> "Only a very small number of Americans can't have this discussion."

It's unclear why people keep claiming this. According to https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own... , in 2020 while rural firearms ownership was ~48%, urban and suburban firearms ownership was 23% and 25% respectively in the US. That's a minority, to be sure, but it's not by any means a "very small" minority.

I disagree with the premise that "people who can't have a discussion about gun rights" == "people who own guns".

In fact, gun owners (like the general population) are heavily in favor of increasing gun control, especially things like closing loopholes in background check laws[1].

The people who won't entertain a discussion about increasing gun control are a minority of extremists who just happen to be a large enough voting bloc to dictate the GOP's position on guns.

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a...

These polls assume that the public knows what our gun laws actually are. They have been fed lies about non-existent "loopholes" in gun laws, among other fantasies. I suspect most people would be satsified with the gun laws we actually have.

>In fact, gun owners (like the general population) are heavily in favor of increasing gun control, especially things like closing loopholes in background check laws[1].

The reason that gun owners are in practice against this, of course, is that implementation of these has consequences like "you have to waive HIPAA rights to pass your background check" (WA).

I'm unconvinced that being in favor of an idea, but against the bad-faith compromises that always seem to come with it, qualifies as "extreme".

Appreciate the adding of the link. I feel that saying they're heavily in favor of increasing gun control," - is a bit misleading - although I don't feel that is intentional.

While technically true, according to this poll of 5,000 people, I think many may read 'gun control' in different ways, and do not think it's fair to the average person who would believe what they read at face value.

For example, this poll suggests a majority of the dems and repubs are in favor of "preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns " and what the article says is "subjecting private gun sales and gun show sales to background checks"

But if you look at the question they asked: "Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"

This is not exactly the same terminology.

I wish the question was broken up into three parts.. and I feel that a lot of repubs would go along with this answer in the poll for a few reasons, including that it's already understood that you go through background check when you buy at gun shows.. and the 'law and order' groups are likely to not give a fudge if people who could not pass a check do not get one.

Where it would be even more different is if they said 'all private transfers' (I think Wash State did something like this a while back or similar?) - I doubt most people are on board driving an hour to do a background check on uncle Bill to let him use a family shotgun for the weekend..

But anyhow - I find it a tough sell when I hear folks like Shumer say 'a majority are in favor of more gun control' - and to have many believe the words coming his mouth to mean something.. when more accurately he could say 'a majority of Americans are in favor of "Preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns" -

which sounds a bit different, and then it begs more questions about like - someone who has a mental breakdown this week.. or someone who's gotten X or Y drug for the last 10 years or what does that really mean, and what about starting a national DB of all people who have met with a counselor.. and what that path looks like.

I really think we all need to change the term gun control and get more accurate descriptors to use... preventing subsections of people from buying them? preventing certain types? confiscation?

I wish we would all be more specific, as this is leading a lot of people into believing that 'hope and change' is a thing when really, unless you confiscate, none of that other stuff is going to reduce the millions on the streets.. so you might not want to be restricted in what you can get in the future. For some folks maybe not - there are absolutists who think 1 less on the street makes everyone safer. I myself think it depends on the 1 and depends on the street.

[actual poll questions] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site... - Glad they are this transparent.

The problem is that the people who can't have this discussion also own a bunch of guns...

I can't tell if you're joking, but the problem is not their guns. They're mostly peaceful people who have not demonstrated a willingness to commit mass murder to defend their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I know we see some violent pro-gun extremism online, but it doesn't represent the vast majority of gun owners.

The solutions are not obvious. Disarming the civilian population gives rise to a different and much larger problem than school shootings, if that is what you were implying.

Weird. What problems do, say, European countries or Japan, or pick any modern democratic state, have that are larger than school shootings?

Oh, how could I forget about the fall of Hong Kong?

"An unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." —Huey P Newton

The holocaust is a good example.

It is difficult for governments to commit large scale atrocities without the consent of the governed unless those so governed are first disarmed.

A more modern example was the prohibition of the free movement of the Australian population during covid. Australians were held prisoner by the state and were not permitted to leave.

> It is difficult for governments to commit large scale atrocities

Let me guess, public school teachers teaching... gasp... CRT? Indoctrinating children?

Oh my, the government!

The Holocaust was a result of populism in Germany. The oppressed people wouldn't have been able to protect themselves from the majority of Germans and the German military, even if they were armed.

I trust the American government far more to not start the next holocaust than I do the armed American populace.

And if the American government were to start the next holocaust, I don't trust the armed American populace to stop them.

I really doubt we are in for another Holocaust. Government restricting movement during a pandemic is not a valid reason to literally shoot someone dead, that is literally pure insanity.

What is happening right now isn't the Holocaust. What is happening right now - and has been happening for years - are weekly mass shootings.

This doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It only happens in the US. Guns are clearly the problem.

Something tells me that even an armed militia of the people wouldn't be much of an obstacle for a military power such as Germany or America.

The military would have its hands full with an unarmed but willing and united population.

> It is difficult for governments to commit large scale atrocities without the consent of the governed unless those so governed are first disarmed.

Not when the government has tanks, attack helicopters and assorted hardware that IS prohibited for the public to own

> A more modern example was the prohibition of the free movement of the Australian population during covid. Australians were held prisoner by the state and were not permitted to leave.

Not true. You could leave and you could also enter - but would have to stay in mandatory quarantine.

I hate that argument about how gun owners would not pose a credible threat to the US military.

We've demonstrated time and time again what a determined populace in their home region is capable of doing to a technologically and numerically superior opponent.

Such as in Vietnam which isn't incredibly dissimilar from the deep South, or Afghanistan which is very similar to the environment you would find in Idaho and Wyoming.

I mean the wider discussion can still be had but if the federal government decided to start a fight over this it would be very similar to an Afghanistan or Vietnam situation but about 2-3x worse as the area to cover would be much larger and would likely have to deal with internal problems in the military as they tend to be very well represented in the pro-gun crowd.

Unless your suggesting the US military would start carrying out strategic bombing operations against its own citizens on its own soil.

Fine, it's the threat of your guns that is doing such a grand job of keeping you all so very free.

Almost 1% of US citizens are in prison. Your police forces routinely brutalise and oppress large parts of your population even though (or perhaps because) you are all armed to the teeth. The majority of your fellow citizens are a couple of paychecks or one health scare away from homelessness, your social security safety nets are in tatters and your collective Labour rights have been eroded away over the last 50 years. Thank goodness you've got your guns or your government might screw you over

> Almost 1% of US citizens are in prison.

Gun rights have been systematically (illegally) denied the demographics that comprise the majority of those so imprisoned, which furthers the argument that large cross-sections of the population being armed reduces violence.

> Your police forces routinely brutalise and oppress large parts of your population even though (or perhaps because) you are all armed to the teeth.

Those are the groups frequently denied weapons. The police generally actively avoid armed confrontation with those they know to be armed (such as we recently saw in Texas). This is one of the reasons it's so easy for them to shoot and kill (mostly unarmed) minorities.

" You could leave and you could also enter - but would have to stay in mandatory quarantine. "

Not true: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00306/Html/Text

"An Australian citizen or permanent resident (the person) must not leave Australian territory as a passenger on an outgoing aircraft or vessel on or after the time this instrument commences"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59058945 "Australia has confirmed it will lift a ban next week that has prevented its own citizens travelling overseas without permission."