It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The root cause of gun violence is societal issues, not the guns themselves. Solve those societal issues (hard, and likely almost intractable unfortunately), or gun violence will persist.
Think of gun restrictions and bans as friction. They act to reduce bad events, they don’t eliminate them. If you just make getting a gun harder (by legitimate and illegitimate means), that will have a marked reduction in gun deaths (and violent deaths overall since other methods require much more work/willpower/skills).
As it stands, they're burning all their political capital on trying to ban high capacity semiautomatic rifles. Even if they were to succeed, which they won't*, it wouldn't even dent gun deaths in the US. I really can't wrap my head around why that is the basis of the gun control platform. It makes every point they make seem manipulative and disingenuous. What are their goals? I can hardly think of any without looking toward borderline conspiracies, which I refuse to do.
Are you* gonna sign up for confiscation detail? I bet the SWAT guys aren't.
The same people who are against gun control are also against social spending on mental health. So it’s not really a problem they want to focus on, even though it disportionstebly affects them (Wyoming is number 1 or 2 for gun violence, but it is almost all suicide).
I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing?
A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest.
I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
It's no laughing matter. It has more to do than you might think.
>Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful
Think again.
>Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
Yes. Those who trade their fundamental freedoms for a little greater safety will eventually have neither.
PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.
Sorry pal, it'll be a bright flash and then no more. Your guns aren't going to do shit.
Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
No. You have no right to not be in fear.
And even using your argument, I feel less in fear walking down the street with "protection" than not, which by your argument strengthens my right to carry.
Strange conception of rights / freedom
Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does.
Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.
But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
Lol. Just look at american media. And religion ? You mean baptist religion ?
Yet funnily when that was in the process of happening (Trump's failed coup attempt) not only were there no "good guys with guns" against the regime, all the guys with the guns were for the regime trying to make a coup.
And there are plenty of US "liberals" who are "pro-gun", whatever that means.
oh no
the pen used for voting has more power than a gun to prevent the US from falling into the hands of "some regime".
“The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
>The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was broadcast from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini—the national liberation army formed by Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians. The East Bengal Regiment and the East Pakistan Rifles played a crucial role in the resistance. Led by General M. A. G. Osmani and eleven sector commanders, the Bangladesh Forces waged a mass guerrilla war against the Pakistani military.
The Bangladeshi military organized the resistance. It was not a simple civilians-with-guns-rising-against-tyranny scenario.
"The 'Mukti Bahini' was divided into two groups; the 'Niomito Bahini' – or 'regular forces' – who came from the paramilitary, military and police forces of East Pakistan, and the Gonnobahini – or 'people's forces' – who were civilians. These names were given and defined by the Government of Bangladesh. ... Civilians took control of arms depots in various cities and began resisting Pakistani forces with the acquired weapons supply."
Remember there was no "Bangladeshi military" at the time. It was the Pakistani military. The East Pakistan Rifles, for example, had maintained loyalty to Pakistan until Pakistan went too far in suppressing the revolt.
Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword.
That is, the power of the pen is premised on power in arms being equal.
The line comes from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame. It appears in the play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, about Cardinal Richelieu a/k/a a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, who may have a line or two on the power of words to his fame (or at least ascribed) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...
You sure about that? If we had an aggressive gun buyback program and really dried up the supply, sure, you might still be able to buy an assault rifle from the criminal underworld. However, if you have the disposable income to be able to afford to pay >$20k for that gun...you've probably got your life together and aren't going on shooting sprees.
Might still? It would kick the underground firearm economy into overdrive. It’s also the case that the United States has a mind boggling amount of guns, more than any forced confiscation program could hope to put a noticeable dent into. “I lost my gun in a boating accident” is already a meme in gun culture. The black market would be well supplied.
Last time I've checked we had around 60000 gun related deaths every year.
Criminals still with plenty access to guns after 20 years of strict control regulations are emboldened by the fact that nobody can offer resistance.
in this sort of situation, i'd rather die resisting than die placid and unable to fight.
Gun violence from criminals can't be solved via gun control.
Is extremely disingenuous to suggest that a gun "buyback" is voluntary. You either do it or you're a felon.
That is in fact how buyback schemes work in countries that aren't totally irrational about guns.
Also America isn’t land locked like Australia. The black market will have an easier time transporting the goods through South America. If that wasn’t the case, then drugs wouldn’t be as accessible here. And given US is the arms capital of the world (American manufacturers supply a significant amount of the arms used in conflicts), those guns will inevitably find their way back to America (conflict stops, owners need money more than weapons, etc). The bigger the conflict the cheaper the guns become.
Finally, Australia had a national moment of unity when they banned guns and so giving up your guns was a collective activity. That’s not the case in America.
People in other countries where guns are illegal seem to do just fine without having to protect themselves using their own firearms.
Here's a couple from the past 2 weeks:
https://abc7.com/moreno-valley-intruder-shot-homeowner-inves... https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-a...
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
>women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault
I don't know why anyone would choose to believe something that is so easily falsifiable with a 2 minute google search[0]
0. https://www.kfvs12.com/story/9273275/accused-rapist-shot-kil...
> 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
> Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
> This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.
> Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.
Emphasis added.
Yes, this shows the bias of the authors. They come to a conclusion that is only supported by undersampled data, yet their language is strongly biased towards that specific conclusion ("women never..."). Unbiased language would not read that way. I suspect the language flies under your radar because you seem to agree with the conclusions. But its a huge red flag that the authors are not approaching the subject in good faith.
Studies on DGU is an oft-treaded subject. I've looked at quite a bit of data, and if you have also, you would also know how and why it is so difficult to compile reliable data on the subject. Which is why I find it nearly futile to throw studies at each other.
Protect themselves from larger people with other weapons. Protect themselves from unarmed people who want to kill them. Protect themselves from crazy guy who made home-made shotgun with home-made gunpowder and home-made projectiles. Protect themselves from cartel members who smuggle weapons channeled by foreign militaries. Protect themselves from wild animals, including grizzly bears that inhabit the US and Polar bears that inhabit places like Svalbard. Protect themselves from rabid or poorly trained aggressive domestic animals, such as the many dogs that attack and even kill children annually.
Pepper spray is pretty great. You don't have to worry about killing someone, so you can use it with a lot less hesitation. I've been in a situation where I was in physical danger, but from someone I didn't want to kill, and pepper spray immediately ended the danger for me and allowed me to get away. A gun would not have done that because I wouldn't have used the gun.
Bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk, moose, bison are some of the things.
Not all premeditated attackers are equal in motivation and ability. Make the obstacle high enough, some people will still make it over, others will either lack the motivation to scale it or the ability to do so. Lower the obstacle, and suddenly that later group gets over it too.
"Premeditation" just means the attacker intended to do the act before-hand. The degree of preparation involved varies widely. Some premeditated attacks are the fruit of weeks, months, even years of preparation. Other premeditated attacks are triggered by a recent stressor, sometimes only days old. Gun control can make a big difference to the odds of the later kind of premeditated attack, but makes little difference to the odds of the former kind.
Access to powerful firearms vastly increases how damaging shootings are.
Compare the single death in a decade for Japan to the hundreds, if not thousands of deaths per year from gun violence in the US[0] [1]. Keeping guns out of circulation reduces gun deaths.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Culture plays a large role in statistics. It's hard to interpret from outside. But surely the choice of weapon is less meaningful than the outcomes.
The term 'gun violence' is designed to cherry-pick numbers out of a whole landscape of social problems and argue toward a point.
But regardless, no, there is nowhere near as much violent death here in Japan. It is one of the safest countries in the world. The high death rate is due to the aging population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
One of the ostensible purposes of the Second Amendment is for Americans to be able to hold their own government in check via the private capacity to cause violence.
Well, lacking anything even approximating a Second Amendment, an individual Japanese citizen just forced leadership change.
I think it's a terrible and apocryphal idea and America would be well served by repealing the Second Amendment. The perpetual loss of civilian life to violent urges consummated by easy access to deadly firearms is in no way worth the possibility that Americans may need to rise up and shoot a bunch of their own politicians someday.
But among the reasons that it was put into place is definitely the idea that you must arm the citizenry because a government that disarms its citizenry is a tyranny. The US had, in living memory of the people who wrote the Constitution, just fought a war against their legitimate government and won it because, among other things, colonial life had made the average American familiar with a gun. They saw that as a useful facet of their culture to preserve.
"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?" ~Alexander Hamilton (as Publius)
I should perhaps clarify: the main purpose of the militia at the time of the Constitution's creation was to serve as a check on Federal power by providing the States with control of their own instrument of violence. But after, well, the states used that power to rebel against what they saw as a tyranny (the imminent end of slavery and therefore loss of what they perceived as their legitimate property in the form of other human beings) and the government crushed that rebellion, the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much extinguished that purpose for the Second Amendment. So the only aspect of this justification for its existence that remains is the individual conscience of the American citizen on whether their government is tyranny that should be opposed with violence. Every other check-on-tyranny purpose was nullified by the Fourteenth Amendment after the 1860s.
... And if that means 2A sounds stupid to keep around in 2022, we are in agreement and I would support repealing it.
The fact is quantity matters in such cases. Having 1 incidence vs 10 or 20 is a huge difference.
I don’t know about school shootings, but guns are banned in Puerto Rico and the island has 4 times the homicide rate of the US and 6 times the homicide rate of India. Pakistan has way more guns than most Latin American countries but much lower homicide rates.
Homicide rates in the new world have been vastly higher than in Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, long before modern gun control. At the turn of the 20th century, the homicide rate in the US was 10x higher than the UK: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/images/11217607.0002.206...
Pop quiz: from the chart of homicide rates in the UK, tell me when the major gun control legislation happened.
and i do believe that this idea doesn't fly in the USA. The culture doesn't allow it. Gun control in the USA can, and will, only ever go as far as checks and registries. It will forever remain a place where anyone, after passing checks, will be able to acquire a gun.
There are countries with large gun ownership rates too - finland comes to mind. Those countries have good education, social safety net, healthcare, and other societal support, such that people don't become deranged or fall into crime (as easily).
Of course, having some gun control laws will help - i am all for a complete registry of guns (which doesn't exist in the US - and fuck those who are against it). But it's not a panacea. Effort and political capital spent on trying to get gun control means effort not spent on social progress, which is a deeper root cause of the problem.
India has zero to no gun violence. Sure, there's a lot of petty crime, and there are enough murders happening - and the last thing we want is to arm those murderers with guns.
Your sentence seems to argue that the (much higher) degree of free speech enjoyed by Americans is owing to civilian gun ownership, which I don't think is true (though I don't have the data at hand to back up my claim).
>There are hundreds of millions of americans. These mass shooting events are insignifigant in the grand scheme of things
It's not just the number of people who get shot - it's this idea that a road rage incident _can_ potentially end in you getting shot, if the other person is deranged enough. Not to mention the amount of American tax dollars that go into ensuring that the police out-gun the civilians.
"A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealing that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/abe-shooting-w...
In my opinion, of all the things that count towards a society being considered more civilised than another, not shooting each other is right up there.
We have what, near 200 examples of other countries who are able to do better? It's almost like it doesn't require a society with no (vaguely alluded to) issues to prevent many gun crimes and mass shootings, and it's more about being able and willing to add common-sense restrictions instead of being committed to an extreme "no restrictions" policy.
> will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings. Unless the gun control laws completely outlaw civilians owning guns - which i dont think will fly.
The perpretator of that attack had the biggest of red flags for a long time. He should _not_ have been able to legally purchase a firearm.
Requiring training, background checks (no loopholes), an interview and a license would also be a good idea, though it requires a bit of care in implementation.
There's a few things that are pretty close to harmless to moral gun owners but would reduce the incidence and severity of gun violence.
If any would be shooter clearly sees that their message will go unheard, that they will die in anonymity, I think that could deter at least some.
Your point stands though, that the issue is societal.
Plus, a complete ban on civilians owning guns is very unlikely to ever happen in the USA.
That's also the case in every country where guns are illegal and yet in practice it remains a very rare occurrence.
And the fanatic, practice shows that a lot of times they take the easy road by using a knife, axe or bow.
> It will not stop people like the one at 4th july, nor those school shootings.
Proper gun laws could definitely prevented the 4th of july shooting. Have you seen the guy's picture and background? No way in hell that he would have gotten a legal gun in Belgium. Same for most school shootings.
The solution is very simple: don't let aggressive and crazy people buy guns.
> Solve those societal issues
Or you need to accept that your society will have aggressive and crazy people, and make laws accordingly.
US always thinks black and white. Either everyone can buy a gun, or nobody can buy a gun. There seems to be no grey zone in between? Same for mass shootings, either you have them or you have 0, also no grey zone. Maybe you could try to prevent most of them? Like most sane countries?
You need a driver license to drive a car, seems logical. But in US, anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun with bullets. Absolutely bonkers in these times.
Like I said, I'm a gun owner. So let me tell you what I have to do to get a gun, to give you an idea how other countries work.
First of all I need a reason to own a gun, and "defend my home" is not a valid one. "I shoot for sports" is a valid one. In that sense, we don't have an NRA organisation, we have a Sport Shooting Organisation, which actually wants to have proper legislation with restrictive licenses.
So first I need to subscribe myself into a shooting range. I can't have any convictions, my doctor needs to approve I can handle guns. The shooting range itself also judges if they want a person like me in their club (=is this person going to be handling guns safely?). I can tell you there are no members in my club who have tattoos in their face.
For 3 months I can only shoot air guns. After 3 months, I can apply for a firearm. Again, no convictions, doctor needs to approve, all adult people in my house need to approve. Then you need to pass a theoretical and practical exam. Theoretical also includes gun laws, where to store guns, how to transport them, etc. After that is done, you can send the documents to the government, they have to approve it. After they say yes, they send your dossier to the local police, and a cop will come by to check where and how you store your guns (stored away from kids, bullets separate, not easily accessible, ...). After that person approves, it goes back to the government and you get your license. If any of the people in those steps says "no", you don't get your firearm. This application takes months.
Then, once you have your firearm, every year you need to prove you at least went 12 times to the shooting range, and have a clear criminal record. Every 5 years your doctor needs to approve. When you want to buy another firearm, do the whole thing again. Also, cops can come by any time and check where your guns are stored.
Do I like to do all of this every year? No. Do I prefer that over my neighbour owning a gun and no clue how to safely use it? Yes. Do I prefer that over any crazy idiot going to the shop and buy a firearm and bullets? Hell YES!!!!
What is the result? Compare the gun violence results of Belgium with any US state the size of Belgium.
Be warned, the blog is a complete rabbit hole of "oh god why am I reading analysis of logistics of Lord of the Ring armies at 3 AM".
[1]: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Guns are not complicated machines, anyone motivated with even basic household tools can make one if they want to do so.
And it looks like someone did.
Military is all about ‘at scale’ and ‘ready and waiting after decades’.
A couple pipes and end caps, a drill, some wire of different diameters, a 9v battery, and some common household chemicals and time and you’re good to go with what I saw the dude using.
Some odds you’d blow yourself up, but that’s easy to test out in the woods or whatever remotely.
All the above can be gleaned with some easy google searches or YouTube, including people making them and showing all the steps.
I think your argument still holds. Japanese politicians usually have really relaxed security details partly because it's hard to get a gun in Japan. This kind of shooting is an exception, not a norm.
It often means actually nearly perfect (on some axis, at least in Japan, but with clear ‘acceptable’ issues on others), but coverups, suppressing inconvenient facts, oppressing or exiling troublesome elements, etc. all happen too.
Folks call it ‘face’, and it isn’t unique to East Asia, but it is very pronounced in Japan.
Japan also being an island and very culturally homogenous, makes it possible to take it to real extremes not doable elsewhere, and it can be a very oppressive environment if you don’t fit in (and are trying to do so).
If you’re ok with being treated as a foreign curiosity, everyone is very friendly and helpful.
With everything tightening the screws lately (Covid, economy, etc), it’s another example (like the attempted subway gassings) of something slipping out of control and blowing up where it can’t be swept under the rug.
It's like the recent shootings in Norway and Denmark. Yes, those things happen even in "those" places (good quality of life, happy people, well developed, socialised healthcare, etc.) but they're a once in a decade, at most, event. Meanwhile the US has one of those what, weekly? It's unfortunate that guns are religious issue there, which means nothing meaningful will change.
How many mass shootings happen in Japan? How many kids are killed in Japanese schools because someone barged in with a military grade assault weapon, tactical gear and unlimited ammo? How many gun killings per capita happen in Japan? How many people per capita in Japan have gun violence as a priority as compared to the US?
So many questions that have answers in favor of gun control are ignored.
Guns are in-compatible with human nature (The off chance of a bad decision for revenge or murderous rampage is high enough to ban guns). Because they distort the power in favor of the gun bearer.
There are substantial cultural differences in those countries. Even if tomorrow you would allow any weapon in Japan it won't change anything. There will be no school shootings (at substantial amount). Japanese people conditioned differently.
Can you guarantee me that the culture will hold back gun violence?
Presence or absence of weapons doesn't affect if someone will use it or not. Getting or making a weapon is relatively easy task even in Japan.
Growing a cohesive society where people use other means to cooperate instead of assaulting everyone who disagrees with their opinion is most important
Yeah No. When weapons are absent, the probability of using a weapon is exactly 0.
When weapons are cheaply and easily available, the probability is definitely not 0.
Those who wish to create mayhem, can and will, get weapons one way or another. Happens all over the world. No amount of laws or severity of punishments can change that.
But, gun restrictions prevent impulsive actions, and actions or situations exacerbated by the false security that having a gun gives, or plain right idiots who don't know how to safely handle guns.
If you're a high profile politician, having a target on your back is basically part of the job description. The fact that "being a US resident" is now on more or less the same level, is a bit scary.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/05/25/guns-are...
They're not.
The chance of someone just waking up, loading a gun and shooting you point blank for no reason are very small.
Crazy stuff still happens in Japan but it’s usually a knife or ax. But guns and Abe are on another level.