America's Gun Control

I’m sure a mumsnet thread will convince the American people to give up their guns

@knitnerd90
@newyorker74
@Britinme

Have all replied after your post trying to explain why so many of the solutions that might look simple and common sense from outside are anything but when you actually understand how politics and government and the judiciary and state vs federal laws intersect in the US. I also don't think any of us have offered up 'it's in the constitution' as a justification, but the fact that you can dismiss that so easily shows exactly how little you do understand. Nobody would be happier than me to see the second amendment in the dustbin, but the reality of what it would take to make that happen is the sticking point.

www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/feral-swine/feral-swine-damage

www.hogmanoutdoors.com/blog/whyareferalhogshardtohunt

We cull wild boar in the UK. It doesn't take an AR15.

You're right, they love their guns more than they love their children.

@newyorker74 IIRC Illinois has, or had, fairly strict laws, at least in the city of Chicago... but I'm not sure the suburbs do, and Indiana surely doesn't. New York has strict laws, but Pennsylvania is 90 minutes away, and it doesn't. Patchwork legislation is a big problem when people can travel a short distance to avoid the law, or go to a gun show.

Oh dear not this again.

Keep in mind that several states DID pass strict gun laws, like New York and California.
The supreme court struck them down. So political willpower isn't enough, and the last time the US repealed a constitutional amendment was Prohibition. It's very difficult to do.

It's also extremely revealing if you analyse the statistics. gun violence isn't equally spread, at all. it's regional, racial, and class based. The South has both the highest rates of gun violence and the most permissive laws about guns--and they're a vicious cycle. meanwhile they call New York a hellhole but it's one of the safest cities in America. Even within cities there's massive differences.

Details are so important here. 10 of those 27 were all ratified on the same day. And also at a time when the US consisted of 14 states. Basically the equivalent of Cornwall deciding something and the rest of the UK just going along with it for the rest of time. Also 200 years ago, the debate and people in charge of our systems were very different people - more like the British you might say. This is my whole point. No American/person living in the US on this thread is saying the current situation is good. We aren't even saying it can't be changed. All we are saying is that you need to understand the difference in the way the political system works here to the UK snd that might help people understand why it's not just a matter of changing a law. Chicago is a good example. High level of gun control with a high level of gun crime. Why? Because it's in the state of Illinois which has lower levels of gun control and there is no border to stop guns at the city edge. Another example. New York city voted to ban concealed carry guns from large parts of Manhattan. The gun fanatics took the city to court and got it overturned. Now in this case, NYC got creative (bc it's NYC) and found a law that said guns can't be conceal carried in areas of high security such as airports and times square. So they simply redesignated a massive section of Manhattan as times square. That is already being challenged in court. Two good examples of how federal, local and random laws and regulations prevent those who want to make massive changes from doing them. Not that we don't keep trying.

I lived in Arizona for a while before returning to the UK
ZERO gun control
vile

There are a couple of things which particularly puzzle me in this

The emphasis on schools - bit horrified to hear up thread that this may be a reporting artefact as this will only encourage 'shooters' seeking notoriety and fame.
Surely there's an argument for re-dressing that imbalance and also giving minimal details about the assailant to starve potential 'shooters' of toxic publicity?

The other thing which partly relates to the many non gun-owning Americans who would support some kind of gun control and the uneven distribution of guns in the population is that there is the potential for saturation of gun ownership [notwithstanding gun hoarders who can have 100s of firearms]

I read a few years ago that for this reason new markets were being sought by retailers - particularly among women [cute pink guns wh easily fit in your handbag] and children [cool accessories to impress peers].

Would this be an area to encourage resistance/limit advertising?

Though the xmas photo above maybe suggests that particular horse has already bolted

It's not ignorance about guns that irritates me when British people pontificate about gun control in the US ( and I speak as a British expat). It's ignorance of the way the American Constitution and political system works. Yes of course there should be better methods of control but it just isn't going to happen until you can bring three quarters of fifty separate state legislatures with you, half of which are dominated by Republicans who are unlikely ever to agree to a limitation on gun ownership.

It's been done 27 times in your country's relatively short history so there is clearly a process. Like I don't need to know the minutiae of gutting a fish, i do know it is a process that has been done many times in the past and can be done.
Just because it took 202 years to sort the last one out (limiting congresses power to give themselves pay rises - funny how those in positions of power may want to drag their heels about something like that) doesn't mean other have to take as long - and even if it does, it still gets there in the end.

Probably true, strange as it seems. Because people are born and die. The constitution remains. Americans see it is as if they give up the right to bear arms because of an incident today, they'll lose that right forever. And while it might seem unlikely that the US government turns on the citizens today, in 30, 50, 100 years from now the situation might be very different.

I find it a bit weird that Americans/people who live in America on this thread are saying that people from other countries are too ignorant about guns to comment. Why would the people who live in the country which its peers view as aberrant, and which has evidently failed in safe gun ownership (and fails at it on a daily basis), be the right people to ask about whether guns should be legal? We can all see, looking in, that the system clearly doesn't work as there are dozens of school shootings a year, plus all the other shootings. "It's in the constitution" is archaic and frankly offensive reasoning when so many lives are at stake, and not even internally consistent (given that it's an amendment). It's like living next door to a family who routinely beat each other up, and them telling you not to comment because you don't get their family culture, and they can see things more clearly than you.

But this is the thing.

I genuinely think that even if an American mistakenly, accidentally killed their own child, they would still believe that their right to bear arms should override everything else, including the life of that child.

Guns are essential, humans are dispensable.

They can trot out the 'thoughts and prayers' line but essentially Americans value guns above everything else.

Please explain to the group the process that has to be gone through in order to make an amendment to the constitution. I'll give you a clue. It needs 2/3rds of one thing and 3/4 of another...bonus points if you can tell me how long it took to ratify the 27th amendment.

How would you go about taking the guns from otherwise law-abiding citizens who refuse to give them up? Shoot them? Who would be willing to do this? The local police who have known them for years? The Feds? You'd start a civil war.

Three quarters of states have to vote to ratify any amendments to the Constitution. It's not easy. The Equal Rights Amendment still hasn't been ratified about 60 years after it was drafted.

The language about gun ownership - and I write as someone who doesn't own one and doesn't want one, and I've lived in America for over 20 years - is just silly. I live in Maine where there is a high rate of gun ownership and open carry is legal. I've literally never seen one waved around although I know hunters use them. Our gun death rate is somewhat lower than many other states and I don't believe we've ever had a school shooting.

I'm not denying that there is a problem, but wild exaggeration isn't going to sell the solution to the large majority of responsible owners of legal guns.

Too risky to act as an ‘aggressive’ driver as you have no idea whether the driver next to you at the lights has a gun on the seat next to him.

Wonder how many of these gun on seat drivers have had to brake suddenly, gun gets flung off the seat and goes off accidently and shoots them (ironically) or the kid in the car next to them (sadly more likely)?

There has to be an issue if your back to school essentials include a bullet proof schoolbag

Guns are our right, per the constitution. I’m a responsible gun owner. No more reason for me to give up my guns than there is for you to give up your car.

Under what circumstances would you use your gun?

Not silly at all - no one should have a gun in their hands. You’re not then going to be responsible.

DSil lives in US - told me not to drive like I would in London. Too risky to act as an ‘aggressive’ driver as you have no idea whether the driver next to you at the lights has a gun on the seat next to him.

I do love the argument that the whole gun thing is part of their constitution and as such is unchangeable.

Except it isn't - its an amendment, a change, to their constitution - it's literally right there in the name, the 2nd Amendment rights they love to bang on about.

Are they as keen on all 27 amendments to their constitution?
What about amendment 18?
Or amendment 21? or the fact that amendment 21 repeals 18. 18 was the Prohibition amendment—banning “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.”

So there is precedence for amendments to be overturned or simply brought up to date.

And frankly, unless you are sleeping with your loaded handgun under your pillow it's not going to be much use to you when the fabled bad man breaks into your house in the middle of the night. The likelihood though is you'll just have a bad nights sleep as I imagine they are pretty uncomfortable to sleep on or you'll shoot your spouse when they get up for a piss in the middle of the night. And when you get up your in the morning and your dog jumps on the bed they'll likely shoot you too. And that before you throw kids in the mix.

Like I said.
Silly.
This is a serious topic.

A fucked up country. It's getting to the stage where they'd rather have every school, church, shopping mall, concert venue, you name it, armed to the teeth as a "precaution" like some sort of open air high security prison, rather than tackle the issue of access to assault rifles.

But you know, "Land of the Free" and all that.

I also wonder if ur mind would change if it was ur own child who died. Obviously I would never want anything to happen to anyone .