Not to understand resistance to gun control

[Maggiethecat]

I understand that it serves those with financial interests but cannot understand why Joe Bloggs wouldn't want restrictions on eligibility to carry guns. It's not as if guns are being banned and their freedom is being taken away, it's that there should be reasonable checks carried out.

Are Americans not exhausted by the mass shootings and wonder why this is the only country in the world with such a dismal record?

But honestly, who would take them? So we ban guns. Lovely idea and I’m all for it, if it could actually happen.

Police (and we’ve few enough officers around as it is) would quit en masse. Many service members probably would too. The ones who were left would try but it would basically be Civil War.

And then after the dust settles, all the zillions of illegal guns would come out to play.

Its all well and good to say it and I wish we could. But it won’t pass and there would be no way to do it even if it did.

So we’ll just point fingers at each other and fight amongst ourselves since no one is proposing anything except bans or “more guards with guns”.

@Maggiethecat gun retailers in the US are required to do a background check before making a sale. This killer was subject to a background check because he purchased from a retail store.

Private sales do not require checks and gun shows are also exempt. Most all of the mass violence seems to be committed by people who obtained the weapons legally.
The background checks don’t do much since mostly these are young men who don’t have a prior record.

The gun owners I know (plenty) are in favor of more gun control. It won’t likely happen with the current climate in congress, and I can’t see an end in sight to the lack of cooperation on every topic between the two parties. It’s gotten worse in the last 20 years, not better. We need term limits, campaign finance reform at minimum. The fox is in the henhouse though and they will never vote to limit their own power and longevity.

What do yo mean by “who would take them?” Sorry, may have missed something upthread..

Why would law enforcement quit en-masse? If gun controls are way stricter, then surely law enforcement are at less risk?

Seriously - more robust arguments than this are needed.

If gun regulation is seen as a huge issue, then the US is not seeing the bigger issue. Which is that a significant number want to intimidate people. That’s the basic viewpoint.

It's really not enough to say, more gun control. You have to show that will affect these kinds of incidents in the way you think. There really isn't much reason to think that the kind of measures that are realistic are likely to do so.

In some places specific laws might have an effect on crime based gun violence, but that's a different issue. The tendency to politicize these inscidents by making them all about gun control, way back into the 90s, is largely responsible for embedding them as a social phenomena that will be really difficult to get rid of. It's become a ritual for people who are suicidal and have a certain kind of social anger. Mainly it's benefited the political parties, on both sides, it's a big fundraising topic..

This is the same as gun regulations in many other places like Canada. Lots of peole legallu have guns. You aren't likely to get the US as a whole to adopt policies that go beyond that, and it raises the qiestion, if it's just as easy to obtain a legal gun in other countries, why don't they have similar problems?

If we ban guns, as in make them illegal to have, who is going to go retrieve the hundreds of millions of firearms in the US? Because many won’t give them up willingly.

Most police officers are Republican. Most support the 2nd amendment. Even the ones who don’t are overworked and stressed right now. In one of my roles I work closely with a small PD and I can say with certainty that every one of them would hand in their badge before going into a “responsible gun owner’s” home and removing their gun.

These aren’t arguments, robust or otherwise. It is the way things ARE. Yes it would be fantastic if they weren’t but until someone has an actual PLAN for how any of this would work, it’s just pie in the sky.

I'm in DC just now on holiday and honestly thought there would be so much reaction. Some flags are at half mast and there were two protestors outside the Supreme Court today - one pro choice, one anti, no gun control protests at all. The place is deserted. It's utterly bizarre.

The US is a country of over 300 million people. How many will actually be victims of gun crime? It’s a numbers game. The vast majority will never be impacted so have no reason to care about it as much as other issues.

If we ban guns, as in make them illegal to have, who is going to go retrieve the hundreds of millions of firearms in the US? Because many won’t give them up willingly.

It's not about banning guns, just certain kinds. Gun regulation is not the same as no guns. However, the laws do seem very lax at present compared to many other countries.

I worked on a summer camp at 19. One of the other counsellors my age brought a rifle.

I don't get it. I really don't. But if we all think about our views on Brexit and Covid restrictions - no matter which side of the fence we fall on, I bet all of us have a pretty entrenched opinion that no one is going to be able to change now. Some views are just impossible to change.

Looking at the stats for last year, only 0.4% of people with a gun certificate in England and Wales were 17 and under (17 being an important age, because the oldest school pupils here tend to be that age).

A small percentage of new applications and existing applications were denied. I think that's important. Not only do you have to justify why you need a gun in the UK, if there's concern over someone with a gun, it can be taken away from them.

Stats to March 2021 here, if anyone's interested: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-england-and-wales-april-2020-to-march-2021/statistics-on-firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-england-and-wales-april-2020-to-march-2021

I can see why people in rural parts of the US might want a gun, but if you don't live close enough to the emergency services to expect a timely call out, surely that falls within a good reason to hold a gun. We let people in the UK have a gun if they can justify it, and that reason is good enough. There's no reason why people in the densely populated cities all need one.

I feel safe in London - a city that many people are scared of. Most violence here is gang-related, so if you keep your head down, you're very unlikely to be targeted. I'd feel far less safe if everyone could buy a gun - I mean, you could potentially outrun a knife, but you can't outrun a gun, and you would be more likely to get caught up in someone else's fight. Unrestricted access to guns terrifies me, and it's why I've never been to the US. I just can't understand the mentality that normalises gun ownership.

I did think about an on-site guard, but I read someone post - is this true? - that were was someone with a gun and they didn't protect the children.

I suppose you could put checks on coming into school with weapons, but we're then effectively talking about fencing up schools and putting in metal detectors like in prison. Is that how we want children to be educated? In a prison?

We generally don't let any civilian in the UK have an automatic weapon. What about restricting the type of weapon? Do Americans really need an automatic rifle? I'm no historian, but I don't think those existed at the time of writing their precious constitution.

If Americans have problems with school kids going off the rails - why not raise the age at which they can buy a weapon? 30, maybe? We all know that the educational years - school and uni - are really tough on kids and young adults. Why not make them wait until they're older, and aren't so emotionally volatile?

I read in one of the comments about gun manufacturers not being able to be sued. That sounds insane, and at odds with the general American culture of being able to just sue everyone and anyone. Can't that be overturned? It's not stopping people owning a gun; it's forcing more accountability on the people who make and distribute weapons.

I will admit I just don't understand America. I doubt I'd see their issues with gun crime stamped out in my lifetime.

Do Americans really need an automatic rifle?

Automatic or semi-automatic? There is a difference.

There are tight restrictions on semi-automatic rifles in the UK, by the way, but not a total ban. They have a purpose.

What is their purpose for members of the public?

@saltinesandcoffeecups
Americans have always owned guns. The relatively recent phenomenon of mass shootings is not a result of guns being available, there is something else causing this. Fix that problem (or problems) and gun ownership is irrelevant.

The UK last had a school shooting in 1996. Incidents of even half a dozen people bring killed are incredibly rare, yet in the US they are so common that they don't always make the national news.

The people who who commit crimes with guns are criminals. More gun laws just means more crimes to commit. Shockingly criminals don’t really pay attention to laws. Hence being a criminal. So more laws just makes it harder for law abiding gun owners and does nothing to stop criminals from using, owning, or obtaining guns illegally (See also the justice system failure of not prosecuting gun crimes or dropping gun charges)

Salvador Ramos wasn't a criminal on May 24th. If he hadn't had the opportunity to legally purchase a deadly weapon he may not ever have become a criminal.

Criminals own and use guns. (Refer to #2) as a non criminal my goal is to be as well armed as the person attempting to kill or rape me. Ever hear of the saying‘Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight’?

And yet statistically that gun is far more likely to accidentally maim its owner or one of their friends or relatives (God forbid a child) than it is to be of any use when you're being mugged.

Shooting is quite fun. Shooting is a sport that many people in the world enjoy responsibly. Hunting is both enjoyable (to some) and important to maintain and care for wildlife. I for one would rather see a deer shot humanely than to starve to death.

Plenty of people in the UK hunt, whether that means bagging a few pheasants with a shotgun or deerstalking with a rifle in the Highlands. There are also rifle ranges available for those who enjoy target shooting. We just have rules requiring those who own such weapons to be licenced and store them securely.

I am NOT sorry for the USA as a whole. My empathy has gone - years of “thoughts and prayers”. Years of “it’s not the gun, it’s the person”. Years of “it’s mental health”. Basically, years of crap excuses.

Exactly this.

For those arguing, keep your guns then, the World will just become less sympathetic. Good luck to you.

To be clear this was a person that planned the murder of children. You seem to be just fine saying the gun made him do it. Why is that

If he'd gone into that school with a knife he would have been overpowered much more quickly. Yes children would have died. Maybe 2 or 3. A tragedy for their family and friends. But far less tragedy. And he might have been taken alive and punished for his deeds rather than just being killed and going out in (for him) a blaze of "glory".

I saw a good post on Instagram this morning - lets make boys who want to buy guns run the same gauntlet of young women wanting abortions. It will never happen, will it?

@LifeExperience - do you mind me asking you why you feel the need to be armed up to the wazoo to deal with mountain lions, bears, rattle snakes and coyotes? Perhaps if humans weren't encroaching on their habitats, they would be less likely to be wandering into your back garden for example.
If your son goes hiking, are there no safe trails that he could hike on?

I'm really curious.

Also, as you mention that you're a card carrying member of the NRA, do you think that having access to an AK47 and private individuals owning them is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote at the time:
"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" when the US has possibly the most powerful army, navy, marines and air force on the planet now?

This question goes out to anyone really - finally, as the second amendment is actually just that, an amendment, can't it too be amended???? I mean the amendment bringing in prohibition was amended so why not this one? Is the drinks lobby less or more organised than the gun lobby?

If we ban guns, as in make them illegal to have, who is going to go retrieve the hundreds of millions of firearms in the US? Because many won’t give them up willingly.

@CheerfulYank that's why no one on here has suggested an outright ban. You start by banning the manufacture/import/sale of particular categories of weapon (just like the 1994 ban did, resulting in far fewer massacres). You then bring in a registration system for those who wish to purchase any other type of weapon - all purchases must be registered, even for private sales. You offer an amnesty for anyone who wishes to dispose of old weapons.

It won't stop this sort of thing, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good, it'll gradually reduce the number of these weapons in circulation.

This question goes out to anyone really - finally, as the second amendment is actually just that, an amendment, can't it too be amended????

You need a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to do that.

This.

Not disputing the maths required here to actually effect a change in the constitution...just pointing out that the thing that the card carrying members of the NRA like to spout on about is actually an Amendment to the constitution itself...why are they so adamant in not improving said amendment by say amending it???

What is their purpose for members of the public?

If you are hunting vermin, for example, it is useful to be able to fire several shots as quickly as possible. The need is there, that is why it is allowed for in UK law.

Not disputing the maths required here to actually effect a change in the constitution...just pointing out that the thing that the card carrying members of the NRA like to spout on about is actually an Amendment to the constitution itself...why are they so adamant in not improving said amendment by say amending it???

The NRA do not want to amend the 2nd Amendment!

Barring a swathe of unexpected deaths/resignations from the Supreme Court, there is no chance of significant gun control legislation for a couple of decades. Any attempt to implement it at state or federal level will be chucked out by the SC, as unconstitutional.

There has been a perfect storm. The SC has become of much greater significance in US law-making as Congress has become increasingly polarised. It's virtually impossible to pass any measure that relies on any cross-party co-operation and, for Republicans, voting for even the mildest gun control measure is political suicide.

Meanwhile Democrats have been totally out-played by the Republicans in tilting the SC in their favour. I am furious with Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring while Obama was president. She threw away so much of what she had worked for all her life, by hanging on, meaning that Trump then appointed her successor, who will help to erase RBG's legacy. No doubt she expected Hilary to win, but that was a foolish assumption.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow - how many liberal justices are there on the SC?

Trump's legacy will be long-lasting for sure.

I've said this numerous times on MN already, but here goes -

The US already had a ban on assault weapons in the 90s after Columbine. And guess what, it worked! Mass shooting stopped, Americans had plenty of other guns to hunt and protect themselves with, no civil war, no enormous amounts of cops quitting, etc...

Am I really the only American on MN who remembers the 90s?? You guys are spouting so much paranoia you sound brainwashed.

Also, please, for the love of god stop saying that there is no data on gun violence in the US over the past 20 years to guide Congress on passing common sense reforms while still honoring gun owner rights. That is absolutely incorrect. Google please. My personal favorite is everytown.org, but I'm sure there are others.