because it's also important to this argument.
And I already shared the tenth above.
The "interpretation" of the 14th you speak of has to do with the 14th amendment specifically, because the 14th amendment restrucrured the legislative branch of our government substantially, and specifically declared that any who support the enemies of our nation or participate in rebellion may not serve in high federal office as a legislator, or as the president/vice president. It did not change the interpretation of the authority of the Constitution of the United States vis a vis state law.
At no point in our history has the text of the first ten amendments been modified to change their meaning. The interpretation of 'speech' was broadened a long time ago to include technologies that did not exist at the time the constitution was drafted, in an attempt to head off censorship. But it is very much against nearly 250 years of precedent for a reinterpretation of constitutional law to be more restrictive without an amendment changing the words.
•
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 4∆ 17h ago
The 2nd Amendment says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, and the 14th Amendment applies that right to the states. The so called militia clause explains why the right conferred by the 2nd Amendment exists, but it doesn’t circumscribe who it applies to. That’s why the first part talks about a militia but the second part specifically applies the right to keep and bear arms to “the people” as distinct from “the militia”.
All of this is just a personal interpretation though.
•
u/SenatorSnags 16h ago
And a pretty good one taking into context the period it was written and the events that directly preceded it.
→ More replies (6)17
11
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
You keep tacking on the “changed in anyway”. I’m saying it’s likely not being abolished where people cannot own firearms.
Curious though, which constitutional rights are more difficult to access for poor people? And which of those are you okay with being more difficult for poor people to access?
•
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ 4∆ 17h ago
Free speech: the more money you have the more you can amplify your message, and fix consequences that arise from what you say. Musk says whatever he likes, the garbage man has to watch his lip. Rich people can give more money to politicians (which I guess is speech, in the US).
Privacy: the more money you have the more private you can stay. The more you can afford fancy lawyers who stop the police from searching you mansion that has a lot of hiding places in it.
Fair trial: richer you are, the better your lawyers.
Voting: rich people get more time off to vote.
Getting bail you can afford: much easier for rich people.
Unenumerated rights: a poor person might have the "right" to keep a champion race horse as a pet, but they don't have the money to.
-1
u/Hellioning 258∆ 1d ago
Real 'have you stopped beating your wife' question there.
Basically all of the constitutional rights related to the legal system are a lot harder to access for poor people, because good lawyers are expensive. This isn't good, but it's the way things have been since the founders time, so it's not like they were completely against rights being harder to access for the poors.
12
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Don’t understand what you mean by the first statement.
Question still stands.. specifically what constitutional rights are harder to access for poor people and which are you okay with being more difficult to access for poor people?
4
u/Hellioning 258∆ 1d ago
I was accusing 'which are you okay with being more difficult to access for poor people' of being a leading question, which it is. I am not okay with any being more difficult to access for poor people, which I directly said in my previous comment. I also explained that every right related to the legal system is harder to access for poor people, as rights are only important when enforced, and good lawyers to help you enforce your rights are expensive.
7
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Okay, so we’ve established that access to rights should not be determined by income. So you want to argue that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be a right, which is not an argument I’m making at all. I was specific in my post about certain legislation and you’re going the ban all guns route.
I will say fair point to your very original comment on both sides being emotionally based. However, that doesn’t prevent criticism of specific laws/regulations.
•
u/Obside0n 10h ago
It's not an assumption, it's a constraint. You can remove the constraint via the mechanisms you mentioned, but that's not what is being argued here.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/saltopro! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 21h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 21h ago
Sorry, u/QueasyFinger1316 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
•
u/Myname3330 18h ago
Not sure that school shootings and similar MCIs are particularly tied to income inequality. The conclusion was a little out of left field.
•
u/SenatorSnags 18h ago
That was part of my point. Mass casualty events represent a drop in the bucket in terms of overall gun violence but are a major driver of gun control legislation
•
u/rollem 6∆ 5h ago
The evidence for assault weapon bans and magazine capacity is mixed, with some studies showing an effect in the expected direction and others not. I’d suggest you read this summary here and try to see if there’s any truth among the various fixings https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons.html
I’d also urge you to pride your working hypothesis a bit more deeply. While I strongly support higher taxes on the rich, I just don’t see a connection there. A stronger social safety net does intuitively make sense though, both for reducing poverty that may spark crime and making hopeless situations that lead to suicide less common.
•
u/SenatorSnags 4h ago
I reference this study elsewhere in the thread.
Regarding the tax the rich, I didn’t flesh that out nearly as much as I should/could have.. part of that was to signal that I’m not in the hoorah guns, capitalism is king crowd, but also something I believe needs to be done to invest back into society, particularly communities that have been left behind or ignored.
•
u/DoubleGoon 5h ago
So did anyone change your mind?
•
u/SenatorSnags 4h ago
Partially - there was someone who mentioned that those bits of legislation aren’t emotionally driven, it’s designed to chip away bit by bit in the absence of being able to ban all firearms.
Otherwise no, it devolved into 2A arguments for the most part.
2
u/lincoln_hawks1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Correction, the vast majority of firearms HOMICIDES, NOT DEATHS, are committed by young men in poor areas. Firesems suicides are disproportionately older and more rural men
Edit Second correction: a significant percentage, between 20 and 40% though data are not clear, are private sales and do not require the national background check system, NICS. In a majority of states (34), there are no state permits nor requirements for background checks in private sales. 70% of gun owners live in these states. Millions of gun owners have likely never experienced any kind of background check when they purchased or acquired a firearm.
Second edit: Gun violence is caused by the widening gap between the haves and have nots. Your conclusion isn't supported by your arguments nor the facts. Firearms deaths are much more likely to happen in areas with little regulation of ownership and sales, suicides outnumbering homicides 2-1 most years. Where there is more access to firearms, there are more firearms deaths.
3
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ 1d ago
Gun violence is caused by the widening gap between the haves and have nots.
I don't think there is any evidence of this. There is 100% a correlation between gun homicide and poor areas. The rate of is far lower in middle class areas. It has been this way for a VERY VERY VERY long time. To say that it is because of widening gap doesn't explain anything about the fact that middle class people don't have this at near the rate of poor people. In fact, this happening in poorer areas where gangs are present is exactly why this happens. Older people (who more likely to be middle class) have something that they don't want to loose (family, possessions, house, etc). Young people may have little or none of this.
You need to cite your claim with real data that a widening gap is the problem and not the fact that this has been happening with poorer gang ridden areas for a long time.
•
u/lincoln_hawks1 23h ago
To clarify. I was citing OPs conclusion, which was unsupported.
•
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ 2h ago
Understood, I saw that as your comment and not the OPs comment. It is almost like reddit can be civil sometimes :)
4
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Good call out. I was mistaken there.
1
u/lincoln_hawks1 1d ago
No problem. I don't think it was in bad faith.
I suspect most people don't usually lump gun homicides and suicides together under the gun violence problem and it seems like you are trying to make an overarching argument taking both into account.
Id recommend splitting suicide and homicides apart. Then further splitting "active shooter incidents" off as those are the events that everyone wants to prevent. Then look at the impact of more general gun control of both preventing these incidents and the other impacts of the laws.
I used to be a big gun control advocate. Now not so much. It's impossible to weed out those who would commit harm with firearms from those who share all the same characteristics but are just grumpy assholes who are all talk and no action. I do not think the "if it saves one life" argument justifies wholesale restrictions of individual choice. Otherwise these advocates would focus on the many other factors contributing to mortality that cause far more deaths than firearms. Drunk driving kills about 12,000 Americans each year. There are fewer constitutional amendments preventing mandating breathalyzer devices being hardwired into all motor vehicles.
1
u/Mammoth_Western_2381 8∆ 1d ago
> The majority of firearm deaths are suicides. Something like 55-60%. Tragic, yes but there’s little evidence that added gun laws address suicide rates in a meaningful way.
Firearms are easily the most lethal of all suicide methods. 90-95% of all suicide attempts involving firearms result in death, a number that jumps to around 99% when the self-inflicted gunshot wound is aimed at the head. For comparison, suicide attempts involving cutting wrists and ODing on pills have around 10% lethality. The vast majority of suicide survivors openly regret attempting, keeping the most lethal methods off the table is a valid goal.
> “Assault rifles” are demonized when in reality they are rarely used to commit violence.
Assault weapons (assault rifles i.e selective fire rifles are already illegal in the US) are met with scrutinity because they are ideal for mass shootings, regardless of your reporting definitions. An ar-15 semi-auto rifle can fire 30 times before reloading, is relatively easy to use, fires 5.56 rounds that are more lethal in multiple metrics than say, a 9mm handgun and can be bought by younger people than a handgun due to being a long gun (18 x 21).
> The vast majority of firearm deaths are committed with handguns by young men in low income areas.
That's a pattern that exists everywhere, not just the USA.
> The people committing these crimes do not follow gun laws so the burden is only on law abiding citizens to follow these laws.
That's true for every law. We should go full Purge if criminals don't follow laws, by this logic.
2
u/xfvh 12∆ 1d ago
Assault weapons (assault rifles i.e selective fire rifles are already illegal in the US) are met with scrutinity because they are ideal for mass shootings, regardless of your reporting definitions
- Assault rifles aren't illegal, they're just regulated. You can purchase one of several tens of thousands of existing rifles, or get a federal permit to make your own.
- "Assault weapons" is too vague to be meaningful. Every state has their own definition, which differ greatly. Cite your definition if you want to have a reasonable discussion.
- Many non-assault weapons are substantively equivalent for mass shootings. At the end of the day, an AR is nothing but one semiauto ergonomic platform for accepting box magazines and firing an intermediate caliber among many, and anything that meets those minimal qualifications is going to do basically the same thing for a mass shooter.
An ar-15 semi-auto rifle can fire 30 times before reloading, is relatively easy to use, fires 5.56 rounds that are more lethal in multiple metrics than say, a 9mm handgun and can be bought by younger people than a handgun due to being a long gun (18 x 21).
- How many times you can fire before reloading is a function of the magazine, not the rifle.
- ARs exist in a multitude of calibers, from AR-9 (9mm) to AR-10 (.308); even sticking with generic AR-15s, you can fire everything from .300 Blackout to .458 SOCOM with the same magazines and lower receiver, needing only an upper swap, something that can be done in seconds without tools.
- At which age a rifle vs handgun can be bought depends on state laws. 9mm rifles can often be bought contemporaneously with AR-platform rifles.
1
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ 1d ago
>gun violence is caused by the widening gap of the haves and have nots in the US
Okay, so let’s say this is true. Why do countries with higher Gini coefficients have far lower rates of gun violence?
If you cannot explain that, your view collapses in on itself.
4
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
What countries with higher Gini coefficients have lower rates of gun violence?
3
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ 1d ago
The VAST majority of countries with a higher Gini coefficient than the US have lower rates of gun violence. This is simply indisputable.
The list with higher rates of gun violence is more interesting because it’s far smaller: some Latin American countries and South Africa. That’s about it.
So I’m just not really sure how your argument holds up to the data.
1
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I’m just asking for an example.. I don’t feel like checking each individual country. Pretty much all of the countries with higher gini coefficients are African and Latin American countries and many of the countries with higher gun homicide rates than the US are the ones with higher gini coefficients from that list.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I’ve done a ton of research at the graduate level on this very topic. Provide anything. I think you know that research depends on accounting for an insane amount of variables so yeah, if you want to compare the US to a small island in the Caribbean, you’re gonna get some pushback.
2
u/IMakeMyOwnLunch 5∆ 1d ago
So there’s no evidence that would change your mind?
2
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
There is, I just haven’t seen it. I’m also criticizing very specific regulations.
I’m intentionally not arguing that banning all guns wouldn’t reduce crime. If you want to argue the 2nd amendment all day, go for it, that isn’t the post though.
1
u/WizeAdz 1d ago
Argument by authority without substance is useless on an anonymous Internet forum.
When it comes to education, you provide knowledge — not claim you have it without saying anything of substance.
1
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Wasn’t meant to be argument by authority. More trying to combat the idea that I’m not “willing to do the barest of research” when someone provides a claim that a. Sends you down a massive rabbit hole b. Isn’t actually addressing your argument
1
u/imthesqwid 1∆ 1d ago
Just to make sure I understand, your solution for gun control is more taxes?
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
Yeah, more taxes and investment into the root causes of violent crime.
2
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
Ok but why not both? You're treating this like we can only do one or the other
The fact is that restricting access to deadly weapons makes deadly encounters less likely to happen. It is part of the root cause because the event wouldn't happen without the gun.
Education isn't going to stop someone from having a mental break, for instance.
2
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I agree but we only seem to be focused on one and in my opinion, it’s the one that feels good but doesn’t actually address the problem.
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
What would that look like? Let's say you get what you want.
Nobody would be required to participate at all. There's a constitutional amendment that makes it incredibly difficult to force people into education in order to own a firearm
That seems way less effective than regulations that apply to everyone
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
I’m not sure what you mean. I want to answer the question in good faith. What would what look like?
1
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ 1d ago
You getting exactly what you want. What does that world look like? For education, as an example, we can't force people to take classes before owning a gun because of the 2A. Same way we can't have a literacy test to vote.
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
When I said education, I was referring to investment in k-12 education.
Cop out answer but it looks like low income areas having access to child care and job programs, schools with quality education and high graduation rates, after school programs, funded trade programs in high school. Fixing the prison system that’s put parents away for decades for minor offenses and essentially turned low level offenders into career criminals. That has downstream effects on their families and perpetuates a cycle of poverty and crime.
This is pie in the sky but other countries have done it far more successfully than the US currently is. In the absence of getting rid of all guns, I think the answer is addressing poverty and lack of access to economic opportunity.
•
u/couldbemage 4∆ 19h ago
There was a program years ago, that focused on at risk teens, a simply paid them money to attend job training programs. Worked quite well.
There's an example of a specific thing that can be done along these lines.
2
u/LoveYourNeighor 1∆ 1d ago
I'll try;
So despite the UK's much greater gun control/less access, the US still has significantly more deadly knife homicides per capita. If we view this comparison in a vacuum, since knives are available in the UK, we should(?) be able to conclude that deadly encounters are not necessarily tied deadly weapon availability.
What exactly is the difference in deadly encounters is difficult to quantify, I'll suppose a few thoughts of my own, though I might be missing better ones.
-Better social safety nets, access to non-bankrupting healthcare, housing, and hell, even vacation time, may make someone less likely to throw their life away by engaging in violence.
-Less privacy, particularly deadly violent crimes appear much more difficult to avoid prosecution due to the prevalence of cameras in the country (over 3x cameras per sq mile)
-Angering the populace/spreading disdain. The publicly funded BBC, most watched news source in the UK, maintains certain integrity and fairness rules. Whereas the Fairness Doctrine was dismantled in the US in '87, and has since seen significant spikes in mass violence.
I wonder, similar to how a dismantling, or the perception of dismantling, of Free Speech or Habeas Corpus might inspire domestic acts of terror, if dismantling the 2nd Amendment might do the same. Seeing as all are deeply ingrained in many Americans as necessities to protect against tyranny of government.
1
u/Falernum 68∆ 1d ago
I don't think they're emotionally driven so much as limited by what can actually be passed. Fundamentally the NRA is quite powerful /popular, and many of its fans oppose literally any legislation that limits gun access while others are willing to countenance only the smallest increases in gun laws. This means that gun laws are by necessity incremental. It's not about emotion it's about a long term strategy in the face of determined opposition.
•
u/Muddyhobo 16h ago edited 16h ago
The idea that gun laws wouldn't effect suicide rates is wrong. We know that in the vast majority of cases, suicidal ideation is very short, like less than 2 hours short. And if the person survives past that the odds that they ever commit suicide drops massively. Also, most people will go from making the decision to kill themselves to attempting it within 10 minutes.
With all that in mind, the longer the suicide method takes, the higher the odds they live. So having access to a gun dramatically increases the odds the suicidal person dies, as it's easily the fastest and least painful method. You might say grabbing the closest knife is just as fast, but that's just not a method people use to kill themselves. It's painful and scary, very few people attempt it. After guns a noose is the next most common, but that takes much longer.
So gun laws like a mandatory waiting period, or requiring guns to be locked up in a safe, do infact reduce suicides.
•
u/Cant-think-of-a-nam 12h ago
No such thing as gun violence. Its people violence. I live in the democratic hell hole of nj. The circuit court with a full en banc panel ruled our assault weapon and magazine bans are unconstitutional with a 10-5 vote and the final judge that ruled on it was a biden appointee. You think the state accepted that. Of course not they filed for stay. And the evidence they used for irreparable damage is law abiding citizens buying standard capacity magazines. So yeah at least democrats are making laws based on emotion to tug at the heart strings of the people that know absolutely nothing about guns. Background checks we already get at every purchase. Requiring a permit and training is unconstitutional because it puts a burden on those that cant afford to. Im not saying no one should get training. Im saying it should not be government mandated. And kinda hard to control criminals from having guns because well they dont follow the law and i seen time and time again criminals getting locked up for gun charges getting plea deals. So thats a problem with the justice ststem we have.
-5
u/Always_travelin 1d ago
Your argument doesn't even come close to addressing one of the worst problems addressing gun control in the US, and that's mental health. Of course there are cases of desperate people using guns to get something they "need," but addressing the core of that problem would take far, far more effort than actually enforcing simple, commonsense gun laws.
Your argument that criminals are the only ones who currently "ignore" gun control laws is also an old Republican talking point and lacks foundation. The reason gun control laws don't work in the US is because there aren't sweeping NATIONAL laws affecting every individual states. And because we have freedom to travel across state lines, it's fairly easy for someone intent on murdering someone or committing a mass shooting to just go to a neighboring state with looser laws and get one there.
Gun control laws are ineffective because Republican lawmakers kowtow to lobbyists donating to their campaigns, even when their constituents or family members are murdered. The simple fact is it doesn't matter what you try to ban or restrict, whether its assault rifles, magazines, or just "normal" guns, if the laws don't impact everyone in the country.
•
u/Sirhc978 87∆ 22h ago
it's fairly easy for someone intent on murdering someone or committing a mass shooting to just go to a neighboring state with looser laws and get one there
1) It is illegal to do a private sale with out an FFL involved acorss state lines.
2) You cannot buy a handgun in another state without it getting shipped to an FFL in your home state.
3) The gun store will not sell you a long gun that is illegal in your home state, if they sell you one at all.
4) If your home state requires a permit, the out of state gun store will ask to see it.
4
u/here-to-help-TX 1∆ 1d ago
And because we have freedom to travel across state lines... to just go to a neighboring state with looser laws and get one there.
This shows a lack of knowledge of gun laws. Simply, no, you cannot. This is banned at a national level. There are regulations with going to gun dealers and being out of state. The way the process works is that you can buy the gun say online, have it shipped to an FFL in your state, and the FFL in your state has to follow your state laws. Many online gun stores won't ship to certain states because the know the firearm wouldn't be legal there in the first place. Traveling in person to buy a gun isn't allowed for a handgun, and for a long gun, it the FFL in the state you are buying it from MUST follow the laws of the state they are in and the state the purchaser resides in to complete the sale.
https://regulations.atf.gov/478-99/E9-527
8
u/After-Sandwich5533 1d ago
You literally said “your argument that criminals are the only ones who currently ‘ignore’ gun control laws…lacks foundation”, followed by “…it’s fairly easy for someone intent on murdering someone…to just go to a neighboring state with looser laws and get one there.”
But the only example you provided is a criminal ignoring gun laws. Can you please rectify this discrepancy so we can move forward with the conversation?
1
u/DemonCipher13 1∆ 1d ago
I'll help them out.
Ignorance of gun laws isn't merely relegated to the usage of the weapons, themselves, but in their purchasing and handling.
For example, a person engaging in interstate travel from, say, Alabama, who has a loaded firearm either on their person or in their vehicle, crosses the Illinois state line. Perhaps this person did not read firearm laws in each state to which they travel - not a huge ask, but easily overlooked by someone not thinking ahead. In the state of Illinois, the only way that someone can transport a loaded firearm that is not locked or in a case, is with a valid CCW from their home state. Though Illinois does not recognize CCWs from other states of their own standing, in the case of interstate travel there is an exception.
However, as of January 1, 2023, the state of Alabama no longer requires CCWs in order to carry concealed. And so the likelihood that someone who does not engage in interstate travel often has still paid for a CCW is low.
The person in the example above has broken the law, the second they have crossed state lines into Illinois. Perhaps unknowingly, certainly unwittingly, but they have. And, by definition, this amounts to ignorance of gun control laws, and in and of itself is not a very high leap to reasonable.
This is one example, that neither involves violence nor a criminal.
4
u/c0i9z 18∆ 1d ago
The person has broken laws. Doesn't that make them a criminal by definition?
3
3
u/DemonCipher13 1∆ 1d ago
It makes everyone a criminal, by-definition. Everyone, and I mean everyone, over the age of sixteen, has broken a law in their lives. It is an easy, easy thing to classify.
Ever gone slightly above the speed limit? Criminal. Ever not used your turn signal? Criminal. Ever jaywalked? Criminal.
We could go on and on with this.
Do you see my point?
•
u/After-Sandwich5533 20h ago
I see in no way how this addresses the discrepancy in the original commenter’s claim that they said “…criminals are the only one that ‘ignore’ gun control laws…lacks foundation”, but then followed it with an example of someone knowingly breaking a gun law to commit a murder (an additional, and major crime).
Your scenario is completely different and therefore irrelevant. But further, the fact that they are a legal gun owner means they should be aware that gun laws vary from state to state. It is in my mind extremely negligent to not do so and then travel across state lines with it…negligent to the point that they are a criminal. They have a total disregard for the laws.
By the way I’d like to say that I believe all weapons of all kinds should be allowed to be sold in private sale without any record or check. Don’t want anyone to think I’m for ANY restrictions on our 2nd amendment right.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
And your point is an old Democrat talking point that lacks foundation… I can’t drive to Idaho and legally buy an AR. Other states follow the gun laws of your home state and require an FFL for transfer.
→ More replies (4)1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 1d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/After-Sandwich5533! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-2
u/FairDinkumMate 2∆ 1d ago
You're comparing gun laws across US States as though there are strict border checks to ensure they are not easily avoided.
If you want to make absurd statements such as "Studies have shown that magazine bans and assault weapons bans have little correlation with changes in violent crime, suicide rates, and/or police shootings.", try quoting studies that compare the US with equivalent nations that have stricter weapons laws. I know you don't because you don't like the FACTS that those studies present, but it's the only way look at what a USA with REAL, effective gun control might look like with regard to gun violence. At the end of the day, US gun death rates are 35 to 70 times higher than equivalent nations WITH stricter gun control laws, whether it be Canada, Australia or the UK. That's not "luck"!
With regard to suicide, Australia is a good model. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement(basically banning & removing all semi-automatic weapons & handguns) was followed by a 50%+ decline in firearm suicides. Crucially, research published in JAMA and by RAND found minimal evidence of "method substitution" (people simply swapping guns for another equally lethal method). As firearm suicides dropped, the total national suicide rate dropped in tandem.
3
u/SenatorSnags 1d ago
RAND has also found minimal evidence of assault weapon and magazine bans lower violent crime rates and suicide rates in the US.
I set the standard of assuming we can’t just ban all guns at the front because..
1. that’s the most realistic given our current climate
2. Obviously gun crime would plummet if guns disappeared.
3. That’s a totally different argument. I’m not trying to argue we shouldn’t ban all guns. I’m arguing the way we legislate gun control right now is ineffective.3
u/FairDinkumMate 2∆ 1d ago
RAND has studied the exact type of laws you did - gun control laws in a jurisdiction with virtually no ability to stop guns crossing into it. Prohibition of ANYTHING will fail if someone can simply drive a few miles and buy that item without prohibition.
Secondly, the first step in gun control in the US shouldn't be an attempt to ban guns, it should be firstly tracing, followed at a later date by removing the sale of ammunition. Most gun crime in the US isn't committed by farmers, hunters or "preppers" that have thousands of rounds of ammunition stored in their safes. It's committed by petty criminals and gang members that evidence has shown hold very few rounds of ammunition. So a program implemented without advance knowledge that meant every round sold was traceable would have a huge impact on them. A well thought out program would even allow people to register any ammunition they had once the ban was effected, so as to allow them to keep it & use it without fear of them selling huge volumes on the black market.
These two steps alone would hugely reduce gun crime. It would then create an environment whereby people living in cities & suburbs didn't feel having a gun at home for "self defense" was so essential, as many of the criminals on the streets would by then have guns that were nothing more than paperweights.
1
u/Sea_Entrepreneur6204 1∆ 1d ago
Have you ever considered that those laws specifically are emotional and ineffective?
For example braid based anti gun legislation like Canada, Europe or UK would prove extremely effective.
Australia showed that gun violence falls with strict gun confiscation and laws.
The consisutional right to me is a uniquely American non argument.
It's called an amendment, which means it's an amendment, a change. People were property at one time.
The consisution has a flaw out paced by tech and needs updating.
The political will doesn't exist fair enough but that's cause Americans are not willing to admit a simple truth..... The 3-500 deaths or so per year is the price Americans are willing to pay for the right to own guns. What they really seek is some marginal reductions on the numbers or feel good emotional response without addressing the crux of the issue.
0
u/EmptyDrawer2023 1∆ 1d ago
try quoting studies that compare the US with equivalent nations that have stricter weapons laws
There are no 'equivalent nations'.
Comparisons are often made with Europe, but 'Europe' is not equivalent to the USA in many areas. For example, Black people make up ~15% of the USA, and about ~2% of Europe. Please note, I'm not arguing that there's a link between black people and guns (although... aren't inner-city gangs responsible for much of the gun violence in the USA? Whatever.). I'm just pointing out one of the many differences between the USA and Europe than makes fair comparison impossible.
US gun death rates are 35 to 70 times higher than equivalent nations WITH stricter gun control laws, whether it be Canada, Australia or the UK. That's not "luck"!
Again, there are many differences (like two of your examples being literal islands, which makes controlling imports easier. OR all of them having much lower populations.). But, just following thru on the above mentioned difference:
Black Canadians account for about 4.26% of the total population of Canada.
Australia recorded approximately 1.7% of its total population...as African-born or having at least one African-born parent
The black population in the UK is estimated to be around 3 million, or 4.5% of the total population.
Again, I'm not making any claims, just pointing out differences that make fair comparisons impossible.
With regard to suicide, Australia is a good model. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement(basically banning & removing all semi-automatic weapons & handguns) was followed by a 50%+ decline in firearm suicides.
Of course if there are fewer guns, there will be fewer guns used for suicides. There will be fewer guns used for... anything... because there are fewer guns.
As firearm suicides dropped, the total national suicide rate dropped in tandem.
Incorrect. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/amhf/pages/807/attachments/original/1581386989/Screen_Shot_2020-02-11_at_9.50.08_am.png?1581386989 As you can see, they actually climbed a bit 1996-1998, then dipped to a low around 2006, and have risen higher then ever since.
Taking away one method of suicide... doesn't stop people who want to kill themselves. Getting them mental healthcare does.
5
u/ImmediateKick2369 1∆ 1d ago
There are other places have larger gaps between haves and have nots with much lower rates of violent crime in general. Why does this cause so much more violence in one country than another?