View Topic

I don't think this quite fits in the America is Collapsing thread, and this would be a thread just about this topic.

So: Gun Control. The major topic in American news right now. It almost feels like the only one. I don't know how much those not in America know about the subject, so I'll put this link to the story that brought lots of attention to gun control laws.

If anyone wants to give their opinion or give some interesting information they have on the subject, feel free. I mainly just want to get more info and perspectives on the issue to decide what I believe should be done. Here's my "rant" on my current opinion:

rant

Sometimes I wish people would shut up about gun control until they learned enough to know what they're talking about. I don't think I have enough info on the subject to know what exactly should be done, but at least I know to stay away from arguing about the issue I don't know enough on. If I do discuss it, it's to get more info and more perspectives to consider. It seems that most people discussing gun control are ignorant and just think "ban all guns," or some slightly less severe extreme is the answer. Or they think raising the age minimum is the best idea because nobody over 21 committed a mass shooting ever. After learning more about what different types of guns are used for, I think those companies that stopped selling assault weapon altogether are being ignorant, and that the guns that should be banned should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Something needs to change. Whether that's more gun control, our mental health system, or there should be more background tests, or that crime in school should be reported to police and put on their record so that background tests actually tell you something about the person.

In that Florida school shooting that started all this gun control talk, there were many things that tell us that that shooting shouldn't have happened in the first place. That school had a policy where crimes done at school didn't have to be reported to the police. The kid who committed the shooting committed assault 2 times before then, and the police weren't notified; he was just punished by the school; probably suspended. Just a slap on the wrist and some days off of school. This was instead of being put in jail, the assault charges put on his record so that he couldn't have got that gun in the first place. And I haven't even mentioned the ignored calls and reports of the kid's YouTube comments about wanting to be a school shooter. This kid obviously needed mental health, and he never got that, and look what resulted. Guns certainly aren't the only problem, and in this case the major problems were from before he even got that gun.

Another hot topic in this debate is bump stocks. The news just tells you that they basically just turn any gun automatic. That's not the full story; they make semi-automatic weapons shoot faster because the shooting action is done by the shoulder pushing the stock, rather than the trigger being pressed. The stock uses the recoil of firing the gun to push the stock into your shoulder, which makes it shoot again, and this repeats and therefore makes the gun shoot faster. Although this does not make it automatic, it does make it shoot considerably faster, and I’d have to know more to decide if I think these should be on the market.

Now back to the extreme solutions of banning guns, or raising the age minimum from 18 to 21, or even just banning certain gun categories. I seriously doubt these things would work well. Illegal narcotics are illegal, but does that stop people from getting, using, and selling them? The Prohibition Era was a complete fail that almost led to more alcohol use than before the Prohibition Era. Organized crime went up, and speakeasies sold alcohol across the country. I don’t expect guns would be much different, even if it’s less extreme than just outright banning them (which wouldn’t happen). And raising the minimum age for buying a gun isn’t going to stop school shootings, and I just don’t think it’s that great of an idea overall.

   There are many schools with policies that don’t allow or don’t require them to report to the police when something illegal happens at school. They can just give them a detention or suspend them, and that doesn’t solve anything. This prevents stuff from getting on people’s permanent records. And then improving background checks won’t do anything because there’s nothing in their background because teachers couldn’t, or weren’t required to, notify the police that a student did something illegal. Now they can get some assault weapon and a bump stock and go shoot people wherever they’d like. This also kind of relates to our mental health system. Lots of schools don’t have any kind of program or anything to deal with students with mental illness / mental insanity. Those students need help, and without them, they could end up as horrible people later in their lives, and may commit mass murder. Their brains are somehow just messed up enough that they can’t possibly comprehend why what they did was wrong. This is why they should have had help in the first place, and then they wouldn’t even feel the desire to purchase a gun like that, or to use a gun on people. There are warning signs that someone is mentally insane, and someone needs to listen to them. There were many warning signs that that kid in Florida was going to do something terrible, and those signs were reported to the school. Nobody acted on that information.

   Okay. I’m done ranting. It’s not something I do in Wintreath often, but I guess this issue got me concerned enough that I felt the need to. Thanks to anyone who has read thus far. This was my current take on this issue, and anyone has the right to disagree.

I just wish that more people would give serious thought into this rather than just blame guns and only guns, and just go with what other people are saying because of bandwagon.

I'm pretty Liberal, generally, and I do not see how American Gun Control would work the way people want it to. If I recall correctly, the number of lives saved by private gun ownership, according to the CDC I believe, was somewhere between half a million to 3 million lives. Contrast that to the less than 35000 people killed and injured by guns yearly on average and I do not see how the type of gun control people seem to want would benefit society the way people imagine it would.

The following are what I see as the most common counterarguments to the points you made in your "rant" (which IMO wasn't really a rant, it was quite well-written).

counter-rant

Sometimes I wish people would shut up about gun control until they learned enough to know what they're talking about. I don't think I have enough info on the subject to know what exactly should be done, but at least I know to stay away from arguing about the issue I don't know enough on. If I do discuss it, it's to get more info and more perspectives to consider.

While this is true to an extent (there's definitely a lot of ignorance out there), I've also seen people try to shut down and/or dismiss discussion on gun control by getting bogged down in the details and then concluding that people aren't knowledgeable enough about the issue to discuss it.

It seems that most people discussing gun control are ignorant and just think "ban all guns," or some slightly less severe extreme is the answer.

Nobody, except for perhaps some far extremists, appears to be proposing "ban all guns." What people want is for the industry to be more tightly regulated.

You often see people drawing parallels to other Western countries, like Australia, Sweden, etc. that have done the same and suggest that America draw inspiration from such nations for its future. And yet, contrary to what many people seem to think, said countries have not banned guns at all; firearm ownership remains legal, albeit tightly regulated, and the people continue to maintain a strong shooting and hunting culture.

I've only ever seen "ban all guns" come up in the context of a strawman argument, or for fear-mongering in right-wing circles.

Or they think raising the age minimum is the best idea because nobody over 21 committed a mass shooting ever.

Agreed, if you're going to treat people as adults at age 18, then they should be afforded the same rights and privileges.

After learning more about what different types of guns are used for, I think those companies that stopped selling assault weapon altogether are being ignorant, and that the guns that should be banned should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I wouldn't call the companies ignorant; it's the right thing to do in terms of improving their image with the public, at the very least. But there's definitely a lot of silliness in the criteria that has been used to decide which weapons should be banned and which should not.

On the other hand, the assault weapons ban did result in a correlation with a large drop in mass shootings of 6 or more deaths, so there does appear to be merit (though if you bring that number down to 4+ deaths, the drop disappears). Unfortunately, research and funding for studies into gun violence and gun control by the CDC has been effectively banned for over 20 years (I wonder why), so we may never know if there was statistical causation.

Something needs to change. Whether that's our mental health system, or there should be more background tests, or that crime in school should be reported to police and put on their record so that background tests actually tell you something about the person.

In that Florida school shooting that started all this gun control talk, there were many things that tell us that that shooting shouldn't have happened in the first place. That school had a policy where crimes done at school didn't have to be reported to the police. The kid who committed the shooting committed assault 2 times before then, and the police weren't notified; he was just punished by the school; probably suspended. Just a slap on the wrist and some days off of school. This was instead of being put in jail, the assault charges put on his record so that he couldn't have got that gun in the first place. And I haven't even mentioned the ignored calls and reports of the kid's YouTube comments about wanting to be a school shooter. This kid obviously needed mental health, and he never got that, and look what resulted. Guns certainly aren't the only problem, and in this case the major problems were from before he even got that gun.

All of this is very true. However, it's also important to remember that, even if the issues are related to mental health and lack of adequate investigation, guns still play a large and important aspect. Had the shooter not had a gun (say, perhaps, a knife instead), or even a less deadly gun, he would have done far less damage. And making some guns illegal and/or others more tightly regulated can hinder criminals from obtaining the guns, and the consequences for possessing them for nefarious purposes more severe, which often can make it not worth the effort to obtain them even if they could if they tried.

Then factor in the public health issue, from accidents to suicides, and the motivation for some safety measures regarding firearms becomes even more apparent. (In the case of suicides: we know that people who attempt suicide often later regret it. While people can obviously commit suicide by other means, something that is as instantly fatal as a gun makes such results far less likely.) And again, the CDC is basically not allowed to investigate this issue, which is unfortunate, since such research could allow us to implement evidence-based measures that actually work.

It's possible to discuss different areas of the same issue at once. Lack of adequate care for mental health and other similar points do not dismiss the points being made about gun violence and gun control.

Another hot topic in this debate is bump stocks. The news just tells you that they basically just turn any gun automatic. That's not the full story; they make semi-automatic weapons shoot faster because the shooting action is done by the shoulder pushing the stock, rather than the trigger being pressed. The stock uses the recoil of firing the gun to push the stock into your shoulder, which makes it shoot again, and this repeats and therefore makes the gun shoot faster. Although this does not make it automatic, it does make it shoot considerably faster, and I’d have to know more to decide if I think these should be on the market.

Bump stocks were created with the intent of simulating automatic weapons fire, and consequently, the end result is a rate of fire close to that of an automatic weapon. Bump stocks mimicking automatic fire is their whole point, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that they essentially convert the gun have similar capabilities to automatic weapons. Guns with bump stocks are not automatic weapons by definition, but the end result is similar.

These are the types of counterarguments I referred to earlier that end up not appearing to be counterarguments at all, since it's rooted in technicality.

Now back to the extreme solutions of banning guns, or raising the age minimum from 18 to 21, or even just banning certain gun categories. I seriously doubt these things would work well. Illegal narcotics are illegal, but does that stop people from getting, using, and selling them? The Prohibition Era was a complete fail that almost led to more alcohol use than before the Prohibition Era. Organized crime went up, and speakeasies sold alcohol across the country. I don’t expect guns would be much different, even if it’s less extreme than just outright banning them (which wouldn’t happen). And raising the minimum age for buying a gun isn’t going to stop school shootings, and I just don’t think it’s that great of an idea overall.

Already mostly addressed earlier, with two aspects:

Basically nobody wants to ban all guns, so comparisons with Prohibition are quite exaggerated. Even if that were the case, alcohol is a lot easier to make by yourself, and as such it's much easier to circumvent a ban.

If restrictions and safety regulations are put into place, responsible gun owners can continue their hobby/practice/sport/etc., while petty criminals are greatly deterred from using such dangerous weapons in their crimes. Criminals can certainly get their hands on weapons if they want to (see: the IRA), but the apparent result of greater oversight and regulation of gun ownership is that most criminals will decide that it's not worth the effort and/or potential consequences.

That said, there is an interesting comparison to be made with Prohibition regarding culture. Alcohol and guns are both core parts of American culture, and while alcohol is definitely much more widespread, trying to regulate either is incredibly difficult, as laws don't suddenly change culture. (As I've said earlier, many countries have tight restrictions yet also a vibrant gun culture, so it's certainly possible, but in America, it would certainly be very difficult.)

There are many schools with policies that don’t allow or don’t require them to report to the police when something illegal happens at school. They can just give them a detention or suspend them, and that doesn’t solve anything. This prevents stuff from getting on people’s permanent records. And then improving background checks won’t do anything because there’s nothing in their background because teachers couldn’t, or weren’t required to, notify the police that a student did something illegal. Now they can get some assault weapon and a bump stock and go shoot people wherever they’d like. This also kind of relates to our mental health system. Lots of schools don’t have any kind of program or anything to deal with students with mental illness / mental insanity. Those students need help, and without them, they could end up as horrible people later in their lives, and may commit mass murder. Their brains are somehow just messed up enough that they can’t possibly comprehend why what they did was wrong. This is why they should have had help in the first place, and then they wouldn’t even feel the desire to purchase a gun like that, or to use a gun on people. There are warning signs that someone is mentally insane, and someone needs to listen to them. There were many warning signs that that kid in Florida was going to do something terrible, and those signs were reported to the school. Nobody acted on that information.

Yep, reform is definitely needed there. But, as said earlier, it's possible to confront the problem from different avenues at the same time. The state of mental health in America definitely needs work, but perhaps so does are approach to guns.

I just wish that more people would give serious thought into this rather than just blame guns and only guns, and just go with what other people are saying because of bandwagon.

Again, I'm not seeing either of those happening, except as a caricature of what people are saying. There's certainly a problem of ignorance, but most if not all people I've talked to have a far more nuanced view of the subject than simply bandwagoning against guns.

I'm pretty Liberal, generally, and I do not see how American Gun Control would work the way people want it to. If I recall correctly, the number of lives saved by private gun ownership, according to the CDC I believe, was somewhere between half a million to 3 million lives. Contrast that to the less than 35000 people killed and injured by guns yearly on average and I do not see how the type of gun control people seem to want would benefit society the way people imagine it would.

I've seen this study heavily criticized for its methodology. Said study was performed by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, under CDC funding, in the 1990s, so it's already likely out of date (especially considering that violent crime has gone down since then). It was based on telephone surveys, extrapolates a rare event (self-defense using a firearm) reported by a little over 1% of respondents, to the 200-million US population at the time. The question they asked respondents was also poorly made, as most of the studies asked "have you ever?" while the report assumed a time period of 5 years when calculating the rate. They also did not define what counted as self-defense, so reports of actual effective use of firearms for self-defense may be quite exaggerated.

On the other hand, a 2010 study reported "only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm," according to FBI reports, compared to over 8000 criminal firearm homicides.

Edit: decided to spoiler most of my response, much as Mathy did

But what you advocate for is a practical ban on guns. You are right, in Australia they did not ban all guns. What they did was effectively ban all guns by making gun ownership nearly impossible except for certain cases and making the type of gun you could own very limited. And, frankly speaking, I can understand why people would see it as basically banning all guns. And you are wrong that no one calls for the banning of all guns. Heck, calls from the media to repeal the 2nd Amendment are increasing exponentially. So there are most certainly people calling for a ban on guns.

I think the point that Mathy was making was that uninformed people are using ridiculous arguments in an effort to drum up support. The gun show loophole? Does not exist. Private sale loophole? Only exists in several states and therefore not something that can be fixed federally. The 2nd Amendment was never intended for the people to bear arms? Absolutely and provably false. Yet you see arguments like this used all the time.

And lastly, forgive me, but I find it very intellectually disingenuous when people (not you personally tau) argue that the police is corrupt, the government is corrupt, politicians are corrupt and then turn around and say that the right to keep arms, the only way that a population could even conceivably defend themselves from a tyrannical government, must be taken away for the common good. That pisses me off as well and I'm only tangentially connected to the US.

P.S to your point on that article you pointed out, I was trying to illustrate that the number of people saved by firearms is still high. The figure I was quoting may have been inaccurate, I would give you that, but then look at the figure you provided from that article. While yes, there were only 230 justifiable homicides in self defense something else in that article still illustrates my point.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740

Still higher than the number of people injured and killed by firearms annually.

Let's be realistic...some people with guns aren't going to fight off the US military if it came to that. The best defense against tyrannical government in the modern age are educated and involved Citizens who respect our democratic institutions...institutions that have increasingly come under attack in America and throughout the world, but that's another topic.

I don't even think gun control is that controversial an issue by itself, as most polls show a majority of people are for it in some form, even if there's not as much agreement on what form it should take. I think what's happened is that it's become part of the political game the country is embroiled in, where compromise would mean giving in to 'the other side', which is usually portrayed as somewhere between unpatriotic and unholy. But in fairness, that's basically all political issues these days.

So I don't expect anything productive to happen on this anytime soon, unless it's on a state or local level, but I do think there needs to be serious and objective study of the issue. Why is it that mass killings have become so much more common in America than the rest of the developed world? Is it ease of access to guns? Is it our mental health system? Is it our culture? Is it because they can get their name out there when the media covers it? What motivates these people? What we need in our gun control debates is objectivity and reason, not hyperbole and emotion.

I'd like to see someone try to fight an M1 Abrams with an AR-15.

But what you advocate for is a practical ban on guns. You are right, in Australia they did not ban all guns. What they did was effectively ban all guns by making gun ownership nearly impossible except for certain cases and making the type of gun you could own very limited. And, frankly speaking, I can understand why people would see it as basically banning all guns.

You may notice that I said that you often see people drawing parallels. So first off, not me personally.

But second, copying other countries' model in America is obviously a recipe for disaster, with American gun culture being such a unique case. Yet there may still be lessons that could possibly be learned from how other countries have dealt with the gun issue, such as firearm license systems (which could potentially allow people to bypass annoying things like repeated yet ineffective background checks) and the like.

And you are wrong that no one calls for the banning of all guns. Heck, calls from the media to repeal the 2nd Amendment are increasing exponentially. So there are most certainly people calling for a ban on guns.

The 2nd Amendment prohibits the infringement on the right to bear arms. It's a negative right; it's not the law allowing Americans to have guns, it simply prohibits a law from being made that conflicts with gun rights. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed (which I doubt would happen any time soon), that's not a ban on guns. It's the removal of the constitutional right to bear arms, which would possibly shift it to a statutory right or a privilege.

Even if the 2nd Amendment disappeared, firearms are definitely not going away. It would definitely open the window up to stricter firearm regulation (as state and local governments would not have to worry as much about a SCOTUS ruling against their favor in proposed laws that currently fall in the gray area of constitutionality), but to suggest that that's an example of an outright ban of all guns is quite misleading.

I think the point that Mathy was making was that uninformed people are using ridiculous arguments in an effort to drum up support.

And I happened to agree with this main point, just not on the specifics...

The gun show loophole? Does not exist.

The gun show loophole is a misnomer, definitely, and an ignorant one at that, but is commonly understood to refer to the private sale loophole.

Private sale loophole? Only exists in several states and therefore not something that can be fixed federally.

According to this website (apologies for linking to a political organization, it was difficult to find a site with the up-to-date numbers on this) nineteen states have implemented some sort of required background checks for at least some private sales. So that's already less than half the states. Furthermore, only nine states require universal background checks for all firearms, and four require permits to buy any firearm, which means that arguably, only thirteen out of the fifty states have the private sale loophole completely closed.

The constitutionality of federal universal background checks is debatable, and it would be up to the courts to determine whether such a policy would be allowed. Nevertheless, in this context, there is still no reason not to work on closing the loophole state by state; even if it cannot be fixed federally, it's an issue that can be addressed.

The 2nd Amendment was never intended for the people to bear arms? Absolutely and provably false. Yet you see arguments like this used all the time.

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is nowhere as near as clear-cut as you seem to be suggesting. Both gun control and gun rights advocates are twisting its words, context, etc. to suit their own purposes.

And lastly, forgive me, but I find it very intellectually disingenuous when people (not you personally tau) argue that the police is corrupt, the government is corrupt, politicians are corrupt and then turn around and say that the right to keep arms, the only way that a population could even conceivably defend themselves from a tyrannical government, must be taken away for the common good. That pisses me off as well and I'm only tangentially connected to the US.

I find it somewhat doubtful that the personal weapons that people currently possess would be of significant use against a modern military, especially the largest and most powerful military in the world.

That said, even with restrictions and regulations on gun ownership, there would still be plenty of guns to go around for opposition to a hypothetical tyranny. Even if we went to the extreme case of, say, requiring all semiautomatic weapons to remain locked in the gun range (which, let's be honest, is not happening in America any time in the foreseeable future), that would still serve as an excellent armory for your new rebel militia.

Furthermore, if people were serious about being vigilant for armed resistance, I'd think that studying guerilla strategy and practicing its tactics would be a far more effective method than simply having guns...

P.S to your point on that article you pointed out, I was trying to illustrate that the number of people saved by firearms is still high.

The unfortunate issue is that the statistic you cited is a rather common NRA talking point. While the number of people saved may still be high, the figure is still one order of magnitude or more off, and consequently is incredibly misleading. As a result, I felt it important to discuss this point.

The figure I was quoting may have been inaccurate, I would give you that, but then look at the figure you provided from that article. While yes, there were only 230 justifiable homicides in self defense something else in that article still illustrates my point.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740

Still higher than the number of people injured and killed by firearms annually.

Also, my apologies, forgot to also point out another thing:

Contrast that to the less than 35000 people killed and injured by guns yearly on average

These values come from the Gun Violence Archive, from what I can tell, which seems to catalog only incidents that they can verify.

However, the CDC estimates 33,000 annual gun deaths in America, and 81,000 annual injuries.

Now, let's say that those numbers are wrong (which may be possible, given the poor state of gun violence research in America), that the number of injuries and deaths are actually less than the self-protective behaviors involving guns. An initial analysis might then suggest that, from a utilitarian perspective, guns save more lives and prevent more crimes than they injure or kill, so they're good on the whole. But that ignores whether there actually is causation. Did those guns actually cause potential injuries or deaths to be prevented? Could they have been prevented by other means (e.g. other forms of self-defense, like pepper spray or canes/walking sticks)?

This (both the lack of accurate numbers, and deeper analysis of those numbers) is why, as I said in the earlier post, we need more well-funded and non-partisan research into gun violence, so we can make evidence-based legislation and policy decisions.

Edit: grammar (which is especially important since Mathy is the OP )

I was a police officer for 2 years, admittedly in Singapore but we have access to the same research as most places,  and I was told that the most effective deterrent to crime is not harsh sentences but immediate consequence. And I mean immediate. In a population without private weapon ownership that means there is no immediate consequence to the criminals mind. And pepper spray? Laughably ineffective, hell, the SPF does not even carry pepper spray or mace for patrol officers anymore. A cane? What is a cane going to do against a desperate man with a knife? And as far as I am aware keeping batons and concealable knives on your personage is illegal in most US jurisdictions. Guns are the most effective self defense weapon. That's why, in many countries without an armed population patrol officers do carry firearms.

Let me just quote the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Is the 2nd Amendment a negative right? I absolutely disagree. The way the text is framed, at least in my mind, is that since a well regulated Militia is necessary and thus not something we can do without but something that can very easily turn into a tyrannical force, therefore, the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed by any government. The way it is phrased is, in my mind, clear as day. It basically both guarantees the right of the people the keep guns (hence the whole right of the people to keep and bear arms) but also prevents the government from infringing on that right easily. And this is clearly backed up by statements from the founding fathers of the USA.

Spoiler

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Theres more quotes but I think my point is made on that part.

And personal arms can be of use against a modern military. Look at Vietnam. Look at Korea. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at any civil war ever. Would it be easy? No. Is it impossible? No. Scoffing at what a well armed population can do, even against the US army, ignores all the historical evidence. You absolutely can win against the US army with a basic militia, especially when you are defending your home. Hell, thats how you gained your independence in the first place. You fought against a much larger force, lost many of the important battles and still won.

And let me just add this. What are the chances that a well armed population can defeat a tyrannical government? Debatable but for the sake of argument lets say less than 10 percent. What is the chance that an unarmed population can defeat a tyrannical government on its own? Zero. Zilch. Zip.

Even if we went to the extreme case of, say, requiring all semiautomatic weapons to remain locked in the gun range

You do know that "semi-automatic gun" basically includes everything, right? Almost all handguns, shotguns and rifles would be included. Revolvers, bolt-action, lever-action and pump action could also theoretically be included. Hell, if your definition is wide enough double barreled shotguns count to.

My main problem with most people I see arguing for gun control is ignorance of the facts. Ignorance of what guns are and how they work. Like this 'assault weapons' ban. It really isnt. It bans a select few guns and leaves thousands of identical guns available. Like Gun-Free zones. If the point of gun-free zones where to reduce gun violence why has 92% of mass shootings since 2009 occurred in a gun free zone? Or the panic around AR-15's in the first place. Of the 20 deadliest mass shootings only 8 included Semi-Auto rifles.

Should more research on guns be done? Yes, and I'm happy to yell at politicians on both sides for not allowing this research to go ahead. But if you are going to argue for gun control in specific detail I very much want you to know what you're talking about and people arguing for gun control, as far as I can see, do not.

The difference is, back when muskets were the weapon du jour, we didn't have tanks, helicopter gunships, jet planes - things that cannot be taken down by man-portable firearms of a sort that are legal to own in the first place. If you want people to be able to defend themselves against supposed government tyranny, we need to make ATGMs and SAMs legal for civilian ownership - and if that's deemed excessive, then clearly we think that the underlying purpose of the second amendment is unnecessary, in which case the second amendment itself is unnecessary and should be repealed, just like the eighteenth, for causing more harm than it prevents.

Moreover, if we're purely concerned with the founding fathers, then I say we should re-institute property requirements as a condition of the franchise. Probably also be important to eliminate term limits, since there's no mention of them until FDR. We should rescind the popular election of senators, and instead return them to being appointed by state legislature.
After all, the words of some long-dead guys who lived and participated in a time of widespread slavery are clearly far more important than contemporary concerns, because they were the founders, and clearly the people who invent an institution should forever have only their vision be the one respected throughout the lifespan of said institution.

That is a pretty unfair twist on my argument. First, I was not saying that the country should be based entirely on the founding fathers vision. I was rebutting a point that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be interpreted the way that it was now. 2nd, comparisons to the 18th Amendment are unfair. The 18th Amendment was passed way after the foundation of the country by political forces. If anything, a comparison to the 18th Amendment would help the argument against repealing the 2nd Amendment. Look at what happened when a poorly thought out political amendment was passed. And look what happens when you try and ban something.

The only thing preventing bans on guns, regardless of what is happening now, regardless of what is said now, is the 2nd Amendment. You may well believe that if you repealed the 2nd Amendment then bans on guns would not come. I think that is wishful thinking at best. Of course legislatures across the country would begin to attempt to ban all private ownership. I do not trust that without the 2nd Amendment legal gun ownership would still be protected because of course it will not and to pretend that all the 2nd Amendment does is block any form of reasonable gun control and that this is all the anti gun ownership lobby wants is willful blindness.

And lastly, to your first point, sorry, but no. Evidence suggests that even with a poorly armed force you can still defeat a well trained army. Evidence that is still clear today. The Kurds against ISIS. Afghan insurgents. Iraqi insurgents etc etc. And again, what are the odds that an armed population could defeat a tyrannical force? Low, maybe, I'd argue that it would not be that low, but lets just say it is low. What are the odds that an unarmed population could defeat a dictatorship? None. None at all.

I was a police officer for 2 years, admittedly in Singapore but we have access to the same research as most places,  and I was told that the most effective deterrent to crime is not harsh sentences but immediate consequence. And I mean immediate. In a population without private weapon ownership that means there is no immediate consequence to the criminals mind. And pepper spray? Laughably ineffective, hell, the SPF does not even carry pepper spray or mace for patrol officers anymore. A cane? What is a cane going to do against a desperate man with a knife? And as far as I am aware keeping batons and concealable knives on your personage is illegal in most US jurisdictions. Guns are the most effective self defense weapon. That's why, in many countries without an armed population patrol officers do carry firearms.

And yet, in many countries without an armed population, patrol officers are not armed, except in specific circumstances. Hence why we need more in-depth, rigorous, statistical analysis on what approach works best. (And no, I'm not advocating for disarming American police, that would be stupid.)

You're responding to my calls for scientific research into this subject, which is currently lacking, particularly in the US, by simply dismissing examples of things I said might be good to study more, which wasn't even my point.

Let me just quote the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Is the 2nd Amendment a negative right? I absolutely disagree. The way the text is framed, at least in my mind, is that since a well regulated Militia is necessary and thus not something we can do without but something that can very easily turn into a tyrannical force, therefore, the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed by any government. The way it is phrased is, in my mind, clear as day. It basically both guarantees the right of the people the keep guns (hence the whole right of the people to keep and bear arms) but also prevents the government from infringing on that right easily.

Both negative and positive rights guarantee rights to the people. A negative right differs from a positive right in the way it guarantees those rights. While a negative right requires inaction on the part of the government (e.g. freedom of speech, in which the government cannot take action to suppress speech, among other things), a positive right requires action on the part of the government to provide a good or service (e.g. right to housing, education, legal counsel, etc., which the government must provide if they are guaranteed).

The 2nd Amendment does not obligate the government to do anything proactively. The people are not provided with guns or anything of that sort, but rather the government is forbidden from stopping the people from obtaining guns (except under certain conditions). Which finally brings us back on topic again: if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed, which in all likelihood would not happen, it would simply remove this obligation to inaction on part of the government, not ban guns.

And this is clearly backed up by statements from the founding fathers of the USA.

Much as your statements regarding the 2nd Amendment actually indicate that it is a negative right, not a positive right, so do the statements that you quoted.

Spoiler

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

This is a statement of an ideal, the context of which is calling for people to be trained and ready for military purpose. It is no more a part of the Constitution than FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" proposed in his own SOTU, or Trump's "right to the American Dream" . Hence it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether the 2nd Amendment legally obligates action on part of the government to provide some specific good/service to the people.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

Not only is this a state constitution, but it wasn't even part of the final draft. So while it may be interesting for assessing Jefferson's intent when writing the law, it does nothing to suggest that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is a positive right. If anything, it suggests that Jefferson's intent was the opposite, and that this right was intended to be negative, since all this excerpt does is prohibit the government from taking away arms.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

This discussion, from On Crimes and Punishments, is talking about laws that prohibit carrying guns. Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't do that, nor would repealing it, it's not relevant at all.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Yay, finally, something that actually discusses the Constitution.

Except the first one "right... to be at all times armed" is inherently a negative right, as discussed earlier. And it would seem that Jefferson is working under an entirely different definition of "duty" than we have in modern days, since legal duties in modern constitutions and legislation (e.g. duty to pay taxes, to vote [in compulsory voting places like Australia], etc.) implies an obligation on part of the citizens to be enforced by the government, and we don't see the US government going around arresting or fining people for not being armed.

(Complete aside, but interestingly, there is one place that actually does require this: Svalbard, Norway. Because people need to protect themselves against polar bears.)

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

See above point about how the neither the 2nd Amendment nor its (hypothetical, highly unlikely if not virtually impossible) repeal are about disarming the people.

Also, George Mason was an anti-Federalist, writing this to oppose the adoption of the Constitution. His worry here was that the Constitution could potentially give Congress exclusive control over the military by refusing to fund state militias. This concern is echoed later on in his speech in this debate:
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them..."

The 2nd Amendment fixed this issue by requiring the federal government not infringe on the right to have a militia. However, this is already completely off-track, since our discussion was about whether the 2nd Amendment was a positive or negative right.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Right, because at the time, it was the duty of the people to serve in the militia. Mason's worry was that rich people would be able to opt-out of their service. See the context of these two sentences:
"They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people."

There's two ways to take this: since National Guard service is not compulsory in present-day America, it isn't relevant to modern America. Alternatively, since all able-bodied men age 17-45 are legally part of the "unorganized militia" and could in theory be called up for military service, Mason's concerns are addressed in the present day. Regardless, it has little bearing on the discussion here.

And personal arms can be of use against a modern military. Look at Vietnam. Look at Korea. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. And look at any civil war ever. Would it be easy? No. Is it impossible? No. Scoffing at what a well armed population can do, even against the US army, ignores all the historical evidence. You absolutely can win against the US army with a basic militia, especially when you are defending your home. Hell, thats how you gained your independence in the first place. You fought against a much larger force, lost many of the important battles and still won.

Nearly all of these groups have roots in professional or paraprofessional organizations and had strong backing. The Viet Cong was built up from decades of gradual experience against the French, and was under centralized command of North Vietnam. The Korean War was mostly a conventional war, and the guerillas, while they did have significant impact, were trained and backed by states (including the ROK, US, DPRK, and USSR). Afghan guerrilla forces rose out of the fall of the Taliban government, which had at the time already built up Al-Qaeda to be a formidable force. And much of the Iraqi militant groups have the backing of Al-Qaeda, the US, or the current Iraqi government, and/or are part of the Iran-Saudi proxy conflict. Or if you're talking about the Peshmerga, Kurdish armed resistance traces its lineage back literally thousands of years. The American War of Independence isn't a good example either, since Patriot (and some Loyalist) forces were built from preexisting state militias, many of which already had experience fighting in the Seven Years' War, and likely would have lost had it not been for the French military involvement (first materiel, then actual forces).

There is none of this infrastructure in place for an armed insurrection in modern-day America. Hence why I said that perhaps, people interested in such a potential uprising should be actually training for the possibility.

And let me just add this. What are the chances that a well armed population can defeat a tyrannical government? Debatable but for the sake of argument lets say less than 10 percent. What is the chance that an unarmed population can defeat a tyrannical government on its own? Zero. Zilch. Zip.

Hence why I also pointed out that the people would still be rather well-armed in the event of a possible uprising, even if, theoretically, many gun rights were taken away.

Besides, I already pointed to the IRA as an example of how, even though a lack of guns would deter criminals from using them, it would never stop people who really needed or wanted them from committing to large-scale smuggling operations. This is especially true since successful rebellions typically have outside support, so the guns would start coming in if there were an actual need for an outright civil war in America.

Even if we went to the extreme case of, say, requiring all semiautomatic weapons to remain locked in the gun range

You do know that "semi-automatic gun" basically includes everything, right? Almost all handguns, shotguns and rifles would be included.

Yes, that is why I called it "the extreme case" and said that it "is not happening in America." It was to highlight the point that guns would still be available in the event of an armed insurrection even if extreme restrictions were put into place.

Revolvers, bolt-action, lever-action and pump action could also theoretically be included. Hell, if your definition is wide enough double barreled shotguns count to.

Unlike "assault rifle," semiautomatic has a specific definition within the context of firearms. You could say that it could depend on your definition, but literally anything could depend on your definition of it.

Considering that you then proceed to use the term yourself in the next paragraph of your post, I think both you and I understand that the word has an actual meaning.

Something needs to change. Whether that's our mental health system, or there should be more background tests, or that crime in school should be reported to police and put on their record so that background tests actually tell you something about the person.

[...]

All of this is very true. However, it's also important to remember that, even if the issues are related to mental health and lack of adequate investigation, guns still play a large and important aspect. Had the shooter not had a gun (say, perhaps, a knife instead), or even a less deadly gun, he would have done far less damage. And making some guns illegal and/or others more tightly regulated can hinder criminals from obtaining the guns, and the consequences for possessing them for nefarious purposes more severe, which often can make it not worth the effort to obtain them even if they could if they tried.

I can agree that guns are also an important aspect. I meant to include gun control as part of that list of possible things that should change, and I've edited the OP to reflect that. I think you understood my point that gun control isn't the only problem, but I didn't mean to undervalue the importance of some kind of additional gun regulations.

Although, I would like to point out that, if the shooter wouldn't have had access to a powerful gun, he could have just learned how to make a bomb instead from YouTube or something, which would do just as much damage, if not more. And this would extend to any school shooting. Although I obviously don't know how difficult making a bomb is, I think this is worth considering.

I just wish that more people would give serious thought into this rather than just blame guns and only guns, and just go with what other people are saying because of bandwagon.

Again, I'm not seeing either of those happening, except as a caricature of what people are saying. There's certainly a problem of ignorance, but most if not all people I've talked to have a far more nuanced view of the subject than simply bandwagoning against guns.

I hope you're right about that. I might have been getting the wrong idea from what the news (which I realize isn't usually completely accurate) makes it seem that people think.

And lastly, to your first point, sorry, but no. Evidence suggests that even with a poorly armed force you can still defeat a well trained army. Evidence that is still clear today. The Kurds against ISIS. Afghan insurgents. Iraqi insurgents etc etc. And again, what are the odds that an armed population could defeat a tyrannical force? Low, maybe, I'd argue that it would not be that low, but lets just say it is low. What are the odds that an unarmed population could defeat a dictatorship? None. None at all.

But you're talking about going up against the American military with a militia armed with semi-automatic weapons. That sounds laughable. You're talking about the most powerful military in the world with 1.4 million active personnel, 13.7 thousand aircraft strength, 19 aircraft carriers, 5,800 combat tanks, 41,000 armored fighting vehicles, and you're going to fight them with a militia carrying only legal guns. If the US government became a tyrannical one, and somehow got the military to go along with that, there's nothing a militia could do with those legal guns, even with an extremely large militia.

Is the 2nd Amendment a negative right? I absolutely disagree. The way the text is framed, at least in my mind, is that since a well regulated Militia is necessary and thus not something we can do without but something that can very easily turn into a tyrannical force, therefore, the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed by any government. The way it is phrased is, in my mind, clear as day. It basically both guarantees the right of the people the keep guns (hence the whole right of the people to keep and bear arms) but also prevents the government from infringing on that right easily. And this is clearly backed up by statements from the founding fathers of the USA.

From my understanding of the definition of a negative right, I would say it is. The Second Amendment forbids the government from infringing on Americans' rights to bear arms. If that amendment went away, guns wouldn't be illegal; there would have to be a law made afterward that made that true. I doubt that amendment would ever be repealed anyway, so I don't think this is really worth discussing. There's no way we're getting 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of Congress in both houses to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment any time soon. Whether that amendment is necessary or not, I don't know.

I've thought about this issue a lot.. from more than one angle I think that broad-spectrum gun control will be ultimately ineffective. By this I mean, making new rules that apply to every citizen, the same way that broad-spectrum antibiotics work to kill all bacteria in a body. Since such a law applies to every citizen, it cannot abridge their rights to a degree that would prevent them from obtaining guns with a reasonable degree of ease. This means that any palatable broad-spectrum gun control law will allow mass shooters to obtain firearms.

Such laws, such as banning "Assault Rifles" (I fucking hate how this term is used, btw, but that's another topic), even if 100% effective, will not prevent mass shootings carried out with handguns or bolt-action rifles, which in their spheres are just as effective. In fact, most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, due to the ease with which they are concealed. The same rules apply for moving the purchase age around, even if 100% effective (where's my magic wand when I need it?), they will only stop people under the age of 21 from carrying out mass shootings.

I don't believe in increased mental healthcare as a solution to the problem either. I don't believe you can help someone who does not wish to be helped. In recent mass shootings, the shooter was identified as being disturbed before they carried out their crimes. This data can be used in order to target the individual for additional scrutiny, but I do not believe it can be used in order to reform them.

For these reasons, I believe that any effective control must be targeted. The most sane approach that i've seen so far is Gun Violence Restraining Orders, or GVROs. When under a GVRO, measures are taken against an individual to prevent them from purchasing firearms, and perhaps in extreme case they could have their firearms seized. When thinking GVRO, think restraining order but for guns. Taking one out against an individual doesn't require the same standards of evidence as would detaining them and it can take effect immediately. It only affects people identified by their community as dangerous, and would empower law enforcement and mental health professionals to disarm dangerous individuals while preserving second amendment rights for the general populace.

Well, personally, I feel that infringing on gun rights in the USA might be disastrous. I personally think that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed and that disarming a population would be a horrible idea. But as for gun control specifics, here is what I think.

Universal Background Checks

To buy a gun you pretty much already already need to get a background check. All gun stores are required to have a FFL (Federal Firearms License). To buy a gun from someone with a FFL, you must get a background check with the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) run by the FBI which takes up to 3 days but usually one. Around 90000 applications are blocked by this and of that, after appeals, around 5% of these blocks are overturned. You also need to have some kind of state-provided ID, usually a drivers license. Now, in some states, you can transfer ownership if you are a private citizen to another private citizen. IIRC, about 22% of gun owners have a gun bought from a private seller. However, this also includes antique firearms, transfers from, say, one family member to another and people loaning firearms to one another so that number, 22%, could very well be inflated. Also, buying a firearm from a gun store with the express intention of selling it to another person (called a straw buy, its how guns get into Chicago despite the gun laws) is already very illegal. That being said, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this could well be the single most effective piece of legislation to curb gun violence. I would be in favor of legislation to expand background checks so long as there is a way that people could loan firearms to family members and friends (perhaps needing the consent of the local sheriff).

A slight addendum, the reason that people like Dylan Roof, the Sutherland Spings shooter and others who got guns when they should not have is mostly because local police forces and the FBI fail, either failing to log information that would prohibit people from buying guns or failing with the background checks, mainly the former. A bill, called the Fix NICS Act 2017, is currently being debated. It would close this problem by adding punishments to police forces that fail to log information to the NICS. Republicans support this legislation and it is likely to pass if it came to a vote. Democrats are considering blocking this legislation and that is appalling to me.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Ah, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Lets take a look. I'll just link the Wikipedia page for context, I would advise a bit more research than a Wikipedia page but its a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

First, did it have a noticeable effect on gun crime? No. Why? Less than 1% of gun crime involves the semi-automatic assault style weapons banned in the bill. Even if it did the bill was so laughably poorly worded that finding ways around it was incredibly easy. Boiling it down to its most simple, the AR-15 was banned. Great, right? No more 'assault-style weapons', right? No. Because thousands of guns that do exactly the same thing, fired exactly the same round with exactly the same capacity in exactly the same way that were legal by changing just one or two cosmetic features, like a pistol grip or a barrel shroud. So reviving the Federal Weapons Ban would do absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to lower gun violence, full stop, end of story.

As for the argument that you do not need a AR-15 style rifle at all is untrue. The AR-15 typically fires .223 Remington which is a hunting round. It is pretty accurate and pretty reliable. There are people who use it to hunt. So to say that there is no need for an AR-15 is a bit untrue.

Bump Stocks

Bump stocks have been around since at least 2005, IIRC. Since then, as far as I could find, Bump stocks have been used in just that one incident. Not a single time, as far as I am aware, before Las Vegas were bump stocks used in a crime. Why? Because Bump stocks are actually pretty terrible. Not just in how it works around the effective ban on automatic firearms (I suppose I should be clear, with bump stocks I'm just being devils advocate) but also based on how it operates as a firearm. It's makes a gun incredibly inaccurate because the way the action works, with the entire gun sliding back and forth to an extreme degree, makes staying on target very, very difficult. It's basically spray and pray. That being said, it's current status is untenable. It needs to be regulated, just like regular firearms are at best, perhaps even banned. But it would have an almost non-existent effect on gun violence.


The sad, unfortunate truth of the matter is this, gun control of the extent that is proposed by people like Diane Feinstein would be practically worthless at reducing gun violence.

Saying 'we shouldn't do anything because anything we do will be ineffective' isn't what we should be doing, though. This is an area where there has been a serious policy shortfall, and just sitting on our hands wringing them saying 'but it'll be ineffective' does nothing when something very clearly needs to be done.
I'd rather we did 20 different ineffective things, and tossed them out and did new things when it was clear that these didn't work (or kept them if it did work), than just sat on our hands and vacillated because the possible remedial effect was unclear.
Doing nothing when people are getting killed due to inaction is the worst possible remedy possible, because all it does is say 'look, we're gonna pretend to give a shit, but we don't actually care about how many people get killed because it's much more important that we get to play with guns'.