It is plainly obvious to any US citizen that has spent a significant amount of time outside the US, that the problem is guns.
The guns haven't changed in 60 years, and in fact regulations have increased across the board on both purchasing and manufacturing.
But, let's say it is "so obviously" the guns- how is "what is the solution" some kind of naive or ignorant question? Do you know the solution?
Carry regulations have decreased as evidenced in this animated map:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_Carry,_timeline....
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...
In 1986 there were 16 no-issue states (including Texas(!)); in 2022 there are zero. One unrestricted carry state in 1986, 21 in 2022.
Of course overall gun violence is dominated by pistols (but I wouldn't expect the people using pistols to commit illegal violence to be overly worried with carry permits).
Regulations on purchasing have increased drastically over the last 60 years. It's harder to buy a gun now than it ever has been in this country.
I see this thrown around all the time, right before the term "ammosexual" comes out and right along with the allegations of compensating for dick size.
My counter-ancedote is that I haven't seen it, honestly. Guns are a hobby for some people, and I imagine that's been the same forever, right? Maybe a growing hobby, but to call it fetishization dismisses the vast vast majority of people who just like to peacefully enjoy their interests.
Also... what's changed with guns in that time frame? I wasn't trying to be dishonest in saying that. Modern ARs don't have any significant difference from the original Armalite model. Same with AK variants. Non-autoloaders haven't changed in well over 100 years.
I don't know your background, but for my part... I live in Canada, in a province that enjoys fishing and hunting (a great part of which is for leisure).
Notwithstanding, the fetishization of guns I observe from the US is deeply rooted: it's not so much a sexual thing (though I have no doubt that in some cases it could be) as it is an identity thing. (For an example of how the word "fetish" applies to guns in American culture, see [1] or [2].)
Enshrined in the very constitution, it defines what it is to live in America.
Politicians go on TV and passionately advance every argument, meritorious or malicious, that they can against gun regulation.
Civil discourse around guns lacks nuance and is extremely dogmatic.
The loud minority that worships their guns is particularly loud. "Regular people" are obviously more numerous and less noticeable, and my criticism of gun fetishization should not be confounded with denial of their existence or numerical superiority.
Still, the overton window in the US seems to be very accommodative to people with more guns than IQ points, and any proposed solutions to try and protect the vulnerable from violence, or ameliorate the situation, are met with outrage.
Generously speaking, the US (and the American sense of identity) has seriously struggled to transition from a society that broadly depends on guns to function, into a more specialized and developed society.
---
> What's changed with guns in that time frame?
Frankly, I don't know enough about gun design and technology to give your question the treatment it deserves or to give a good answer.
---
I don't think guns are an identity thing (in general). I think individualism and self-sufficiency are part of a particularly American identity though, and guns can be a symbol or reflection of that. The loud minority that worships guns (to the extent that it is their identity) might be particularly loud, but they're not the main drivers of policy. For every 1 of that loud minority, there's 10 "regular people" with more nuanced and well-thought-out opinions that do drive policy, which is why you haven't seen sweeping legislation involving either side's favorite wedge issues.
The 1:10 ratio is made up... point being that like you said, "regular people" are obviously more numerous BUT what we see legislatively is their noticeable effect, not that of a loud minority. It's a common trope on the internet, mass media, and politicians that there's somehow some small pocket of psychos holding us back from utopia.
Don't know how close you follow US politics, but a good example is the talk around West Virgina's Senator Manchin, who's become a very convenient scapegoat for why the party in power can't pass their more controversial pieces of legislation. In reality, there's just much less solidarity amongst Democrats than politicians want you to believe. And that's fine- all lack of solidarity means is that there's some room for compromise, an absolute necessity in a melting pot of 330 million people.
You're 100% correct on the politicians and the shitty, un-nuanced civil discourse. It makes extremists on either end just scream louder and louder past each other while the rest of us are just more and more stressed out every day, worrying for the future of our communities and country.
> any proposed solutions to try and protect the vulnerable from violence, or ameliorate the situation, are met with outrage
This is tough, and there are huge historical factors to take into account. The history of gun control legislation in the US is rife with racism, classism, ignorance, incompetence, and dishonesty. Whenever the topic comes up, the outrage you see is a direct result of that history, whether those involved in the outrage are aware or not.
> Generously speaking, the US (and the American sense of identity) has seriously struggled to transition from a society that broadly depends on guns to function, into a more specialized and developed society.
I think this is part of a broader "crisis" on how individualism and self-sufficiency fits in modern, developed society.
I honestly hope we figure it out, because I enjoy individualism and being self-sufficient; on a personal level, it makes me feel good about myself, and I think (maybe counterintuitively?) that it makes for stronger communities where people feel better for doing their individual part.
> Kerri Raissian, a professor in public policy at the University of Connecticut, said: “The NRA has crafted a narrative for decades that guns are a part of American social identity.”
https://www.ft.com/content/a5fce2c9-12f2-4457-af63-40a8d9b0c...
We had an assault weapons ban in the US, for a while, under Clinton. It worked. We should still have it.
The solution is to ban assault weapons, outright, and then institute strict background checks, without any loopholes. The vast majority of the public supports this.
Was that clear enough? Yes, I do know the solution.
"Assault weapon" is a political term with no solid definition. If you mean banning semi-automatic guns, that's at least a meaningful proposal. Again though- this class of weapons have been around and readily accessible for over 100 years. Mass shootings are a modern problem. Why would banning them now be the answer?
Until the Orlando shooting, the VT shooting, committed with two handguns and 10 round magazines, was the deadliest in US history. Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a bolt action rifle from the UT bell tower. I'm not saying these disprove your assault weapons ban solution, but it's certainly not as straightforward as you're making it out to be.
Was it an AR-15 with a ProMag 65-round drum magazine? Or did he bring in his Glock with several 9mm 40-round magazines?
Something has changed in our gun culture, for sure.
1. What kind of gun? Semi-auto or bolt action? 5.56, 30-30, .22LR?
2. How many guns did each person have? Each household?
3. What was the per capita ownership rate in the US when he was in school? (There are currently more guns than people in the US: 120.50 firearms per 100 people.)
I'm in New Zealand. New Zealand has guns. You need to take a class and be approved by the police who interview you and inspect your gun safe. Pistols are much harder to get. More than 10% of people have a gun license. There is almost no culture of using guns for self-defense against other humans. Farmers consider them necessary tools on the farm, hunters use them to hunt food, and DoC workers use them to cull pests (so do farmers). I also feed my dog about one-third of her diet by shooting rabbits and possum. Recently certain semi-automatic weapons were prohibited, but even before that we didn't have school shootings. Sometimes a family household would be slaughtered by a member of that household. Last night in Auckland seven houses were shot up in gang related violence.
At what point are we going to start blaming the criminals and not the implement they chose to use to commit their crimes?
Do those things happen in those countries on a daily basis?
* https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
There were 10 people murdered in Buffalo barely a week ago, and now there's been 22 people murdered.
How many 'mass knifings' have occurred in Japan in the last ten days? Were there two? Were there two 'mass drivings' in Japan in the last ten days?
Obviously this is the criminals fault. Knowing that doesn’t actually solve anything though. People are looking for solutions.
Aren't there already heavy penalties? Have there been any mass shooters that haven't been "adequately" punished?
My whole thing is that I do believe that "gun control" would result in less gun related deaths... but it wouldn't stop psychos from killing people. It's been shown time and time again that you don't need a gun to kill 10+ people.
I also don't think that we're at the point where we trust our government to the point of surrendering our best/final line of defense. I feel any sort of "gun ban" or "gun control" would be irreversible, certainly irreversible at any point it's needed most.
"I need my gun so I can get killed while holding it" is a boring argument.
Not at all.
The idea of armed citizens serves as a deterrent for any tyrannical regime. In what scenario do you see the military successfully occupying or holding control of the country for any significant period of time while the citizens are armed?
I also find your argument disingenuous, since when Democrats talk about “gun control,” it is always in terms of banning/confiscation. I don’t recall any calls to ban SUVs because some dimwit ran over a bunch of old ladies in a parade a few months ago. Therefore, it seems to me that Democrats are standing on the graves of children to push their agenda, rather than trying to actually solve the issue of people wanting to mass-murder others.
We have car control. Operating a vehicle requires a licence, training, registry and regular checks. Unlike owning a gun, which is inconceivable to everybody in the rest of the world.
Obviously there is criminal intent under all this but guns unequivocally amplify the impact. It's very hard to kill 25 people with a backpack of knives - this isn't a weekly occurrence, like shootings. You can't drive a truck down the corridors of a school.
I honestly don't know why we argue about this. Is there anything anybody could say that would change your mind?
Except there was a police officer right outside the building that engaged:
> The suspect was immediately engaged outside the building as he approached the school by a Uvalde Independent School District police officer, who was shot by the suspect, the sources said.
* https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-elementary-school-reports-ac...
Not the first time even an immediate reaction still didn't prevent deaths and injuries:
> Police at the scene engaged him within a minute of the first shots being fired, firing 18 rounds and hitting the gunman several times.[5] The police chief credited the fast response to a heavy police presence with "many, many officers in the park".[18]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilroy_Garlic_Festival_shootin...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10855093/Furious-fa...
You hand wave away ease of access, but it probably matters. It certainly matters at the margin.