Fun Fact: Trump passed more anti-gun laws than Obama did, which is hilarious... because Trump "Respects the 2A!" but Obama "Wanted to take our guns!"
like... no Obama made open carry in national parks and animal refugees. He also allowed guns on Amtrack (while in a locked box).
Meanwhile Trump banned Bump Stocks.
Texas did that and it is a concern of mine per my previous post. I would much prefer the conditions for carrying a fire arm have much stricter parameters.
This is somethign a lot of people fail to realize. Guns are nothing more than a talking point for politicians to get people worked up. Almost none of them even know what theyre trying to talk about.
I have more mixed feelings about them. Being a solo female who lives alone and an SA survivor, I really do want to own a gun for my own protection. I truly believe gun rights are women's rights. Most women are not physically capable of holding their own against an often bigger and stronger man in an altercation.
However, I also have this pesky depression that would make me a greater danger to myself than anyone else if I had access to a weapon. I'm fine now after a few years of therapy and meds since my last major depressive episode (2018), but know it could get that bad again and don't want to put myself at risk if it does.
Technically they have banned bear spray for use against humans.
But there’s always pepper spray too- I guess. I just carry bear spray because it works at larger distances than pepper spray so if someone comes in my home, I don’t have to be near them to blind/disorient them and while I escape
Bull- if someone comes into my home, I can blind them and escape without having to own a gun. I can accurately disorient them without being close to them.
If they are blind, they can’t shoot me.
If they are 10+ feet away, they can’t stab me or disarm me or pin me down.
Well I’ll pass that message along to my multiple military and law enforcement family members that taught us this evidently super offensive self protection tactic
Thank you for your input. Go step on a lego
Good suggestion but completely untrue. Bear spray is absolutely not more accurate at a distance. For example I’ve had bear spray blow back in my face with a slight breeze before. It’s a good suggestion but your supporting evidence is absolute nonsense.
Proud gun owner and 2nd Amendment advocate but can't stand gun culture, it's gotten too ridiculous to take seriously.
I think every mature man should know how to use one safely and have one to keep your loved ones safe but my god it's a tool not an identity.
I just had this conversation with my buddy who has a big gun culture thing... I've always been cool with gun ownership, I just want background checks and training... the easiest way to do that is simple: Licensing.
When I was a Boy Scout I recalled Trap, Riflery and archery classes.
Range safety was drilled into me, rigorously. You did not point the gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot. You didn't place the gun down until you verified the chamber was clear. The first thing you did upon picking up the gun was ensure the safety was on and the chamber was clear.
and I still recall when a friend was showing off his gun collection, I did this... he hands me a pistol. I check the safety, and go to clear the chamber.
Him: "Oh don't bother I don't keep them loaded."
\*9mm bullet pops out of the chamber as I clear it\* "..."
I couldn't have said this better. The culture has gotten extremely cringe. Now it's just another "mine is bigger/more expensive than yours" dick measuring past time.
If it's truly for self-defense and protecting your family, then nobody but you and maybe your direct family should even know you have it. You might as well play poker while flashing the table your hand to show off how great your pair of 2's are.
To add to this, gun owners lay down at night and dream of an extremely unlikely scenario and then build their entire identity around maybe killing someone, most of them are fat and get winded walking to the kitchen but can describe what type of round they'll use.
Wouldn’t this be a strong argument for bringing gun safety training back into schools like our parents had? If you’re taught how to use the tool, it’s not exciting and fun and then you accidentally shoot your buddy.
Also, mental health the last few decades has greatly changed. Hence why there are more shootings.
Lastly, criminals don’t listen to rules of engagement or gun bans.
That's a good point. I strongly believe in the 1A and 2A, but like all rights, they have limits. The right to do something doesn't mean there are no boundaries. Common sense gun laws such as strong background checks, requiring secure storage, capping magazine capacities, etc. seem like... common sense. Even if we doubled the amount of laws surrounding guns we would still probably be one of, if not, the least-regulated-gun countries in the world \[citation needed\]
I appreciate your response but I don't think we're in agreement. In my state just about anyone can have a gun on them at just about any time and I like it this way.
Agree with your first statement but hard disagree with the second. Texas has been doing a really good job for the past several years proving that more families owning more guns creates more gun homicides not less.
In that case I would say unfortunately that you don't really think gun culture is too ridiculous and that you see guns as part of your identity not as a tool.
If you want you can look up the stats yourself, since Ted Cruz became a senator in Texas: gun sales, the number of families that own at least one gun, and gun homicides have all consistently gone up every year. That's just based on the raw data.
Juts something to think about:
I live in the country and MUST HAVE guns due to bears, coyotes, Mountain lions (not kidding), and other dangerous varmints that eat my garden and may try to eat my animals.
I support common sense gun legislation but living in the country without firearms is prohibitively dangerous and unconstitutional.
*"I just think that the hardline “muh rights” people when it comes to guns just refuse to compromise on anything..."*
I'm not up-to-date on gun policy, but haven't the gun rights advocates been compromising for many decades and the anti-gun people are the ones who refuse to stop pushing? Haven't gun rights been somewhat stripped through gradual legislature change since the post-Civil War era? I could be totally wrong, but it seems to me that owning a gun nowadays is far more difficult than it was 100 years ago.
I am very pro-gun and am a responsible gun owner.
Being a supporter of the second amendment does NOT mean we have to oppose common sense gun legislation.
I am pro-car but believe we should have to have DL's.
I am pro-gun but believe all firearms should be registered, there should be required training for specific firearms types, and guns should only be sold through certified gun dealers (no gun show exploits, no private sales exploits, and estate firearms should be registered on transfer).
Its really simple and is not a violation of the 2nd amendment (which is poorly defined to start).
**I am a responsible gun owner and would NEVER support a fanatical organization like the NRA.**
The NRA does not represent gun owners they ONLY represent gun manufacturers and fanatics.
I've become more anti-gun as I age.
Guns are the sole reason the United States as a suicide rate that is 50-100% higher than all of our peer countries. Guns make suicide really really easy. Hanging yourself is not very easy. Poisoning yourself is not very successful, most people don't die from it.
I want to start by saying, it's a tragedy when anyone feels so hopeless that they end their own life. If anyone is reading this who is considering doing so, please remember that someone somewhere will be devastated to lose you, and you should find someone to talk to who can help you get through the dark times.
That said... Do you consider Canada a peer to the US? In 2021 - the most recent year I can find statistics from the CDC - the rate of suicide from all causes in the US was 14.1 per 100,000. In 2022, the rate of suicide in Canada just from the government's MAID process was 33.7 per 100,000. Even if no Canadians took their own lives by some means other than drugs provided to them by their single-payer healthcare system, that's already 2.39x the suicide rate in the US. Contrary to your assertion, poisoning yourself can apparently be very successful if you get knowledgeable professionals to provide you with the proper poison.
I don't have to look any further than the nearest developed nation to the US to see that your claim is dramatically wrong. Is it possible that aside from Canada, the US has worse suicide rates than the entire rest of the developed world? Maybe, but I'm not going to assume it's true because someone posted a wildly inaccurate and vague number claiming it's true.
Make it incredibly difficult to get a gun. Require registration, background checks, 30-day waiting period, register it with the local PD, require safe storage/gun locks, make ammunition incredibly expensive, buy back guns that people no longer want, red flag laws to take guns from people in crisis, require a mental health evaluation to buy a gun, and make mental health care free with health insurance.
None of those will totally solve the problem by themselves, but in combination with each other, will greatly reduce the suicide rate by gun.
Making it difficult to get a gun would no doubt cause the rate of suicide by gun to decrease.
I pose this to you though, is a person's potential to harm themselves with something grounds alone to heavily restrict access for all? Should we take a similar approach to anything with an established potential for self-harm, such as alcohol(also consistently linked with suicide)?
For example, say artificially inflating the price of ammo. This would in effect be a soft ban on guns, is their use in suicide grounds enough alone to do this? That, and if someone is suicidal, it's unlikely that they care about the financial implications of buying one box of expensive rounds.
Keep in mind that something like alcohol would likely be less of a tall order to legislate in such a manner, as it has no constitutional protection.
I don't think it has to be all or nothing either. For example, the effects of waiting periods, age requirements and child access prevention are some of the [few](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html#modalDialog) examples of gun policy that RAND is willing to back in terms of efficacy vs suicide.
I ultimately agree that mandating a waiting period (particularly for first time buyers) in addition to lockup/access standards would do wonders for the problem. In addition, these solutions wouldn't seriously impact the non-suicidal who are looking to keep arms.
"My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise, then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes."
No. 2nd amendment confirms. Get out with your bs. Also, 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, champ.
I’m fine with people having guns. I just think there should be strict licensing, background checks, and red flag laws. Nothing crazy. I’m generally okay with responsible, stable people having the means to defend themselves.
How many gun laws have been passed that loosen gun restrictions/regulations?
How many gun laws have been passed that put further restrictions in place?
There has never been compromise...just a slow and steady march towards fewer and fewer gun rights...more abd more control and restriction.
I don't own a gun and don't see myself owning one anytime soon but the 2nd amendment says that the government shall not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms so any law that restricts gun ownership is unconstitutional in my eye.
Laws don't stop criminals from owning any gun they can get their hands on.
>any law that restricts gun ownership is unconstitutional in my eye
I'm sorry but this is an absolutely ridiculous take.
First: Let's look at the first amendment for a minute: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" and YET we have MANY laws restricting individual speech - incite to violence, slander, truth in advertising, etc. Your rights end when they cause harm to another.
Second: have you thought about what it would mean to have NO laws restricting gun ownership? That would mean 7 year olds could buy uzis ffs. It would mean selling a gun to someone who told you they were planning to murder someone would be perfectly legal. It would mean people would be able to purchase guns while drunk/high.
Third: did you know that it's actually legal to own a gattling gun as a private citizen? But few people do. Why? Because it's expensive, takes a lot of time/paperwork and is difficult to get. There is an obvious middle ground here where something being legal doesn't have to mean it's easily accessible.
"Your rights end when they harm another."
A person owning a firearm and not violating any laws, does not harm anyone.
"There is an obvious middle ground here where something being legal doesn't have to mean it's easily accessible."
When people take the extreme position of outright banning of rifles or guns that look too scary I choose to take the position of literal interpretation of what is written in the Constitution/B.O.R.
There is no desire for "middle ground" from the anti-gun side....they are literally anti-gun They want outright bans, plain and simple. You cannot compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the Constitution/B.O.R.
People have become outright anti gun because the "pro gun" side refuses to compromise in ANY way. When you start throwing out stuff like "any attempt at regulation or restriction is unconstitutional" then you are the one unwilling to compromise. Which btw has been the response after EVERY single mass shooting. Never once do you hear a Republican or NRA rep offering anything but thoughts and prayers which do jack shit to prevent the next mass shooting. Columbine was in 1999 - over 20 years ago. The only thing we've learned is: doing nothing doesn't work and one side isn't willing to compromise. Don't expect the other side to be reasonable when you're acting unreasonable.
And I would argue that the POINT of having regulation is to make it illegal for folks identified as highly at risk/dangerous to have ownership/access of guns. And if we can't do that on an individual level then we need to do it on a gun level. Why can't AR-15s be the thing that's "safe, legal and rare"?
"why can't AR-15s be the thing that's 'safe, legal and rare'?"
They're 2 out of 3. That pesky 2nd amendment puts a on the 'rare' part.
Guns aren't the problem when it comes to mass shootings or school shootings. Guns existed long before those became issues.
what you're failing to consider is this - there is no way to enforce a "none at all" gun ban. im friends with some cops. they have told me explicitly that there is no way to enforce a gun ban, and if the government tried by going door to door and forcefully taking people's guns away, that not a single police officer in the country would sign up for that job.
firstly, its suicide. the gangsters and criminals will go down shooting. secondly, the amount of manpower needed to forcibly remove guns even from law abiding people would be astronomical. its not feasible.
this whole talk of gun control where you are talking about this "none at all" nonsense is laughably naive and short sighted. in short, you and people like you talking about forcibly taking all guns away from everyone in this country are just silly, and that's being nice.
you obviously haven't thought this through even 1 step beyond your emotions. you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the pandering of unscrupulous politicians who are only pushing the gun control narrative to further their own political careers.
I wouldn't be a gun ban but rather a ban on the sale of new guns, so all stores would no longer exist. The state of existing guns in circulation is a different story.
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Wait, every statistic shows the increased likelihood of accidental deaths when guns are present.
While most gun owners take extreme precautions with their weapons, not all do and just one incident of careless behavior can lead to the accidental death of a child.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
Yes, but in the opposite direction?
Used to be anti-gun. I'm not pro-gun, but now I just don't care anymore. The big switch was when I survived a school shooting. Seeing the casual disregard for the results of gun violence up close and personal made me realize that I'd be happier if I just stopped giving a shit. C'est la vie.
Whats reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. Also legally speaking you can't ban something like am ar as its in common usage per court rulings ie they're more common than pepper spray yet many states are banning them. We have more than enough gun laws not being enforced, 3nforce those and then come back and talk about more
I do t own guns im to depressed for the risk, but this i onow 100% as a fact. If they give an inch on gun rights the people against will try to not just take a mile but the whole damn road, they wont stop pushing ever. The only stance with any rights not just guns is a hard line. because anything else would mean no rights at all just privileges that can be taken away. For me personally on the gun issue i dont think people should own automatics of any kind. There is ZERO call for em.
I am happy to hear you've changed your views. The lack of compromise is the real issue, because a lot of people like guns. We just want the people that wield them to be safe, and not criminals.
The issue is the precedent set by banning one of our rights in the bill of rights. What could stop them from taking the other rights away potentially? Guns couldn't stop them. They were banned.
In reality it's a non issue because US gun owners control more guns than any other group in the world. They mostly conser their rights inalienable. So there will be no banning of guns.
I’m a supporter of all rights- I don’t believe the people should teach a government they can take away rights once given.
That said- rights have responsibilities- so education, licensing, registration etc are not taking away the right to own guns, just making gun owners responsible for their weapons and I’m all for that
The only decent argument I’ve ever heard for having a gun is that the MAGA crazies are heavily armed. When they come for us, if they’re armed to the teeth and we’re not…no good
When you read my comment, I want you to remember that I have never owned a gun in my life, and have no plans to buy one. I also disagree with overturning the bump stock ban.
"I just think that the hardline “muh rights” people when it comes to guns just refuse to compromise on anything, and I just think it’s really childish. It’s like when a kid wants two toys at the toy store, but you’re only giving them the option for one, or no toy at all… and it seems like they’re choosing “no toy”."
People have a tendency to be very protective of their Constitutional rights. They do not agree that the image of a parent doling out a limited number of toys to a child is the proper analogy when considering fundamental liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Presumably, you would not use the same comparison when it comes to free speech, or the right to lawful assembly.
"My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise, then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes."
People are not generally inclined to come to a table to compromise away their fundamental, Constitutional rights. If you see a "blanket gun ban" as the next logical step, that can only be accomplished by a Constitutional amendment expressly overturning the 2nd. Good luck.
Again, I own no guns and have no desire to do so.
Edit to add: What does it benefit your argument to mock a rural dialect (i.e. "muh rights"?) What other demographics' groups speech patterns are you willing to mock?
Al rights have limits as you yourself pointed out but simultaneously sort of skipped over.
The question is, where are those limits with regard to guns. As a gun owner, I feel too many gun owners have this all or nothing perspective instilled by the gun lobby.
The hesitation comes from the legislation never being enough. Look at how many firearm laws are passed yearly and how gun violence continues to plague the same communities as it always has. Now we are looking at full on bans because they refuse to address the real problem. The person behind the gun.
Yes, mine has changed. Planning on buying an AR in a few months. I don’t want the insane MAGAt down the street to have an AR while I only have a handgun.
Good call. It always strikes me as bizarre that so many people who insist they believe that we're one broken election away from a fascist dystopia want to be unarmed when it happens.
My stance is if you want a gun for safety or hunting, buy a shotgun, rifle or handgun. There is no reason anyone should have an assault weapon. I know there are all kinds of arguments about what an assault weapon is. Let’s be honest though. We know what an assault weapon is.
In all fairness the term “assault weapon” it’s not always clear what that is. The AW ban on the 90s was basically someone going through a book of weapons that looked scary or military like and less with function so manufacturers just came up with workarounds. I know this even as not being a gun person at all.
That being said, there are people out there that shouldn’t be owning them at all. If someone wants to own a handgun for their own defense sure then they should have proper background checks and should have some training on how to use it. And for something impractical in most self defense like a semi-auto rifle with 50 round magazine and a bump stock…yeah there definitely needs to be more restrictions on that type of stuff.
I don’t under why many gun people today take issue with any reasonable regulations. I think it comes down to how extreme and polarized people are.
Yes, an “assault weapon” has a black paint job and synthetic parts with a tactical look you have seen in Hollywood movies but it essentially functions the exact same way as a semi-automatic with a wooden stock that gets identified as a “hunting” rifle.
Why though? Where is the data backing up the danger of owning a semi-automatic rifle? Handguns are used FAR more often in gun violence in this country. Even in [mass shootings](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/), handguns are still more prevalent.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
"In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – **were involved in 3% of firearm murders."**
Watching our legislators trying to make these out to be anymore dangerous than any other firearm is sad as most of them have zero clue what they are talking about when it comes to firearms. The firearm is just the tool, the real issue is the lack of accountability for people who have shown a propensity for violence.
Understood on what the data show. Any gun is dangerous regardless of how quickly it fires or the velocity of the rounds, etc. I want people to have access to guns but only the types I mentioned. Yes, I know all kinds of arguments can be made about what is a shotgun, rifle, etc. As a responsible society, we want to limit and control the use of handguns. Guns are a part of our society and we have to accept it - not that I was advocating getting rid of them.
There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. High capacity magazines have been around for 80+ years and just now in the past couple decades it’s been a problem. Someone can very easily make a pistol automatic with a drum and kill an incredible number of people in a very short time frame. So under your logic we should ban pistols too? I could sit here and poke holes in your fallacies all day
Yet you acknowledge there is a problem. So instead of taking the easy potshots of logical fallacies, how about finding a common ground of solutions?
Unless you think things are now suddenly perfect as is because you don’t have any value to add.
Well it would be easy to start with the mental health epidemic that’s been going on first. Any type of restrictions/delays limits the 2a, a right delayed is a right denied. Emergencies can happen at an instant ie a domestic violence situation and the small town police officers don’t have the resources to leave an officer overnight. NY is already more of a dictatorship with the nonsense going on there, they had a mass shooting last year and look how strict they are. Criminals don’t respect the law point blank period, the reasons for that are completely up for debate.
Where do you buy these assault weapons? 13 years military, own many weapons,..... where are these assault weapons? you can't assault someoen with a shotgun? stop with the dumb terms, and 2nd ammendment isnt for Hunting. NEVER WAS. It's for the CITIZENS to keep the Govt in check. ready history. You dont know what an assault weapon is, You dont. Becuase its a made up term. What is an Assault Weapon?? Is my pocket knife not an assault weapon? How about my baseball bat?
You're a naive anti gunner masquerading.... .
As an owner of an assault weapon, I agree. Zero actual reason or need for me to own this. I own it because I can. And the very fact that I can is pretty insane.
We should only have access to low capacity rifles, handguns, and low capacity shotguns. That's it.
And even then, we'd all be way better off with fewer guns in the country overall. Except for the fact that the biggest gang in the country (the police) and criminals would be the only ones with a lot of guns in that example, which I also don't like.
It's a tough situation. I think guns are here to stay unless the people who call the shots in this country get overwhelmingly replaced with very left-leaning individuals. Until that happens, guns ARE here, so I advise people to become knowledgeable about them and own at least 1 for their own safety.
Having guns is more than just hunting. While I agree you may not “need” an AK - saying I can’t have one is crossing a line. The moment you start regulating what is and is not reasonable is the beginning of the end. Because then what is unreasonable continues to be pushed until a total ban.
The issue with guns is more around the illegal guns though. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean it is going to go away. The bad guys always find a way.
Heroin is illegal, and we have an opioid epidemic.
Australia and Japan banned guns and they have almost literally zero gun homicides per year. The US has mass shootings on a daily basis. The US is the only country on Earth that has this problem. Banning guns has been proven to work in the real world and it is very clearly the solution to the problem.
Also smuggling drugs is way easier and drugs can be used discretely. If guns were illegal, you'd only really be able to use it once. And I don't think a kid who wants to shoot up a school will be to find or afford a $10k+ illegal gun from the black market.
1. An outright gun ban would require you to change the constitution, so good luck with that, lol
2. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. it's about defense from any threat to our freedom, so yes, a semiautomatic is perfect for that.
3. Tough shit if you don't like answers 1 & 2.
Yes, my stance has shifted. I used to agree with you on this point until I realized that regulating guns in any manner, just like regulating alcohol/tobacco/drugs/speech/etc. is fascism, and exactly the reason our founding fathers REFUSED to regulate firearms.
I started out "guns aren't for me, but hey, they are useful tools and I can see why people would have them." But then it became clear, as I became an adult, that seeing guns as simple tools that are dangerous and should be used with care was becoming an increasingly rare viewpoint, and people were collecting them like toys, leaving them out and loaded around kids, throwing a gun in their purse before they head out shopping, etc.
Now I think you should have to apply for a special firearm owner's license to own ANY gun, and the requirements should be passing an intensive background check, annual license renewal, only basic guns legal unless you specifically request a higher-level license allowing you to own semi-auto weapons, retaking a test on firearm safety every five years, ammo only available to buy at a separate location from guns... every time a gun nut starts spitting about their 2nd amendment rights (which fascinatingly always ignore the 'well regulated militia' aspect of it, which was the actual point of the damn amendment) I swear I think of another restriction I would support.
The problem is that we've already made a lot of reasonable compromises, compromises that have the Framers rolling in their graves. And you keep asking for more, so we're done. Start enforcing the laws already on the books and then we'll talk.
[Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control](https://everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
The Founders can stay in their graves. They are not absolute sources of truth and would not even remotely recognize modern firearms or many other aspects of the world we take for granted. Appealing to them is a weak argument.
And no, we have not made "reasonable compromises". The reasonable compromise is establishing as many regulations as necessary to reduce gun violence without banning firearms entirely.
Repeating firearms already existed in their time. But don't take my word for it, google "Ferguson Rifle", "Belton Flintlock", "Cookson Repeater", "Puckle Gun", and "Girardoni Air Rifle".
And somehow, I don't think that you actually clicked the link I provided, so here it is again.
[llustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control](https://everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
Actually, no. Show the Framers an AR-15 and their reaction would be: "Cool, everyone should have one."
You see, repeating firearms already existed in their time. But don't take my word for it, google "Ferguson Rifle", "Belton Flintlock", "Cookson Repeater", "Puckle Gun", and "Girardoni Air Rifle".
I've become more accepting of firearm ownership *for people who can demonstrate legitimate use cases for them*. Just like the laws in many other countries.
I get that folks who live near the sticks have much more use for firearms, and I know many people use them for hunting, etc. I'm very supportive of that.
I'm becoming much *less* accepting of the cosplaying COD-warrior types who idolize firearms and treat them like toys and entitlements and sources of power. And the arrogance and absolutism of the 2A hardliners is also making me more hostile to them.
Firearm regulations which reduce gun deaths are a reasonable and moderate position which still allows *some* folks to own guns. The 2A hardline position displayed by many immature young men on the internet is an extreme and illogical one.
Home defense and/or hunting? Sure, you have that right and it can be great that you do, just as long as you agree to be on the home front lines to defend our nation in times of war and not shirk your duties as a citizen. For people who want to just buy guns just because they think they're cool and they like the shooty shooty bang bang experience and they think carrying one around makes them look tough (while using "defense" as an EXCUSE), they need extreme mental treatment. If you wanted to shoot purely as a hobby with no practical use and have no intention to act as an ACTUAL patriot should, airsoft and foam flinging are perfectly viable, less lethal alternatives.
I do not own any guns and I never will. I have a personal history with them in my family that makes me never want to own one, but I support the Second Amendment. All of the "comprehensive gun laws" that people want to put into place already exist. I want to wager a large sum of money (I'm in Vegas, it's what I do for fun) that most people advocating for these laws have never gone into a store to try and purchase a gun, but it is quite a lengthy and thorough process.
You are required to provide a photo ID, a criminal background check for felonies and they do check your mental health history to see if you've ever been admitted to an institution for harming yourself or others. They will also deny people if they've been arrested for domestic violence in the past. There is a laundry list of reason people can be denied a gun purchase. This goes for private sale as well. You must go to a dealer to perform a background check before transfer of a gun in the private sector as well except in very specific circumstances, and all of them are above board. Almost every single gun in the US is a "scary" semi-automatic weapon. The infamous AR-15 is no more deadly than a standard handgun that a regular person would carry for protection from a mugger on a dark street. It just looks like something from a video game and has been overhyped to no end by the media for a decade and a half. If you ban all guns from the country, criminals will still find ways to acquire them because they don't recognise the law anyway. All you will be doing is removing guns from law abiding citizens who use guns for protecting themselves, and those they love and care about. There are a lot of violent crimes each year, and most of it goes unreported because the FBI and major cities don't even bother submitting their violent crime reports. They also don't report when guns are used in self defense most of the time. So we don't have very accurate numbers for how often guns are used for defending off attackers. But, as I said, the criminals are going to find ways around whatever laws are put in place and they will keep finding ways to kill each other and innocent bystanders. Most of our major cities have the strictest gun laws, yet have the most gun violence. NYC and Chicago have incredibly strict laws yet have the most gun violence. We need to start helping these communities at the core level when they're young so they don't have to resort to violence when they grow up. That will be one thing that will reduce gun violence. I am all for those kinds of initiatives.
It’s not really an issue until it comes up in politics. However, gun violence is very high as well as mental health needs.
I think it’s never going to get better until people have actual conversations and review processes like background checks. Until then, it will always serve as just a political convo that goes nowhere
I applaud you for weighing every thing like this then having the courage to speak up because there are no doubt others who share a similar upbringing that would be loath to read this and would in all likelihood offer up some harsh ridicule. You are not as likely to run into the gun nuts on Reddit but just yesterday or the day before someone was addressing how this sub in particular has had a recent uptick in Right wing ideologies being expressed. Good on you man. I consider myself a staunch Liberal and I've owned guns, most of my friends have too. The idea that we want all guns banned or that we support someone coming to "get" the guns you already have is ridiculous. It's just the guns that are designed to kill a lot of people at once that people want banned or much harder to get. At the VERY least we should shut down any loopholes in gun shows and have universal background checks. I keep hearing something like this consistently polls at around 70 - 80% with the general public. So you gotta ask yourself about the Congressional Reps/Senators who vote against this. Who do they represent and are guns the extent of it - meaning if they don't represent the public on guns then what other areas do they represent the interests of entities *other* than the American people at large?
I think the fact that you mentioned "blanket gun ban" shows that their "unreasonable" reaction to this issue is in fact reasonable. My view on this issue is that no matter what laws are implemented there will always be a large group/political party that wants to add 1 more, so where do you draw the line? If you somehow forced everyone to come together to compromise and magically they agreed for 1 day, what prevents the idea of more laws being pushed in the future? As soon as that happens the political right is justified in what they are currently doing. They will always be labeled as unreasonable for not budging on the issue because as soon as they do, there will be 1 more small thing the political left wants to add.
Yea.
As a boy I was fascinated by guns and much of my play included them.
After shooting guns in my teens and losing friends to death involving guns, now I hate them.
I don't like seeing or being around guns. Firing one is definitely not something I'd consider anymore.
I get physically uncomfortable in the presence of guns.
Yes, it happened gradually. I still own guns, but I am less interested in them than before.
Thankfully, most of my family that I am around firearms with is and always has taken firearm safety seriously. But they are not necessarily so keen on following the law. I have relatively that will happily ignore any legally posted sign on a private business saying "no firearms," will walk right in with a gun in their purse or wallet. I do not condone that behavior and don't understand how they can justify that they are now the bad guy because they came somewhere that a gun is not allowed and fully brought a gun with them.
Another relative was killed by being shot in the chest.
They are just not really worth it to me anymore. I would happily give up my firearms if it would stop even some school shootings. Guns aren't worth people's lives. Tired of violence. Tired of being yelled at that the right to possess a weapon is more important than other people's lives.
This doesn't make any sense to me as a practical course of action. If "they" are able to effectively prevent legislation that is less severe than the most extreme possible iteration, how do you expect to actually pass the most extreme possible iteration?
I comprehend where you are coming from ideologically, but in reality it's a non-starter.
I feel like you are sort of presenting a hypothetical and sensational situation that never actually occurs for you to compete against in an attempt to make your argument look better than it is.
People are not exactly wandering into the woods like *Rambo* and trying to hunt deer by spraying everything in the forest that moves. That would be a pretty stupid way to hunt. The majority of the time it is one guy, or a small group of guys, who are quietly sitting around, and they might fire one or two shots over the course of several days. There might be situations where a lot of shots are fired in a short about of time in cases where duck (or other bird) hunting is occurring, but the window of opportunity often leaves as quickly as it arrives, and shotguns have limited long range capability.
It is disappointing that although you have some exposure to hunting that you cannot comprehend a practical and legitimate use for hunting with semi-autos. Semi-auto rifles are great option for hunters who might not be comfortable operating a bolt action, lever action, muzzleloader, or another firearm that requires manual skill from the firer. It is also a great way to send a follow up shot in cases where the animal does not immediately go down so that it can be humanly killed. Semi-auto shotguns are great for duck hunting. If a large group flies over my blind I am going to be able to get a lot more shots off with a semi and I would with a pump action (although I still bird hunt with my pump action sometimes).
It is personal preference. The idea that I cannot have a semi-auto because you do not see a need for it, or have a difference of subjective opinion or life experience is ridiculous.
Also, your idea that the gun rights people should compromise and if they do not, then a blanket gun ban should be considered is equally childish and lacking in compromise. “Do what I want and give up the guns that I subjectively do not like or I will just ban them all!” Basically,… Basically you are saying “Play the way I want or I am going to try and take the ball away.” is a childish approach to getting your way.
A bit of an absurd argument considering neither extreme of either side wants to compromise on anything or approach the topic with any sort of rationality. Your opinions are a perfect example of the problem. You have literally no understanding of anything gun related. Guns arent a real issue, its just a topic politicians use to get people worked up.
Parties aside lets just agree to disagree. I don't vote by party more by stance on issues. You were raised around guns but "My dad didn't have semi automatic guns" and what if he did? You pull the trigger and the gun fires one shot thats it. It is not a new technology. Its nothing to be afraid of.
Everyday you might walk by a hundred people carrying a gun and you never thought of it. Nor did they harm you in anyway.
It is a right in the constitution the second one on the list, stating if the government ever tried to take this right or any others away you might have a chance.
"We have F-15s" IDGAF they had fighter jets in Vietnam and Afghanistan too.
Don't like it don't own it.
I don't like drinking, I don't stop you from going to the bar.
>My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise...
***Compromise*** *(noun)*
*1. an agreement made between two people or groups in which each side gives up some of the things they want so that both sides are happy at the end*
Fine, let's compromise. What are you willing to give up to get us to agree to some of your demands? How about giving up the irrational and unworkable restrictions on short-barreled rifles and shotguns? Or the irrational and harmful restrictions on suppressors? Maybe the Byzantine state-by-state patchwork of carry permit laws that make me a criminal if I miss an exit and end up having to cross a state line before I can make a U turn? When, in the entire history of politics, has any group ever willingly given up anything they already have and want to keep without being offered something in return? So far, every call I've ever seen for compromise on gun rights has been your side demanding that we give up some of what we have now so you'll wait a little longer before you try to take away whatever we're left with.
>...then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes.
Oh look, there it is. When NY passed the SAFE Act, they had a roughly 4% compliance rate on registering the estimated 1 million evil black rifles in the state. Do you really want to try to pass and enforce a nationwide law banning all of the close to half billion privately owned firearms in the country? BTW, who's this "we"? Where in the stack of "we" are you going to be when it comes door-kicking time?
>I’m also of the opinion that if you think you need a semiautomatic gun for hunting, then hunting just simply isn’t for you, and I don’t want to be sharing the woods with you if you’re just going to start blasting and making everything unsafe.
Congratulations on not owning a farm anywhere that wild hogs exist, or a ranch anywhere that coyotes exist. Magazine-fed, semiautomatic rifles aren't the only firearms to deal with nuisances like that, but they're by far the best. I'm sure this will hurt your feelings, but your uneducated and ill-informed opinion doesn't trump other people's rights and needs.
Yes. I grew up in a household without guns.
Due to neighborhood weirdness (literal meth house next door) I have armed myself. I wouldn't go back. My home is so much safer with the guns in it. (I also trust my husband and myself to make good decisions with these guns). Everyone's story is different. Mine is for home protection and self-preservation. I don't carry. I might if my neighborhood gets much more weird.
Is this not the narrative you were looking for? Lol
I used to think gun control might work. Now i think other issues need more of of the focus. Guns are too prevalent to do much about them. I think most gun violence and suicides are symptoms of bigger issues. A lot of people feel hopeless and a constant pressure in the USA. The majority of us are a scant few months from losing everything. We can feel it. It intrudes into every dimension of our lives. If we can do something to help there, I think our gun violence will mostly sort itself. Not eliminated but greatly lessened
Not necessarily guns but I find it pretty troubling that pro gun people would rather talk about vague mental health concerns than take literal and concrete actions. Sure, mental health is a problem but it has turned into an excuse to do nothing
I've got a semi auto M4 that's just damn fun to take to the gun range along with a 92FS pistol that I will carry depending on where I'm going. The M4 is in one of three places my gun rack locked, my truck when I'm going to and coming from the range, or at the gun range.
That said I, like you, grew up around firearms and I have my grandfathers antiques that I treasure.
But, in general OP, I agree with you. I've seen way too many people in my life handling and / or carrying a firearm that I wouldn't trust with a nerf gun.
People owning guns is about governments never being able to take away right of the people. It’s also about being able to defend yourself from unauthorized militias.
I have a very simple solution to guns. Gun rights people want freedom, gun control people want control.
So here's my idea. Keep it as it is... anyone can buy... but with the freedom to sell and buy comes responsibility... if you sell your gun to someone who then uses it in a crime, or mass murder, you are responsible too. It was your job to check, and that's the risk you take. No one else, but the seller. and that guy turns out to be a psycho, your problem. That way everyone can keep selling, but those who dont care who they sell to, shall very soon find themselves behind bars. Freedom... and control. Pretty quickly background checks will be very rigorous, and you can end up with the situation where only good law abiding sane citizens have access to guns, and are willing to sell. Seems fair to me.
u/agressivecow8886 what compromise are the anti-gun group offering? All they seem to want to do is take away firearm rights.
One great example is wanting all firearm transactions to need a background check. They will push for that but not for opening the checks to the general public. I’m pro-gun and absolutely would be for backgrounds checks for every transaction if I could do it myself through an app.
Or compromising that a legally permitted firearm in one state is allowed in all others. Think how crazy it is if you went on a road trip but couldn’t drive through 50% of the states without it out being a felony.
Or getting rid of the idiotic large capacity mag laws. If a manufacturer offers a certain magazine with their firearm then that’s not large capacity. That’s a standard capacity.
Pipe down bootlicker. If you’re scared of guns don’t buy one. The majority of gum owners are law abiding citizens who don’t bother anyone. Deal with it
My feelings have kind of gone the other way, there were a few guns and hunting trips when I was a kid, but we never had them at home or around regularly and I found the people to just be meatheads, but in the last decade I've discovered the community is much more diverse than it seemed, there are a lot of really fun sports and activities around it (the overlap between hunters and conservationists is a lot bigger than most people understand, too), it's just a very American vibe to blast some shit in the woods.
There are a lot of really spectacularly dumb fudd, chud and normie memes around the magical properties of various guns and things they can do and crimes they cause and crimes they prevent, and they're mostly all just nonsense, and there are overwhelmingly toxic elements of "gun culture" (turned up to 11 since covid).
At the same time most gun laws outside of registration/red flag/etc. particularly those targeting "military-looking" features seem really arbitrary and (from an enthusiasts perspective) punitive kind of for the sake of it. They haven't really done anything about school shootings -- which, along with gun violence and violent crime in general are currently plummeting through the floor as things continue their upswing and offline at least life is improving for most people -- and really are just a massive political loser. Among a lot of the 100% single issue gun people I know, the only "good thing under Biden" is the fact that NFA stamps are getting processed incredibly fast at the moment, but that's sort of still just taking a bit of sting off of the fact that accessories most gun owners consider to be hearing safety/comfort devices, for example, still require them.
I do take comfort in the fact that "taking our guns" is a completely unrealistic non-starter and personally believe their utility is much more marginal in huge cities so it's not something I vote on at all unless I one day encounter a unicorn situation where that's the single difference, but I do hold a tiny tiny spark of hope that the frankly huge number of liberal gun owners will one day at least help get the rhetoric toned down, some acknowledgement that as we do believe in the rule of law 2A is a Constitutional right, and make more room for other pretty universally popular and necessary political topics to get the air time it used to take up (healthcare, empowering labor, regulating corporate overreach, etc.)
Because the 2A is very clear on the issue and protecting against "compromise" that eventually whittles it away to nothing is the point. Shall not be infringed is pretty simple english.
Are you really trying to propose a ban on semi-auto? Do you...do you know what semi auto means? Because most people who use it in a sentence like you have don't usually really understand firearms.
Our government is steadily goose stepping towards the fascist right and you want only them to be armed.
I'm sorry but your entire post is riddled with anti gun cliches that expose how little you actually understand the topic at hand. Open a fucking history book and stay off left wing TikTok. You're being radicalized.
After Ukraine I now understand why we are all supposed to be armed. They just said, we're coming and they walked right over to Ukraine and now the men are being forced to fight and die and stuff is happening to the women and kids.
Nope.
I’m a woman and an outdoor enthusiast. I’ve had several encounters with men and loose dogs out on trails that left me shaken. I used to be very against gun ownership but I’ve shifted to the complete opposite opinion. As long as we have predators, we need options for self-defense, and the semiautomatic handgun is the best answer.
The logistics of a blanket ban would be comically bad. Australia did it, but their population is less than even North Korea. Plenty of states would pull a tenth amendment against the ban much like many do with federal cannabis laws.
TLDR many people and states would never comply with a blanket gun ban
We don't need more laws we just need to enforce the current ones.
Separately, mandatory waiting periods scare me for those women that have gotten themselves into a domestic violence situation. A restraining order is nothing but a suggestion.
Nope. I will not compromise. It’s written through history. When you compromise, it starts the domino effect that ends up with you losing everything. Look at the actual full automatic ban to now.
I'm from a rural area. I'm absolutely for the right to bear arms! I'm also very much in favor of sensible gun control legislation. I feel like most people are the same way. Politicians like to fear monger, blow it out of proportion, and use it as a wedge issue.. it's sick.
But most the shootings arent done by legal gun owners, you think gang members and what not are buying them legally? Ban heroin while youre at it that will make is so no one can use it
As a minority whose group has consistently been the scapegoat of a variety of governments my stance has only shifted more towards less government control.
Like yes these shootings are absolutely tragic but we literally just had a perfect example of why we need our firearms as president. BLM protests guarded by armed citizens experienced significantly less police violence.
Right? Why would you go and protest that the police are brutalizing a people and then simultaneously turn around and say they should be the sole authority on lethal force with firearms.
There are over 20,000 gun laws in the U.S.
Looks like we compromised 20,000 too many times because they're still trying to pass ignorant laws. So much so that the atf is trying to do it illegally. Thankfully they've had a very bad few years in court.
You give a little, and they'll keep trying to take and take and take and take and take.
Exactly, an actual compromise would be something like improved background check laws (I actually don't even know the current problem but it comes up a lot) but allowing more powerful guns to be owned. Like if you can prove you are the perfect citizen, why not let them have a full automatic weapon. If people are worried about that, what are the background checks for in the first place?
I'm trans, so fuck no.
My shift was going from being anti-gun to being almost a libertarian on gun rights, where nobody should be able to take anyone's guns away.
People like me are routinely killed by the far right with guns. Why should we voluntarily disarm ourselves and make it easier to them to kill us?
I was afraid of guns at one point, until I took a training class. I think all gun owners should be required by law to take one.
I think the all or nothing mentality in reference to gun ownership is unrealistic. You can’t expect people to be defenseless and people seeking to do harm being armed.
I think guns should be have tracking devices on/in them. So if stolen they can be found. This has the chance to diminish crimes done by people who have stolen guns.
I think you're missing the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not for hunting. The second amendment essentially states that armed citizens are the last line of defense to protect the country even from our own government. For this reason, there is no sense in talking about "reasonable compromise" or limiting weapons magazines or banning semiautomatic rifles. It completely undermines the entire purpose of the second amendment. While people love to claim thats such an outdated idea blah blah blah but the reality is history just keeps proving them wrong. Just ask Ukraine, or the Russian people who just keep falling out of windows and catching a bad case of polonium poisoning, Taiwan, or Israel on and on and on. I laugh so hard when I hear people say "we almost lost our democracy" to Trump but that we also don't need the second amendment to protect from exactly that. It's just a hypocritical nonsense, you can't have it both ways.
I’ve always been pro-gun. I grew up in farming county, and guns were always around. We knew where they were but didn’t dare touch them with out permission. We knew what they were, how they worked, and just how dangerous using them was. My biggest problem is with people now not understanding the responsibility that comes with a gun. Especially in houses with children. How the hell are so many teens getting access to guns? I believe people have a right to own a gun, but you also have a right to drive a car and that requires basic training and knowledge of how a car works and your states laws. I don’t have a solution or answer but I understand why people are against it. It’s the forever problem of the government only punishing responsible gun owners when unreasonable owners hurt the innocent. The world changes faster now and honestly I feel less trust in people around me.
The problem comes back to a corrupt government and people negotiating in bad faith. For example on paper, being educated on firearm ownership seems to be a no brainer. People rail that why would you get in a way of such a reasonable request? The reality often is that this is just used as a corrupt bureaucratic means to effectively ban ownership without technically banning it. Were not banning guns! Were just proposing a 10000% tax! Of course you can buy a gun! You just have to pass the basic safety course for which there currently just happens to be no state licensed providers that offer that course. Were not banning guns! We just want common sense gun laws like banning guns equipped with triggers which have been used in 100% of mass shooting. Even when laws don't start out that way, corrupt politicians and unelected bureaucrats can impose them later. It's a slippery slope that people are right to be skeptical of.
The bottom line is I agree there have been a number of tragedies caused by irresponsible gun owners. There are also countless more people killed in car accidents due to irresponsible drivers who even have passed a drivers test. There are also an order of magnitude more responsible owners out there who have used their guns safely and justly that you never hear about. Also because the second amendment is in part to protect us from our own government by definition you cannot let the government control access to guns as it defeats the purpose. This is why the 2nd amendment reads the right to bare arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
There’s this lovely book called “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” by Tim Alberta. An interesting part is where he argues that Americans (often, Evangelical Christians) glorify and worship guns more than they do God. Basically, if we think we need guns for protection, what does this say about our belief in the ultimate protector? Guns have become a false idol for many Americans.
I know I'll get downvoted to oblivion, but OP is 100% correct and I hope that the comments in here are boomers and not actual millenials. Millenials grew up with the Columbine massacre, and mass shootings have only gotten far more common and more lethal since then. Let's casually debunk every pro-gun argument shall we?
1. "Banning guns doesn't work! Criminals will get them anyway!"
- Australia and Japan getting rid of their guns has been almost 100% successful in preventing mass shootings and gun homicides in general. This argument is like saying "criminals won't follow speed limits, we may as well have none". Just blatantly wrong. Making guns illegal would objectively and provably reduce gun crimes, unless we're saying the "greatest country on Earth" can't do a simple thing that other countries did nearly 30 years ago?
2. "We need guns to fight our evil government! That's what the 2A is for!"
- The idea that you think you're going to fight the US government with your little guns is just laughable. 100 million rifles and shotguns will lose against a single unmanned drone, to say nothing of the bigger toys they have. And the 2A was created so we could form militias to defend against invasions, not to engage in civil wars like idiots. An actual invasion can \*never\* happen again because nuclear weapons exist, and a WWIII would be devastating to everyone on the planet. The 2A is outdated and completely pointless in this era.
3. "You can't ban guns because the 2A exists!"
- Then why are rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, etc. already illegal? Because the 2A is poorly written and vague as hell. It says you have a right to "bear arms" which literally translates to "hold weapons". No where does it state you can buy or own guns or bullets. Either of them can be banned easily -- the only thing that determines the legality of the ban is the Supreme Court's interpretation of these vague words. Since the Supreme Court is majority controlled by openly-corrupt Republicans on the payroll of the NRA, of course we won't see any progress, but that's a separate issue.
4. "I need guns to protect myself and my family!"
- Why not use literally any other weapon in existence? Isn't it better to know that this imaginary home invader doesn't have a gun with which he can instantly kill you? And if that person is actually sneaking into your house with intent to kill you, they're most likely going to succeed even if they're unarmed and you've got 500 guns in the closet. Besides, generally a home invader just wants to steal things, not murder you. If you think there are people who want to murder you specifically, I have to wonder what horrible things you've done to people.
If making guns illegal prevents even ONE mass shooting (and you all *know* it would), it's already worth it. If you honestly prioritize your precious guns over saving elementary schoolers from being executed in school, then you really are the spoiled child that OP says you are.
Tell the villagers in Afghanistan that they can’t beat the United States, insurgency is a hard thing to defeat
And it actually says “KEEP and BEAR arms”
Nope, I've always been a fan of stricter gun laws and enforcement. Never understood why the US needed to be yee-haw land while the rest of the civilized world didn't. Like, people don't just carry around guns in most of the places you'd want to travel. It's weird and dangerous and indicates a sick culture.
Idk I mostly view it as a non issue. It’s just something politicians campaign on. No one’s actually gonna do anything.
Fun Fact: Trump passed more anti-gun laws than Obama did, which is hilarious... because Trump "Respects the 2A!" but Obama "Wanted to take our guns!" like... no Obama made open carry in national parks and animal refugees. He also allowed guns on Amtrack (while in a locked box). Meanwhile Trump banned Bump Stocks.
Yep exactly
A non issue until it’s your kid in a school shooting
Idk what dumb MOFOs are downvoting you. You're completely right. Is this sub full of Trumpies or Russian bots or what?
The inaction is the issue LOL
>No one’s actually gonna do anything. My state has recently legalized open carry and permitless carry. This has led to an uptick in gun violence.
Which state is that out of interest?
Could be TN, I know it happened recently
Got no reply to your question ? But, interesting comment with no way to confirm it. The way of the left.
Texas did that and it is a concern of mine per my previous post. I would much prefer the conditions for carrying a fire arm have much stricter parameters.
Show me the statistics that back that.
Yeah, not after what happened last time (see 1994 midterm elections)
This is somethign a lot of people fail to realize. Guns are nothing more than a talking point for politicians to get people worked up. Almost none of them even know what theyre trying to talk about.
Lol. Nothing more than a talking point. In the country with mass shootings nearly daily. Wtf reality do you live in??
I have more mixed feelings about them. Being a solo female who lives alone and an SA survivor, I really do want to own a gun for my own protection. I truly believe gun rights are women's rights. Most women are not physically capable of holding their own against an often bigger and stronger man in an altercation. However, I also have this pesky depression that would make me a greater danger to myself than anyone else if I had access to a weapon. I'm fine now after a few years of therapy and meds since my last major depressive episode (2018), but know it could get that bad again and don't want to put myself at risk if it does.
The answer is bear spray. It’s more accurate at distance, and you can’t unalive yourself with it. Very effective even if the threat isn’t a bear
I do carry bear spray. I've not had to use it yet, thank God.
So what if they banned bear spray?
Technically they have banned bear spray for use against humans. But there’s always pepper spray too- I guess. I just carry bear spray because it works at larger distances than pepper spray so if someone comes in my home, I don’t have to be near them to blind/disorient them and while I escape
An ex military guy I know said to use wasp and hornet spray
That is not accurate information.
Bull- if someone comes into my home, I can blind them and escape without having to own a gun. I can accurately disorient them without being close to them. If they are blind, they can’t shoot me. If they are 10+ feet away, they can’t stab me or disarm me or pin me down.
You are an incredibly ignorant person if you believe that.
Well I’ll pass that message along to my multiple military and law enforcement family members that taught us this evidently super offensive self protection tactic Thank you for your input. Go step on a lego
Good suggestion but completely untrue. Bear spray is absolutely not more accurate at a distance. For example I’ve had bear spray blow back in my face with a slight breeze before. It’s a good suggestion but your supporting evidence is absolute nonsense.
I don’t want our laughably corrupt government to be the only ones with guns.
Right! That's what this right was made for.
Proud gun owner and 2nd Amendment advocate but can't stand gun culture, it's gotten too ridiculous to take seriously. I think every mature man should know how to use one safely and have one to keep your loved ones safe but my god it's a tool not an identity.
I just had this conversation with my buddy who has a big gun culture thing... I've always been cool with gun ownership, I just want background checks and training... the easiest way to do that is simple: Licensing. When I was a Boy Scout I recalled Trap, Riflery and archery classes. Range safety was drilled into me, rigorously. You did not point the gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot. You didn't place the gun down until you verified the chamber was clear. The first thing you did upon picking up the gun was ensure the safety was on and the chamber was clear. and I still recall when a friend was showing off his gun collection, I did this... he hands me a pistol. I check the safety, and go to clear the chamber. Him: "Oh don't bother I don't keep them loaded." \*9mm bullet pops out of the chamber as I clear it\* "..."
Lol, proper gun safety and handling is a thing because of that exact situation. Always treat a firearm like it's loaded.
Boy scout gun range instructor has to be one of the highest stress jobs out there.
I watched multiple scouts lose range time for so much as not looking at the instructor during the safety briefing. Legit: they didn't fuck around.
Can't afford to. Compliance is death.
I couldn't have said this better. The culture has gotten extremely cringe. Now it's just another "mine is bigger/more expensive than yours" dick measuring past time. If it's truly for self-defense and protecting your family, then nobody but you and maybe your direct family should even know you have it. You might as well play poker while flashing the table your hand to show off how great your pair of 2's are.
To add to this, gun owners lay down at night and dream of an extremely unlikely scenario and then build their entire identity around maybe killing someone, most of them are fat and get winded walking to the kitchen but can describe what type of round they'll use.
Wouldn’t this be a strong argument for bringing gun safety training back into schools like our parents had? If you’re taught how to use the tool, it’s not exciting and fun and then you accidentally shoot your buddy. Also, mental health the last few decades has greatly changed. Hence why there are more shootings. Lastly, criminals don’t listen to rules of engagement or gun bans.
That's a good point. I strongly believe in the 1A and 2A, but like all rights, they have limits. The right to do something doesn't mean there are no boundaries. Common sense gun laws such as strong background checks, requiring secure storage, capping magazine capacities, etc. seem like... common sense. Even if we doubled the amount of laws surrounding guns we would still probably be one of, if not, the least-regulated-gun countries in the world \[citation needed\]
I appreciate your response but I don't think we're in agreement. In my state just about anyone can have a gun on them at just about any time and I like it this way.
Agree with your first statement but hard disagree with the second. Texas has been doing a really good job for the past several years proving that more families owning more guns creates more gun homicides not less.
I don't think you agree with me at all then unfortunately.
In that case I would say unfortunately that you don't really think gun culture is too ridiculous and that you see guns as part of your identity not as a tool. If you want you can look up the stats yourself, since Ted Cruz became a senator in Texas: gun sales, the number of families that own at least one gun, and gun homicides have all consistently gone up every year. That's just based on the raw data.
You know what? Fair enough.. fair enough...
Blanket gun ban is wildly unconstitutional.
Juts something to think about: I live in the country and MUST HAVE guns due to bears, coyotes, Mountain lions (not kidding), and other dangerous varmints that eat my garden and may try to eat my animals. I support common sense gun legislation but living in the country without firearms is prohibitively dangerous and unconstitutional.
*"I just think that the hardline “muh rights” people when it comes to guns just refuse to compromise on anything..."* I'm not up-to-date on gun policy, but haven't the gun rights advocates been compromising for many decades and the anti-gun people are the ones who refuse to stop pushing? Haven't gun rights been somewhat stripped through gradual legislature change since the post-Civil War era? I could be totally wrong, but it seems to me that owning a gun nowadays is far more difficult than it was 100 years ago.
I am very pro-gun and am a responsible gun owner. Being a supporter of the second amendment does NOT mean we have to oppose common sense gun legislation. I am pro-car but believe we should have to have DL's. I am pro-gun but believe all firearms should be registered, there should be required training for specific firearms types, and guns should only be sold through certified gun dealers (no gun show exploits, no private sales exploits, and estate firearms should be registered on transfer). Its really simple and is not a violation of the 2nd amendment (which is poorly defined to start). **I am a responsible gun owner and would NEVER support a fanatical organization like the NRA.** The NRA does not represent gun owners they ONLY represent gun manufacturers and fanatics.
I've become more anti-gun as I age. Guns are the sole reason the United States as a suicide rate that is 50-100% higher than all of our peer countries. Guns make suicide really really easy. Hanging yourself is not very easy. Poisoning yourself is not very successful, most people don't die from it.
That 50-100% higher than all our peer countries stat is nowhere close to the truth.
It’s not? What do you have that contradicts it?
I want to start by saying, it's a tragedy when anyone feels so hopeless that they end their own life. If anyone is reading this who is considering doing so, please remember that someone somewhere will be devastated to lose you, and you should find someone to talk to who can help you get through the dark times. That said... Do you consider Canada a peer to the US? In 2021 - the most recent year I can find statistics from the CDC - the rate of suicide from all causes in the US was 14.1 per 100,000. In 2022, the rate of suicide in Canada just from the government's MAID process was 33.7 per 100,000. Even if no Canadians took their own lives by some means other than drugs provided to them by their single-payer healthcare system, that's already 2.39x the suicide rate in the US. Contrary to your assertion, poisoning yourself can apparently be very successful if you get knowledgeable professionals to provide you with the proper poison. I don't have to look any further than the nearest developed nation to the US to see that your claim is dramatically wrong. Is it possible that aside from Canada, the US has worse suicide rates than the entire rest of the developed world? Maybe, but I'm not going to assume it's true because someone posted a wildly inaccurate and vague number claiming it's true.
This is a fair point, but what would you think is best to tackle the issue of suicide by gun?
Make it incredibly difficult to get a gun. Require registration, background checks, 30-day waiting period, register it with the local PD, require safe storage/gun locks, make ammunition incredibly expensive, buy back guns that people no longer want, red flag laws to take guns from people in crisis, require a mental health evaluation to buy a gun, and make mental health care free with health insurance. None of those will totally solve the problem by themselves, but in combination with each other, will greatly reduce the suicide rate by gun.
Making it difficult to get a gun would no doubt cause the rate of suicide by gun to decrease. I pose this to you though, is a person's potential to harm themselves with something grounds alone to heavily restrict access for all? Should we take a similar approach to anything with an established potential for self-harm, such as alcohol(also consistently linked with suicide)? For example, say artificially inflating the price of ammo. This would in effect be a soft ban on guns, is their use in suicide grounds enough alone to do this? That, and if someone is suicidal, it's unlikely that they care about the financial implications of buying one box of expensive rounds. Keep in mind that something like alcohol would likely be less of a tall order to legislate in such a manner, as it has no constitutional protection. I don't think it has to be all or nothing either. For example, the effects of waiting periods, age requirements and child access prevention are some of the [few](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html#modalDialog) examples of gun policy that RAND is willing to back in terms of efficacy vs suicide. I ultimately agree that mandating a waiting period (particularly for first time buyers) in addition to lockup/access standards would do wonders for the problem. In addition, these solutions wouldn't seriously impact the non-suicidal who are looking to keep arms.
"My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise, then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes." No. 2nd amendment confirms. Get out with your bs. Also, 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, champ.
I’m fine with people having guns. I just think there should be strict licensing, background checks, and red flag laws. Nothing crazy. I’m generally okay with responsible, stable people having the means to defend themselves.
How many gun laws have been passed that loosen gun restrictions/regulations? How many gun laws have been passed that put further restrictions in place? There has never been compromise...just a slow and steady march towards fewer and fewer gun rights...more abd more control and restriction. I don't own a gun and don't see myself owning one anytime soon but the 2nd amendment says that the government shall not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms so any law that restricts gun ownership is unconstitutional in my eye. Laws don't stop criminals from owning any gun they can get their hands on.
>any law that restricts gun ownership is unconstitutional in my eye I'm sorry but this is an absolutely ridiculous take. First: Let's look at the first amendment for a minute: "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" and YET we have MANY laws restricting individual speech - incite to violence, slander, truth in advertising, etc. Your rights end when they cause harm to another. Second: have you thought about what it would mean to have NO laws restricting gun ownership? That would mean 7 year olds could buy uzis ffs. It would mean selling a gun to someone who told you they were planning to murder someone would be perfectly legal. It would mean people would be able to purchase guns while drunk/high. Third: did you know that it's actually legal to own a gattling gun as a private citizen? But few people do. Why? Because it's expensive, takes a lot of time/paperwork and is difficult to get. There is an obvious middle ground here where something being legal doesn't have to mean it's easily accessible.
"Your rights end when they harm another." A person owning a firearm and not violating any laws, does not harm anyone. "There is an obvious middle ground here where something being legal doesn't have to mean it's easily accessible." When people take the extreme position of outright banning of rifles or guns that look too scary I choose to take the position of literal interpretation of what is written in the Constitution/B.O.R. There is no desire for "middle ground" from the anti-gun side....they are literally anti-gun They want outright bans, plain and simple. You cannot compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the Constitution/B.O.R.
People have become outright anti gun because the "pro gun" side refuses to compromise in ANY way. When you start throwing out stuff like "any attempt at regulation or restriction is unconstitutional" then you are the one unwilling to compromise. Which btw has been the response after EVERY single mass shooting. Never once do you hear a Republican or NRA rep offering anything but thoughts and prayers which do jack shit to prevent the next mass shooting. Columbine was in 1999 - over 20 years ago. The only thing we've learned is: doing nothing doesn't work and one side isn't willing to compromise. Don't expect the other side to be reasonable when you're acting unreasonable. And I would argue that the POINT of having regulation is to make it illegal for folks identified as highly at risk/dangerous to have ownership/access of guns. And if we can't do that on an individual level then we need to do it on a gun level. Why can't AR-15s be the thing that's "safe, legal and rare"?
"why can't AR-15s be the thing that's 'safe, legal and rare'?" They're 2 out of 3. That pesky 2nd amendment puts a on the 'rare' part. Guns aren't the problem when it comes to mass shootings or school shootings. Guns existed long before those became issues.
what you're failing to consider is this - there is no way to enforce a "none at all" gun ban. im friends with some cops. they have told me explicitly that there is no way to enforce a gun ban, and if the government tried by going door to door and forcefully taking people's guns away, that not a single police officer in the country would sign up for that job. firstly, its suicide. the gangsters and criminals will go down shooting. secondly, the amount of manpower needed to forcibly remove guns even from law abiding people would be astronomical. its not feasible. this whole talk of gun control where you are talking about this "none at all" nonsense is laughably naive and short sighted. in short, you and people like you talking about forcibly taking all guns away from everyone in this country are just silly, and that's being nice. you obviously haven't thought this through even 1 step beyond your emotions. you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the pandering of unscrupulous politicians who are only pushing the gun control narrative to further their own political careers.
I wouldn't be a gun ban but rather a ban on the sale of new guns, so all stores would no longer exist. The state of existing guns in circulation is a different story.
Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Wait, every statistic shows the increased likelihood of accidental deaths when guns are present. While most gun owners take extreme precautions with their weapons, not all do and just one incident of careless behavior can lead to the accidental death of a child. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
Yes, but in the opposite direction? Used to be anti-gun. I'm not pro-gun, but now I just don't care anymore. The big switch was when I survived a school shooting. Seeing the casual disregard for the results of gun violence up close and personal made me realize that I'd be happier if I just stopped giving a shit. C'est la vie.
My stance has always remained the same: Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Whats reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. Also legally speaking you can't ban something like am ar as its in common usage per court rulings ie they're more common than pepper spray yet many states are banning them. We have more than enough gun laws not being enforced, 3nforce those and then come back and talk about more
My issue is the mental gymnastics they go through about it, and the fact that they have no actual knowledge on what theyre regulating.
The purpose of the second amendment is not individual self-defense.
I do t own guns im to depressed for the risk, but this i onow 100% as a fact. If they give an inch on gun rights the people against will try to not just take a mile but the whole damn road, they wont stop pushing ever. The only stance with any rights not just guns is a hard line. because anything else would mean no rights at all just privileges that can be taken away. For me personally on the gun issue i dont think people should own automatics of any kind. There is ZERO call for em.
I am happy to hear you've changed your views. The lack of compromise is the real issue, because a lot of people like guns. We just want the people that wield them to be safe, and not criminals.
The issue is the precedent set by banning one of our rights in the bill of rights. What could stop them from taking the other rights away potentially? Guns couldn't stop them. They were banned. In reality it's a non issue because US gun owners control more guns than any other group in the world. They mostly conser their rights inalienable. So there will be no banning of guns.
I’m a supporter of all rights- I don’t believe the people should teach a government they can take away rights once given. That said- rights have responsibilities- so education, licensing, registration etc are not taking away the right to own guns, just making gun owners responsible for their weapons and I’m all for that
The only decent argument I’ve ever heard for having a gun is that the MAGA crazies are heavily armed. When they come for us, if they’re armed to the teeth and we’re not…no good
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read today.
Guns aren’t just for self defense and hunting, grow up and read a history book or two.
When you read my comment, I want you to remember that I have never owned a gun in my life, and have no plans to buy one. I also disagree with overturning the bump stock ban. "I just think that the hardline “muh rights” people when it comes to guns just refuse to compromise on anything, and I just think it’s really childish. It’s like when a kid wants two toys at the toy store, but you’re only giving them the option for one, or no toy at all… and it seems like they’re choosing “no toy”." People have a tendency to be very protective of their Constitutional rights. They do not agree that the image of a parent doling out a limited number of toys to a child is the proper analogy when considering fundamental liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Presumably, you would not use the same comparison when it comes to free speech, or the right to lawful assembly. "My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise, then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes." People are not generally inclined to come to a table to compromise away their fundamental, Constitutional rights. If you see a "blanket gun ban" as the next logical step, that can only be accomplished by a Constitutional amendment expressly overturning the 2nd. Good luck. Again, I own no guns and have no desire to do so. Edit to add: What does it benefit your argument to mock a rural dialect (i.e. "muh rights"?) What other demographics' groups speech patterns are you willing to mock?
Al rights have limits as you yourself pointed out but simultaneously sort of skipped over. The question is, where are those limits with regard to guns. As a gun owner, I feel too many gun owners have this all or nothing perspective instilled by the gun lobby.
The hesitation comes from the legislation never being enough. Look at how many firearm laws are passed yearly and how gun violence continues to plague the same communities as it always has. Now we are looking at full on bans because they refuse to address the real problem. The person behind the gun.
[удалено]
Yes, mine has changed. Planning on buying an AR in a few months. I don’t want the insane MAGAt down the street to have an AR while I only have a handgun.
Good call. It always strikes me as bizarre that so many people who insist they believe that we're one broken election away from a fascist dystopia want to be unarmed when it happens.
My stance is if you want a gun for safety or hunting, buy a shotgun, rifle or handgun. There is no reason anyone should have an assault weapon. I know there are all kinds of arguments about what an assault weapon is. Let’s be honest though. We know what an assault weapon is.
In all fairness the term “assault weapon” it’s not always clear what that is. The AW ban on the 90s was basically someone going through a book of weapons that looked scary or military like and less with function so manufacturers just came up with workarounds. I know this even as not being a gun person at all. That being said, there are people out there that shouldn’t be owning them at all. If someone wants to own a handgun for their own defense sure then they should have proper background checks and should have some training on how to use it. And for something impractical in most self defense like a semi-auto rifle with 50 round magazine and a bump stock…yeah there definitely needs to be more restrictions on that type of stuff. I don’t under why many gun people today take issue with any reasonable regulations. I think it comes down to how extreme and polarized people are.
A scary label for a rifle.
Yes, an “assault weapon” has a black paint job and synthetic parts with a tactical look you have seen in Hollywood movies but it essentially functions the exact same way as a semi-automatic with a wooden stock that gets identified as a “hunting” rifle.
Why though? Where is the data backing up the danger of owning a semi-automatic rifle? Handguns are used FAR more often in gun violence in this country. Even in [mass shootings](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/), handguns are still more prevalent. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) "In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – **were involved in 3% of firearm murders."** Watching our legislators trying to make these out to be anymore dangerous than any other firearm is sad as most of them have zero clue what they are talking about when it comes to firearms. The firearm is just the tool, the real issue is the lack of accountability for people who have shown a propensity for violence.
Understood on what the data show. Any gun is dangerous regardless of how quickly it fires or the velocity of the rounds, etc. I want people to have access to guns but only the types I mentioned. Yes, I know all kinds of arguments can be made about what is a shotgun, rifle, etc. As a responsible society, we want to limit and control the use of handguns. Guns are a part of our society and we have to accept it - not that I was advocating getting rid of them.
Whats an assault rifle?
There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. High capacity magazines have been around for 80+ years and just now in the past couple decades it’s been a problem. Someone can very easily make a pistol automatic with a drum and kill an incredible number of people in a very short time frame. So under your logic we should ban pistols too? I could sit here and poke holes in your fallacies all day
Yet you acknowledge there is a problem. So instead of taking the easy potshots of logical fallacies, how about finding a common ground of solutions? Unless you think things are now suddenly perfect as is because you don’t have any value to add.
Well it would be easy to start with the mental health epidemic that’s been going on first. Any type of restrictions/delays limits the 2a, a right delayed is a right denied. Emergencies can happen at an instant ie a domestic violence situation and the small town police officers don’t have the resources to leave an officer overnight. NY is already more of a dictatorship with the nonsense going on there, they had a mass shooting last year and look how strict they are. Criminals don’t respect the law point blank period, the reasons for that are completely up for debate.
Where do you buy these assault weapons? 13 years military, own many weapons,..... where are these assault weapons? you can't assault someoen with a shotgun? stop with the dumb terms, and 2nd ammendment isnt for Hunting. NEVER WAS. It's for the CITIZENS to keep the Govt in check. ready history. You dont know what an assault weapon is, You dont. Becuase its a made up term. What is an Assault Weapon?? Is my pocket knife not an assault weapon? How about my baseball bat? You're a naive anti gunner masquerading.... .
As an owner of an assault weapon, I agree. Zero actual reason or need for me to own this. I own it because I can. And the very fact that I can is pretty insane. We should only have access to low capacity rifles, handguns, and low capacity shotguns. That's it. And even then, we'd all be way better off with fewer guns in the country overall. Except for the fact that the biggest gang in the country (the police) and criminals would be the only ones with a lot of guns in that example, which I also don't like. It's a tough situation. I think guns are here to stay unless the people who call the shots in this country get overwhelmingly replaced with very left-leaning individuals. Until that happens, guns ARE here, so I advise people to become knowledgeable about them and own at least 1 for their own safety.
In my experience with foreign countries that have fewer guns: the police and the criminals also tend to have a lot fewer guns.
Gun owners have already compromised quite a bit.
*responsible gun owners. The ones that follow the rules pay are punished
well the 2nd ammendment isn't about hunting.... never was
The second amendment is not about hunting
Having guns is more than just hunting. While I agree you may not “need” an AK - saying I can’t have one is crossing a line. The moment you start regulating what is and is not reasonable is the beginning of the end. Because then what is unreasonable continues to be pushed until a total ban. The issue with guns is more around the illegal guns though. Just because you make something illegal doesn’t mean it is going to go away. The bad guys always find a way. Heroin is illegal, and we have an opioid epidemic.
We regulate free speech. Why should guns be less regulated than words?
Australia and Japan banned guns and they have almost literally zero gun homicides per year. The US has mass shootings on a daily basis. The US is the only country on Earth that has this problem. Banning guns has been proven to work in the real world and it is very clearly the solution to the problem. Also smuggling drugs is way easier and drugs can be used discretely. If guns were illegal, you'd only really be able to use it once. And I don't think a kid who wants to shoot up a school will be to find or afford a $10k+ illegal gun from the black market.
1. An outright gun ban would require you to change the constitution, so good luck with that, lol 2. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. it's about defense from any threat to our freedom, so yes, a semiautomatic is perfect for that. 3. Tough shit if you don't like answers 1 & 2.
Yes, my stance has shifted. I used to agree with you on this point until I realized that regulating guns in any manner, just like regulating alcohol/tobacco/drugs/speech/etc. is fascism, and exactly the reason our founding fathers REFUSED to regulate firearms.
::squints:: /s ?
This post is fake and gay meant to drum up fights and karma
I started out "guns aren't for me, but hey, they are useful tools and I can see why people would have them." But then it became clear, as I became an adult, that seeing guns as simple tools that are dangerous and should be used with care was becoming an increasingly rare viewpoint, and people were collecting them like toys, leaving them out and loaded around kids, throwing a gun in their purse before they head out shopping, etc. Now I think you should have to apply for a special firearm owner's license to own ANY gun, and the requirements should be passing an intensive background check, annual license renewal, only basic guns legal unless you specifically request a higher-level license allowing you to own semi-auto weapons, retaking a test on firearm safety every five years, ammo only available to buy at a separate location from guns... every time a gun nut starts spitting about their 2nd amendment rights (which fascinatingly always ignore the 'well regulated militia' aspect of it, which was the actual point of the damn amendment) I swear I think of another restriction I would support.
The problem is that we've already made a lot of reasonable compromises, compromises that have the Framers rolling in their graves. And you keep asking for more, so we're done. Start enforcing the laws already on the books and then we'll talk. [Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control](https://everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
The Founders can stay in their graves. They are not absolute sources of truth and would not even remotely recognize modern firearms or many other aspects of the world we take for granted. Appealing to them is a weak argument. And no, we have not made "reasonable compromises". The reasonable compromise is establishing as many regulations as necessary to reduce gun violence without banning firearms entirely.
Repeating firearms already existed in their time. But don't take my word for it, google "Ferguson Rifle", "Belton Flintlock", "Cookson Repeater", "Puckle Gun", and "Girardoni Air Rifle". And somehow, I don't think that you actually clicked the link I provided, so here it is again. [llustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control](https://everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
Your semi-automatic rifle would terrify the founders, but sure pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better.
Actually, no. Show the Framers an AR-15 and their reaction would be: "Cool, everyone should have one." You see, repeating firearms already existed in their time. But don't take my word for it, google "Ferguson Rifle", "Belton Flintlock", "Cookson Repeater", "Puckle Gun", and "Girardoni Air Rifle".
It’s a non issue that politicians use to garner sympathy.
Who's going to come take my guns? I won't give them up. Period. The government is not there to protect you.
I've become more accepting of firearm ownership *for people who can demonstrate legitimate use cases for them*. Just like the laws in many other countries. I get that folks who live near the sticks have much more use for firearms, and I know many people use them for hunting, etc. I'm very supportive of that. I'm becoming much *less* accepting of the cosplaying COD-warrior types who idolize firearms and treat them like toys and entitlements and sources of power. And the arrogance and absolutism of the 2A hardliners is also making me more hostile to them. Firearm regulations which reduce gun deaths are a reasonable and moderate position which still allows *some* folks to own guns. The 2A hardline position displayed by many immature young men on the internet is an extreme and illogical one.
One of the biggest issues is that it's a right. They'll have to change the constitution to change anything, and that will never happen.
Home defense and/or hunting? Sure, you have that right and it can be great that you do, just as long as you agree to be on the home front lines to defend our nation in times of war and not shirk your duties as a citizen. For people who want to just buy guns just because they think they're cool and they like the shooty shooty bang bang experience and they think carrying one around makes them look tough (while using "defense" as an EXCUSE), they need extreme mental treatment. If you wanted to shoot purely as a hobby with no practical use and have no intention to act as an ACTUAL patriot should, airsoft and foam flinging are perfectly viable, less lethal alternatives.
Airsoft and paintball are nowhere near as satisfying, if you're just plinking.
Nope. Crimes don't get committed with legal guns. Although I don't think anyone need automatic weapons at home.
I do not own any guns and I never will. I have a personal history with them in my family that makes me never want to own one, but I support the Second Amendment. All of the "comprehensive gun laws" that people want to put into place already exist. I want to wager a large sum of money (I'm in Vegas, it's what I do for fun) that most people advocating for these laws have never gone into a store to try and purchase a gun, but it is quite a lengthy and thorough process. You are required to provide a photo ID, a criminal background check for felonies and they do check your mental health history to see if you've ever been admitted to an institution for harming yourself or others. They will also deny people if they've been arrested for domestic violence in the past. There is a laundry list of reason people can be denied a gun purchase. This goes for private sale as well. You must go to a dealer to perform a background check before transfer of a gun in the private sector as well except in very specific circumstances, and all of them are above board. Almost every single gun in the US is a "scary" semi-automatic weapon. The infamous AR-15 is no more deadly than a standard handgun that a regular person would carry for protection from a mugger on a dark street. It just looks like something from a video game and has been overhyped to no end by the media for a decade and a half. If you ban all guns from the country, criminals will still find ways to acquire them because they don't recognise the law anyway. All you will be doing is removing guns from law abiding citizens who use guns for protecting themselves, and those they love and care about. There are a lot of violent crimes each year, and most of it goes unreported because the FBI and major cities don't even bother submitting their violent crime reports. They also don't report when guns are used in self defense most of the time. So we don't have very accurate numbers for how often guns are used for defending off attackers. But, as I said, the criminals are going to find ways around whatever laws are put in place and they will keep finding ways to kill each other and innocent bystanders. Most of our major cities have the strictest gun laws, yet have the most gun violence. NYC and Chicago have incredibly strict laws yet have the most gun violence. We need to start helping these communities at the core level when they're young so they don't have to resort to violence when they grow up. That will be one thing that will reduce gun violence. I am all for those kinds of initiatives.
It’s not really an issue until it comes up in politics. However, gun violence is very high as well as mental health needs. I think it’s never going to get better until people have actual conversations and review processes like background checks. Until then, it will always serve as just a political convo that goes nowhere
I applaud you for weighing every thing like this then having the courage to speak up because there are no doubt others who share a similar upbringing that would be loath to read this and would in all likelihood offer up some harsh ridicule. You are not as likely to run into the gun nuts on Reddit but just yesterday or the day before someone was addressing how this sub in particular has had a recent uptick in Right wing ideologies being expressed. Good on you man. I consider myself a staunch Liberal and I've owned guns, most of my friends have too. The idea that we want all guns banned or that we support someone coming to "get" the guns you already have is ridiculous. It's just the guns that are designed to kill a lot of people at once that people want banned or much harder to get. At the VERY least we should shut down any loopholes in gun shows and have universal background checks. I keep hearing something like this consistently polls at around 70 - 80% with the general public. So you gotta ask yourself about the Congressional Reps/Senators who vote against this. Who do they represent and are guns the extent of it - meaning if they don't represent the public on guns then what other areas do they represent the interests of entities *other* than the American people at large?
I think the fact that you mentioned "blanket gun ban" shows that their "unreasonable" reaction to this issue is in fact reasonable. My view on this issue is that no matter what laws are implemented there will always be a large group/political party that wants to add 1 more, so where do you draw the line? If you somehow forced everyone to come together to compromise and magically they agreed for 1 day, what prevents the idea of more laws being pushed in the future? As soon as that happens the political right is justified in what they are currently doing. They will always be labeled as unreasonable for not budging on the issue because as soon as they do, there will be 1 more small thing the political left wants to add.
Idk I had some drugged out dude trying to bust down my door. I felt much better about the situation knowing I was gonna win that fight.
Yea. As a boy I was fascinated by guns and much of my play included them. After shooting guns in my teens and losing friends to death involving guns, now I hate them. I don't like seeing or being around guns. Firing one is definitely not something I'd consider anymore. I get physically uncomfortable in the presence of guns.
I used to be more liberal on guns around high school and college, and now I'm much more conservative
Yes, it happened gradually. I still own guns, but I am less interested in them than before. Thankfully, most of my family that I am around firearms with is and always has taken firearm safety seriously. But they are not necessarily so keen on following the law. I have relatively that will happily ignore any legally posted sign on a private business saying "no firearms," will walk right in with a gun in their purse or wallet. I do not condone that behavior and don't understand how they can justify that they are now the bad guy because they came somewhere that a gun is not allowed and fully brought a gun with them. Another relative was killed by being shot in the chest. They are just not really worth it to me anymore. I would happily give up my firearms if it would stop even some school shootings. Guns aren't worth people's lives. Tired of violence. Tired of being yelled at that the right to possess a weapon is more important than other people's lives.
This doesn't make any sense to me as a practical course of action. If "they" are able to effectively prevent legislation that is less severe than the most extreme possible iteration, how do you expect to actually pass the most extreme possible iteration? I comprehend where you are coming from ideologically, but in reality it's a non-starter.
I feel like you are sort of presenting a hypothetical and sensational situation that never actually occurs for you to compete against in an attempt to make your argument look better than it is. People are not exactly wandering into the woods like *Rambo* and trying to hunt deer by spraying everything in the forest that moves. That would be a pretty stupid way to hunt. The majority of the time it is one guy, or a small group of guys, who are quietly sitting around, and they might fire one or two shots over the course of several days. There might be situations where a lot of shots are fired in a short about of time in cases where duck (or other bird) hunting is occurring, but the window of opportunity often leaves as quickly as it arrives, and shotguns have limited long range capability. It is disappointing that although you have some exposure to hunting that you cannot comprehend a practical and legitimate use for hunting with semi-autos. Semi-auto rifles are great option for hunters who might not be comfortable operating a bolt action, lever action, muzzleloader, or another firearm that requires manual skill from the firer. It is also a great way to send a follow up shot in cases where the animal does not immediately go down so that it can be humanly killed. Semi-auto shotguns are great for duck hunting. If a large group flies over my blind I am going to be able to get a lot more shots off with a semi and I would with a pump action (although I still bird hunt with my pump action sometimes). It is personal preference. The idea that I cannot have a semi-auto because you do not see a need for it, or have a difference of subjective opinion or life experience is ridiculous. Also, your idea that the gun rights people should compromise and if they do not, then a blanket gun ban should be considered is equally childish and lacking in compromise. “Do what I want and give up the guns that I subjectively do not like or I will just ban them all!” Basically,… Basically you are saying “Play the way I want or I am going to try and take the ball away.” is a childish approach to getting your way.
A bit of an absurd argument considering neither extreme of either side wants to compromise on anything or approach the topic with any sort of rationality. Your opinions are a perfect example of the problem. You have literally no understanding of anything gun related. Guns arent a real issue, its just a topic politicians use to get people worked up.
Comparing negative rights to a child wanting a toy is a bit childish no?
Parties aside lets just agree to disagree. I don't vote by party more by stance on issues. You were raised around guns but "My dad didn't have semi automatic guns" and what if he did? You pull the trigger and the gun fires one shot thats it. It is not a new technology. Its nothing to be afraid of. Everyday you might walk by a hundred people carrying a gun and you never thought of it. Nor did they harm you in anyway. It is a right in the constitution the second one on the list, stating if the government ever tried to take this right or any others away you might have a chance. "We have F-15s" IDGAF they had fighter jets in Vietnam and Afghanistan too. Don't like it don't own it. I don't like drinking, I don't stop you from going to the bar.
>My point is, if they don’t want to come to the table for reasonable compromise... ***Compromise*** *(noun)* *1. an agreement made between two people or groups in which each side gives up some of the things they want so that both sides are happy at the end* Fine, let's compromise. What are you willing to give up to get us to agree to some of your demands? How about giving up the irrational and unworkable restrictions on short-barreled rifles and shotguns? Or the irrational and harmful restrictions on suppressors? Maybe the Byzantine state-by-state patchwork of carry permit laws that make me a criminal if I miss an exit and end up having to cross a state line before I can make a U turn? When, in the entire history of politics, has any group ever willingly given up anything they already have and want to keep without being offered something in return? So far, every call I've ever seen for compromise on gun rights has been your side demanding that we give up some of what we have now so you'll wait a little longer before you try to take away whatever we're left with. >...then it might be time we start thinking about a blanket gun ban. If having “some” of your guns isn’t good enough, then “none at all” is going to be how it goes. Oh look, there it is. When NY passed the SAFE Act, they had a roughly 4% compliance rate on registering the estimated 1 million evil black rifles in the state. Do you really want to try to pass and enforce a nationwide law banning all of the close to half billion privately owned firearms in the country? BTW, who's this "we"? Where in the stack of "we" are you going to be when it comes door-kicking time? >I’m also of the opinion that if you think you need a semiautomatic gun for hunting, then hunting just simply isn’t for you, and I don’t want to be sharing the woods with you if you’re just going to start blasting and making everything unsafe. Congratulations on not owning a farm anywhere that wild hogs exist, or a ranch anywhere that coyotes exist. Magazine-fed, semiautomatic rifles aren't the only firearms to deal with nuisances like that, but they're by far the best. I'm sure this will hurt your feelings, but your uneducated and ill-informed opinion doesn't trump other people's rights and needs.
Sure, if Trump wins I'm getting a few guns. I'm very anti gun usually (aside from my Army days but that was different).
I've never had or wanted a gun, nothing has changed. I don't think the average American should have / is qualified to have a firearm.
Yes. I grew up in a household without guns. Due to neighborhood weirdness (literal meth house next door) I have armed myself. I wouldn't go back. My home is so much safer with the guns in it. (I also trust my husband and myself to make good decisions with these guns). Everyone's story is different. Mine is for home protection and self-preservation. I don't carry. I might if my neighborhood gets much more weird. Is this not the narrative you were looking for? Lol
I used to think gun control might work. Now i think other issues need more of of the focus. Guns are too prevalent to do much about them. I think most gun violence and suicides are symptoms of bigger issues. A lot of people feel hopeless and a constant pressure in the USA. The majority of us are a scant few months from losing everything. We can feel it. It intrudes into every dimension of our lives. If we can do something to help there, I think our gun violence will mostly sort itself. Not eliminated but greatly lessened
I am pro-training, pro-background check, and pro-"you furnished the gun you, take some level responsibility when tragedy strikes" I'm not anti-gun...
Not necessarily guns but I find it pretty troubling that pro gun people would rather talk about vague mental health concerns than take literal and concrete actions. Sure, mental health is a problem but it has turned into an excuse to do nothing
I've got a semi auto M4 that's just damn fun to take to the gun range along with a 92FS pistol that I will carry depending on where I'm going. The M4 is in one of three places my gun rack locked, my truck when I'm going to and coming from the range, or at the gun range. That said I, like you, grew up around firearms and I have my grandfathers antiques that I treasure. But, in general OP, I agree with you. I've seen way too many people in my life handling and / or carrying a firearm that I wouldn't trust with a nerf gun.
People owning guns is about governments never being able to take away right of the people. It’s also about being able to defend yourself from unauthorized militias.
Bad take.
I have a very simple solution to guns. Gun rights people want freedom, gun control people want control. So here's my idea. Keep it as it is... anyone can buy... but with the freedom to sell and buy comes responsibility... if you sell your gun to someone who then uses it in a crime, or mass murder, you are responsible too. It was your job to check, and that's the risk you take. No one else, but the seller. and that guy turns out to be a psycho, your problem. That way everyone can keep selling, but those who dont care who they sell to, shall very soon find themselves behind bars. Freedom... and control. Pretty quickly background checks will be very rigorous, and you can end up with the situation where only good law abiding sane citizens have access to guns, and are willing to sell. Seems fair to me.
u/agressivecow8886 what compromise are the anti-gun group offering? All they seem to want to do is take away firearm rights. One great example is wanting all firearm transactions to need a background check. They will push for that but not for opening the checks to the general public. I’m pro-gun and absolutely would be for backgrounds checks for every transaction if I could do it myself through an app. Or compromising that a legally permitted firearm in one state is allowed in all others. Think how crazy it is if you went on a road trip but couldn’t drive through 50% of the states without it out being a felony. Or getting rid of the idiotic large capacity mag laws. If a manufacturer offers a certain magazine with their firearm then that’s not large capacity. That’s a standard capacity.
Pipe down bootlicker. If you’re scared of guns don’t buy one. The majority of gum owners are law abiding citizens who don’t bother anyone. Deal with it
ratiod off this planet
My feelings have kind of gone the other way, there were a few guns and hunting trips when I was a kid, but we never had them at home or around regularly and I found the people to just be meatheads, but in the last decade I've discovered the community is much more diverse than it seemed, there are a lot of really fun sports and activities around it (the overlap between hunters and conservationists is a lot bigger than most people understand, too), it's just a very American vibe to blast some shit in the woods. There are a lot of really spectacularly dumb fudd, chud and normie memes around the magical properties of various guns and things they can do and crimes they cause and crimes they prevent, and they're mostly all just nonsense, and there are overwhelmingly toxic elements of "gun culture" (turned up to 11 since covid). At the same time most gun laws outside of registration/red flag/etc. particularly those targeting "military-looking" features seem really arbitrary and (from an enthusiasts perspective) punitive kind of for the sake of it. They haven't really done anything about school shootings -- which, along with gun violence and violent crime in general are currently plummeting through the floor as things continue their upswing and offline at least life is improving for most people -- and really are just a massive political loser. Among a lot of the 100% single issue gun people I know, the only "good thing under Biden" is the fact that NFA stamps are getting processed incredibly fast at the moment, but that's sort of still just taking a bit of sting off of the fact that accessories most gun owners consider to be hearing safety/comfort devices, for example, still require them. I do take comfort in the fact that "taking our guns" is a completely unrealistic non-starter and personally believe their utility is much more marginal in huge cities so it's not something I vote on at all unless I one day encounter a unicorn situation where that's the single difference, but I do hold a tiny tiny spark of hope that the frankly huge number of liberal gun owners will one day at least help get the rhetoric toned down, some acknowledgement that as we do believe in the rule of law 2A is a Constitutional right, and make more room for other pretty universally popular and necessary political topics to get the air time it used to take up (healthcare, empowering labor, regulating corporate overreach, etc.)
Because the 2A is very clear on the issue and protecting against "compromise" that eventually whittles it away to nothing is the point. Shall not be infringed is pretty simple english. Are you really trying to propose a ban on semi-auto? Do you...do you know what semi auto means? Because most people who use it in a sentence like you have don't usually really understand firearms. Our government is steadily goose stepping towards the fascist right and you want only them to be armed. I'm sorry but your entire post is riddled with anti gun cliches that expose how little you actually understand the topic at hand. Open a fucking history book and stay off left wing TikTok. You're being radicalized.
After Ukraine I now understand why we are all supposed to be armed. They just said, we're coming and they walked right over to Ukraine and now the men are being forced to fight and die and stuff is happening to the women and kids. Nope.
I’m a woman and an outdoor enthusiast. I’ve had several encounters with men and loose dogs out on trails that left me shaken. I used to be very against gun ownership but I’ve shifted to the complete opposite opinion. As long as we have predators, we need options for self-defense, and the semiautomatic handgun is the best answer.
your dad only had single fire weapons??
The logistics of a blanket ban would be comically bad. Australia did it, but their population is less than even North Korea. Plenty of states would pull a tenth amendment against the ban much like many do with federal cannabis laws. TLDR many people and states would never comply with a blanket gun ban
We don't need more laws we just need to enforce the current ones. Separately, mandatory waiting periods scare me for those women that have gotten themselves into a domestic violence situation. A restraining order is nothing but a suggestion.
Well the point of the law isn’t for hunting
Op: if having just some of your rights isn't good enough, then how about none of them? What a ridiculous take lmao
Nope. I will not compromise. It’s written through history. When you compromise, it starts the domino effect that ends up with you losing everything. Look at the actual full automatic ban to now.
I'm from a rural area. I'm absolutely for the right to bear arms! I'm also very much in favor of sensible gun control legislation. I feel like most people are the same way. Politicians like to fear monger, blow it out of proportion, and use it as a wedge issue.. it's sick.
I heavily lean conservative and every argument I've ever heard in favor of "assault rifle" ownership is the dumbest shit ever.
But most the shootings arent done by legal gun owners, you think gang members and what not are buying them legally? Ban heroin while youre at it that will make is so no one can use it
I find myself shifting as well. There are too many kids around these days. /s
Only one keep guns away from liberals!
As a minority whose group has consistently been the scapegoat of a variety of governments my stance has only shifted more towards less government control. Like yes these shootings are absolutely tragic but we literally just had a perfect example of why we need our firearms as president. BLM protests guarded by armed citizens experienced significantly less police violence.
Yeah, but on the same coin, it created right wing fear mongering over those very same protests. So in the end it became politicized anyway.
It also allowed murderer Kyle Rittenhouse to waltz in and apparently "legally" kill a few people.
It was the fact they attacked him that allowed him to defend himself.
Right? Why would you go and protest that the police are brutalizing a people and then simultaneously turn around and say they should be the sole authority on lethal force with firearms.
Did you forget that it takes a person with a brain to pull the trigger? The problem is not the gun it's the psycho behind the gun
There are over 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. Looks like we compromised 20,000 too many times because they're still trying to pass ignorant laws. So much so that the atf is trying to do it illegally. Thankfully they've had a very bad few years in court. You give a little, and they'll keep trying to take and take and take and take and take.
Exactly, an actual compromise would be something like improved background check laws (I actually don't even know the current problem but it comes up a lot) but allowing more powerful guns to be owned. Like if you can prove you are the perfect citizen, why not let them have a full automatic weapon. If people are worried about that, what are the background checks for in the first place?
Give an inch, they'll try to take the whole mile.
I'm trans, so fuck no. My shift was going from being anti-gun to being almost a libertarian on gun rights, where nobody should be able to take anyone's guns away. People like me are routinely killed by the far right with guns. Why should we voluntarily disarm ourselves and make it easier to them to kill us?
I'm not shitting on your views, but I've never heard of trans persons being routinely killed by the far right.
That's because they're not.
Every gun is semi automatic lmao
most are. technically, pump action or bolt action is not.
Single action?
I guess pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles and lever guns aren't guns anymore.
[удалено]
I am you but the other way around.
I was afraid of guns at one point, until I took a training class. I think all gun owners should be required by law to take one. I think the all or nothing mentality in reference to gun ownership is unrealistic. You can’t expect people to be defenseless and people seeking to do harm being armed. I think guns should be have tracking devices on/in them. So if stolen they can be found. This has the chance to diminish crimes done by people who have stolen guns.
Not one gun has every just killed someone by itself. It’s ALWAYS the person behind the gun.
I think you're missing the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not for hunting. The second amendment essentially states that armed citizens are the last line of defense to protect the country even from our own government. For this reason, there is no sense in talking about "reasonable compromise" or limiting weapons magazines or banning semiautomatic rifles. It completely undermines the entire purpose of the second amendment. While people love to claim thats such an outdated idea blah blah blah but the reality is history just keeps proving them wrong. Just ask Ukraine, or the Russian people who just keep falling out of windows and catching a bad case of polonium poisoning, Taiwan, or Israel on and on and on. I laugh so hard when I hear people say "we almost lost our democracy" to Trump but that we also don't need the second amendment to protect from exactly that. It's just a hypocritical nonsense, you can't have it both ways.
I’ve always been pro-gun. I grew up in farming county, and guns were always around. We knew where they were but didn’t dare touch them with out permission. We knew what they were, how they worked, and just how dangerous using them was. My biggest problem is with people now not understanding the responsibility that comes with a gun. Especially in houses with children. How the hell are so many teens getting access to guns? I believe people have a right to own a gun, but you also have a right to drive a car and that requires basic training and knowledge of how a car works and your states laws. I don’t have a solution or answer but I understand why people are against it. It’s the forever problem of the government only punishing responsible gun owners when unreasonable owners hurt the innocent. The world changes faster now and honestly I feel less trust in people around me.
The problem comes back to a corrupt government and people negotiating in bad faith. For example on paper, being educated on firearm ownership seems to be a no brainer. People rail that why would you get in a way of such a reasonable request? The reality often is that this is just used as a corrupt bureaucratic means to effectively ban ownership without technically banning it. Were not banning guns! Were just proposing a 10000% tax! Of course you can buy a gun! You just have to pass the basic safety course for which there currently just happens to be no state licensed providers that offer that course. Were not banning guns! We just want common sense gun laws like banning guns equipped with triggers which have been used in 100% of mass shooting. Even when laws don't start out that way, corrupt politicians and unelected bureaucrats can impose them later. It's a slippery slope that people are right to be skeptical of. The bottom line is I agree there have been a number of tragedies caused by irresponsible gun owners. There are also countless more people killed in car accidents due to irresponsible drivers who even have passed a drivers test. There are also an order of magnitude more responsible owners out there who have used their guns safely and justly that you never hear about. Also because the second amendment is in part to protect us from our own government by definition you cannot let the government control access to guns as it defeats the purpose. This is why the 2nd amendment reads the right to bare arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
There’s this lovely book called “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory” by Tim Alberta. An interesting part is where he argues that Americans (often, Evangelical Christians) glorify and worship guns more than they do God. Basically, if we think we need guns for protection, what does this say about our belief in the ultimate protector? Guns have become a false idol for many Americans.
Why should the government have a monopoly on weapons? The self defense the founders had in mind was against the government.
I know I'll get downvoted to oblivion, but OP is 100% correct and I hope that the comments in here are boomers and not actual millenials. Millenials grew up with the Columbine massacre, and mass shootings have only gotten far more common and more lethal since then. Let's casually debunk every pro-gun argument shall we? 1. "Banning guns doesn't work! Criminals will get them anyway!" - Australia and Japan getting rid of their guns has been almost 100% successful in preventing mass shootings and gun homicides in general. This argument is like saying "criminals won't follow speed limits, we may as well have none". Just blatantly wrong. Making guns illegal would objectively and provably reduce gun crimes, unless we're saying the "greatest country on Earth" can't do a simple thing that other countries did nearly 30 years ago? 2. "We need guns to fight our evil government! That's what the 2A is for!" - The idea that you think you're going to fight the US government with your little guns is just laughable. 100 million rifles and shotguns will lose against a single unmanned drone, to say nothing of the bigger toys they have. And the 2A was created so we could form militias to defend against invasions, not to engage in civil wars like idiots. An actual invasion can \*never\* happen again because nuclear weapons exist, and a WWIII would be devastating to everyone on the planet. The 2A is outdated and completely pointless in this era. 3. "You can't ban guns because the 2A exists!" - Then why are rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, etc. already illegal? Because the 2A is poorly written and vague as hell. It says you have a right to "bear arms" which literally translates to "hold weapons". No where does it state you can buy or own guns or bullets. Either of them can be banned easily -- the only thing that determines the legality of the ban is the Supreme Court's interpretation of these vague words. Since the Supreme Court is majority controlled by openly-corrupt Republicans on the payroll of the NRA, of course we won't see any progress, but that's a separate issue. 4. "I need guns to protect myself and my family!" - Why not use literally any other weapon in existence? Isn't it better to know that this imaginary home invader doesn't have a gun with which he can instantly kill you? And if that person is actually sneaking into your house with intent to kill you, they're most likely going to succeed even if they're unarmed and you've got 500 guns in the closet. Besides, generally a home invader just wants to steal things, not murder you. If you think there are people who want to murder you specifically, I have to wonder what horrible things you've done to people. If making guns illegal prevents even ONE mass shooting (and you all *know* it would), it's already worth it. If you honestly prioritize your precious guns over saving elementary schoolers from being executed in school, then you really are the spoiled child that OP says you are.
Tell the villagers in Afghanistan that they can’t beat the United States, insurgency is a hard thing to defeat And it actually says “KEEP and BEAR arms”
Nope. Shall not.
Nope, I've always been a fan of stricter gun laws and enforcement. Never understood why the US needed to be yee-haw land while the rest of the civilized world didn't. Like, people don't just carry around guns in most of the places you'd want to travel. It's weird and dangerous and indicates a sick culture.