Gun control in the US

[Fraudornot]

With the assassination of Charlie Kirk looking like it’s been carried out by someone probably suffering from mental health issues with access to guns, why are Americans so unwilling to address gun control. I would love to hear from Americans to know why there is the reluctance.

Just to give further context to the gun position in the US:

many states have a “stand your ground” defence. Which basically means that if you hear an intruder in your home you can get up, grab your gun and shoot them. Stand your ground is the defence. It’s completely disproportionate to the idea of self defence that we have, where you need to be under real threat of harm from the intruder.

secondly the gun lobby is extremely well organised and is constantly making representations about legislation that it thinks will impact the right to bear arms. I listened to a podcast (higher learning but sorry I can’t recall the episode title or number) which gave examples of the types of laws they had lobbied against because they believed they could limit gun laws. For many it was hard to see the connection between guns and the legislation. In many it was just a case that “rights” would be limited.

I do not see an answer. The only thing I can see working is that the US loses their economic and social power in the world. That might make them change. It’s not a country I would ever visit again.

People could still have guns w licences. In the UK you can own a gun, and other places. It just needs to be locked away when not in use.

I appreciate your point about fascism. There ARE a lot of liberals who support guns for that very reason though. The sub r/liberalgunowners exists for a reason.

Your point about mental illnesses : I agree. I find it v uncomfortable when people on MN say trans people should not be allowed guns & transgenderism should be reclassified as a mental illness so they can be disarmed. I am very GC but it feels wrong to take guns from people who may be in danger. Trans hate crimes are exaggerated, but they are at risk : the horrible torture and murder of transman Sam Nordquist this year haunts me since I read about it : Massive TW

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sam_Nordquist&ved=2ahUKEwiIm6OqgtePAxXvUUEAHRLqE64QFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0iMca7579hLqJYg37Afq2J

On drugs, wasn't it Big Pharma who got people hooked on opioids?

Yes, in a photo of a Republican rodeo, I saw cars w stickers saying 'Shoot your local heroin dealer & pedophile'. I know it was a joke, but I do think the mindset that people need to defend themselves violently is ingrained...

Yes, there is a terrible lobby there fir drugs. While the idolisation of Mangione is horrible, I suppose that public reaction also comes in the context of corrupt healthcare companies.

Another irrational example would be the huge fuss over books in school libraries(I don't mean stuff like Gender Queer or Lawn Boy, but ones like I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, The Absolutely True Diary Of A Part-Time Indian, or Judy Blume books)

Yet red US states which challenge these books the most have higher teen pregnancy rates than blue states or Europe & the UK for that matter, who challenge books far less.

Probably at least partly bc of abstinence only programs.

The US continues to act like George III was some hugely evil tyrant. It's a great misrepresentation of history. This book gives a good re-analysis of his interactions w US.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.penguin.co.uk/books/314202/george-iii-by-roberts-andrew/9780141991467&ved=2ahUKEwitgIq1htePAxUISkEAHaHVFtEQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DYdyApQfK5zM75A276SmZ

In the UK, as others have said, gun ownership is perfectly legal but regulated. Why can't similar be done? The existing regulations are clearly inadequate.

My partner and I went to New York once and stayed in an apartment in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It was a great trip but one night a bar fight spilled out of bar not far from the apartment and the of the two guys fighting, one guy was injured and the other dead because they'd shot at each other, they'd shot the glass out of a bus shelter! For me it's why do you want to live in a situation where every volatile drunk in a bar has a gun to solve an argument with! They could killed innocent people on the street in the cross fire.

I would lay in bed at night and frequently hear sirens and wonder if it was more people shooting at each other.

One time we were walking around Brooklyn and went down a street where a group of black guys were stood together and my partner got nervous and said don't look at them in case they think you are looking at them funny and it was unnerving and not because they were black but because you don't know if they have guns in their waistbands or the gloveboxes of the cars they were leaning on that they might suddenly pull out on you if they think you shouldn't be there.

It's a weird thing for non Americans to get our heads around because we never have that worry about in our societies. It gets me that not only do American parents have to worry about school shootings, shooters can still walk into schools there - after Dunblane we not only tightened up gun laws but schools were secured when kids are on the premises and nobody can just walk in.

I never get the "we need good guys with guns to shoot the bad guys" stance because in America that's never been the reality! Bad guys with guns do unrestricted damage without a good guy doing anything to stop it.

My (American) relatives who have guns believe they are very valuable for personal protection. If they were assaulted in their car or in their homes, especially. They are thinking about a lone assailant, a carjacker, mugger or burglar type person.

Sometimes there is talk about guns being fun (shooting targets is 'fun'). Some have strong 2nd amendment opinions, but I would say most just have safety worries.

My uncle grew up hunting and used to hunt with gun for sport/meat. I feel sure he's still got a gun for home protection. But he's also worried about guns being used in angry shootings and is sympathetic to having some gun control, such as saying felons must not have free access. He carries a gun when he's out rock prospecting in the desert in case Coyotes (people smugglers) tried to rob or hurt him.

On The Sloth running club Facebook pg (very slow runners! mostly female), there are regular threads where women talking about ways to safely carry a small loaded gun for their protection while out on a run. They see it as essential safety equipment.

I'm not aware that ANY of these people (relatives or the sloth runners) has ever pulled their gun out for protection against other humans. But they are still convinced that a gun is essential safety equipment and they would be willing to at least threaten to fire it at someone.

ps: I think in some states, guns have to be locked when at home, eg. California. Or you can be prosecuted anyway if children are in the house (not just your own kids, visiting kids too) and guns aren't locked up. Similar to UK rules.

My (leftie) California cousins deplored having to ask other parents if they had guns in house & for details about how were the guns locked up before cousins could consent to playdate visit there.

I was thinking along similar lines. If you can't get people to give up their guns and the right to own them there are other things you can do.

Education bout guns, not just learning to shoot but the damage they can do and about how to keep guns safely. Switzerland has virtually 100% gun ownership for adult males. But the culture is totally different.

Gun safes exist in the USA but from what I know (and this is purely based on what I watch on TV) it is law enforcement that use them.

Licencing of guns and gun owners, I know that wouldn't be popular.

Cultures can change and behaviour can be changed. But usually there is something that is the catalyst for that change. I'm thinking about how the gay community reacted to the AIDS crisis.

But for the culture / behaviour around guns, well Cleveland didn't stop anything, Columbine didn't stop anything, Sandy Hook didn't stop anything.

I get the sense from your posts you’re quite authoritarian. I disagree fundamentally with your approach - you want to force people into compliance even if they disagree and even if it means rebranding rights as privileges; I’d rather people complied because they believed it was the right thing to do.

I just prefer not to be killed when riding to work by someone who can barely see past the end of their own bonnet.

I operate heavy machinery at work. I am subject to regular assessments, medicals, random drug & alcohol screening etc. This is part of the reason that we have a very good safety record. Yet someone can continue driving a two tonne car into their nineties on the basis of a test they passed when they were 17? Nothing to check that they have kept up to date with changes to traffic laws and no checking that they are still medically fit to drive?

I am rebranding nothing. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It always has been. That's why we don't just hand out licences in cereal boxes (well, Florida may as well), there is some assessment of competence involved.

If you are a competent driver, what have you to fear from retesting?

I don't see it that way. The shooter came from a loving caring background and was persuaded by his father to give himself up despite the threat of execution. I believe he was so sickened by the dialogue and believed students were being brain washed that he decided to take action. Murder is murder but perhaps mental health issues could be a defence.

I honestly think gun licence laws in the UK are not strict enough so I was surprised watching a debate CK had about guns where a man was saying he thought there should be a competency check with gun handling, medical check and a register and CK was totally against this. I didn’t realise they didn’t even have a register or system for a gun licence. But as I said the U.K. needs to do more too currently they only background check the applicant not other adults in the household which I think is wrong.

But you are saying that people should be forced to take a test every ten years after passing? I take it that you don't care because you are cyclist but if you force people to take a test that very few would pass after years of not having driving lessons that make you drive to over the top standards, unemployment rates would be rates catastrophic! Most jobs require a driving license to either get to the job or to drive as part of job? Do you have any clue how difficult it is now getting driving test, your sadistic regime would leave 5 year waiting lists or more. Why would you want to put huge swathes of people out of job? You wouldn't pass a test when you apparently hate cars and don't use them! Did you really not see the drastic consequences of your sadistic idea of a regime? Who pays for all those forced out of jobs to live? You smugly talk about your job but you can say good bye to it if most of the people that work for, run or feed money in to the company can't get to work any more.

Are you suggesting that the majority of drivers in the UK are too incompetent to pass a test? By the way, I passed my driving test with three minors just over a decade ago. I doubt that it has got much more rigorous since. If there are waiting lists then hire more examiners and make sure that the fees cover sufficient remuneration to attract them.

My job is in public transport. So I am part of a system that gets people to work and education regardless of age or ability. If we were a society where driving is the only way to conduct one's daily life then we would be a society that discriminates against people who are too old/too young/too disabled to drive a car. Thankfully this isn't North America and most of the country isn't utterly car-dependent. Our public transport and cycle infrastructure might be imperfect but at least it exists.

Because as I understand Kirk himself said, most Americans accept that there are a number of gun deaths which are an acceptable trade off in return for their freedom to own guns.

It is for Americans to decide where that trade off sits. As it has been for other countries to make their own decisions.

You can judge all you want. It isn't going to change anything. Not having to listen to what the English think they should do is one of the reasons they like the guns...

It is for Americans to decide where that trade off sits.

@PurpleAxe except that's not how it's working in practice, is it? 58% of American adults favour stricter gun controls. So by your logic that is what would happen, if the people decide what happens in their country. In reality decisions are made according to the wishes of corporate lobbyists.

But how would the stricter controls even work? Would it just affect new guns or existing guns that people already own? How do you go about getting the guns away from people without shooting them?

You are being obtuse, it was absolutely clear that I never said most drivers are incompetent! Get down off your high horse and absorb what you are being told. I passed my test 18 years ago avd since then I neither parallel park or reverse around corners but I would be expected to nail it if a sadist like you forced me into a test! My partner last took his test 34 years ago. There's a big difference between you passing a test ten years ago and suddenly forcing people who last took a test 30, 40, 50 years ago. You may not be able to pass a test yourself, that's you out of a job of you fail. The country would collapse under such a moronic regime because would it put di many out of jobs! Do you think the NHS could sustain losing vasy swathes of staff - my partner is NHS and it would impact his hospital department badly if his driving licence was removed let alone licences of his team mates. Why do you need mass unemployment and many years waiting lists for tests fir people that of absolutely no concern! What are you winning? Losing your job and the functioning of a lot of the country! You are a turkey voting for Christmas! Nobody that drives a long time drives like a learner!

You talk about funding examiners, where ys the funding for the huge amount of the country you'd put out of a job including yourself if you failed a test because you aren't a learner that's had months with an instructor doing all the really pedantic stuff that's just to pass the test. Why do you want to talk many million livelihoods away and push the UK in to severe poverty!

Why do you need such a crazy extreme measure rather than just assessing elderly drivers to make sure their reactions and eyesight are fine? You think this country can afford to have a huge amount of needing benefits to live on because they lost licence that would take years to get back! The country would be on its needs! You want kids to lose their education because teachers who did nothing wrong suddenly can't drive to work! You are demented!

Just how kirk would have wanted it. Fitting.

Anyone who thinks that killing someone is the solution to disagreement is, by definition, mentally ill.

You'd phase it in, wouldn't you. And yes, we can start with testing over 70s instead of relying on a self-declaration.

If your skills/knowledge aren't as sharp as they once were then book some refresher lessons or revise the Highway Code. At the very least having people redo their theory test will ensure that they are up-to-date on changes to traffic law. You may well think that you are a perfectly competent driver who just wouldn't satisfy a "pedantic" examiner, but judging by the number of people who speed, pull out without looking properly and don't give enough room to vulnerable road users it's a pretty good bet that there's room for improvement somewhere. I still haven't forgotten the thread where the OP complained about the new rule to give way to pedestrians at side streets because she couldn't possibly stop before turning if the street wasn't clear. She probably thought herself a competent driver too.