Gun Control and Regulations

Of course there are privacy implications. Its a government database, it's inherently vulnerable to political abuse. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it- it's a question of the benefits against the potential costs. What we hope is that gun violence will decline as a result of government oversight on gun ownership- people with a history of violence and other 'red flags' will receive increased scrutiny, and could be denied full exercise of their constitutional rights.

Of course, the other side of this is a serious crackdown on the firearm blackmarket. Most of that originates from gun stores: "...While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that eventually end up in the hands of criminals." So two-pronged approach is necessary: regulate gun ownership on the one hand, and crack down on gun dealers who sell weapons under the counter.

I agree that magazine caps seem to contribute little to the overall goal.

Something I'll note is in the article, there are a couple of things stated that I find interesting. First, that it's illegal to supply someone with a gun who couldn't get it from a gun store. Second, most guns come from their social network, who should know they can't have a gun. Very few of them come from gun stores. This suggests that already in place laws regarding gun stores are working. (At least as in regards those with a criminal record.) And that we need to enforce already existing laws better rather then adding new ones.

Well, I wouldn’t say the background system is working amazingly well considering how many mass shooters and criminals are able to legally purchase guns. Don’t forget as well that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, and in these deaths the gun is most often purchased directly preceding the suicide. There is absolutely room for improvement in our screening system, the whole “just enforce the laws, don’t add new ones” argument is somewhat facetious.

Those are not mutually exclusive options. But I would add that if we documented who has purchased which weapon (the main purpose of regulating ownersbip rather than the guns) that would greatly inhibit selling or giving guns to unregistered people (since the original owner can still be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapon).

X3 Thing is some laws are incredibly difficult to enforce because of the way they work, sure it’s illegal to privately transfer a gun to someone you know can’t buy one, but that doesn’t limit private transfers to banned individuals, because nobody background checks the guy they sell their gun to secondhand at a show.

Gun shop laws do largely work, so utilise that system, require all private transfers to occur at a gun store where a background check can be run, no more selling a semi-automatic out the back of your truck.

I do think uneven enforcement of gun laws is one of our biggest problems (remember the story of sheriffs refusing to enforce them because muh freedom?) especially when there’s a racial component. California’s gun laws were only passed because of racist backlash against the black panthers, after all.

This is probably the gun thread we should use, the other one is more for technical and fun information about guns while this one is for arguing.

Setting Sights on the AR-15: After Las Vegas Shooting, Lawyers Target Gun Companies

Should a gun maker have liability when someone shoots someone else?

Apologies for the necro, but there was some debate about this in the US Politics thread, and I'm posting the last thing about it here:

My point is the right was never meant to apply to black people, who were still slaves when it was written, minorities in general, or LGBT people, who weren't even acknowledged back then. The application of the law hasn't changed in the 2010s. We have seen this with Philando Castille, a gun owner pulled over by a policeman who, after being told by Castille that he had a gun, panicked and immediately thought he was going to shoot him, despite repeated insistence that he was not. Pro-gun politicans and the NRA alike were dead silent on the matter.

The fact of the matter is, the Second Amendment was written for only those who held the most power, and to this day, has only been applied to those who hold the most power. "Keeping the right strong" would not change this in any way.

Stamina: I'm not sure I follow, it feels like you are arguing along the lines of "Murder laws have applied unevenly to whites and blacks through history, therefore there shouldn't be murder laws." There are obvious problems with the analogy, but I hope you get my point. That a right is being applied unevenly isn't an argument against the right, it's an argument for evenly applying the right.

So are you arguing in favor of Democrats engaging in gun advocacy?

I'm arguing against the idea that if we just "keep the rights strong" things will just work out someday.

Even if that did happen, all that'd mean is that we'd be handing out guns like candy to emotionally unstable people of all backgrounds, which is hardly an improvement.

Stamina: ... doesn't that seem like a bit of a False Dichotomy?

Edited by Soban on Jul 4th 2019 at 2:25:15 PM

Your point seems to be that we need to strengthen gun rights, with a specific focus on minorities. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

As I said in the other thread, groups like the Pink Pistols have been highly successful at coopting the language of gun rights for the left. This rhetoric has historically been highly popular in the US, and in addition if there are viable left-wing gun advocacy groups we could likely pull a significant portion of gun owners away from the Republicans.

The right to vote was originally meant just for white men, but we expanded that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2019 at 11:28:46 AM

There are a number of logistical arguments against some aspects of American gun control, but things like the “the holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Germany had the 2nd amendment” argument are hard to take seriously (also are so inflammatory that they scream troll), because we have multiple examples of free countries with a number of gun controls (The UK, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland) and examples of the US government using overwhelming force against its own population and showing that their guns were useless (I’m sure Charles will be along shortly to talk about the bombing of striking miners).

The 2nd amendment is in many ways an aid for those who wish to bring about tyranny, because in lulls people into complacency (because they think their little semi-auto will protect them against a tank) and because the fear of small armed local groups can force people to ground and to bend to tyranny.

Just look at Oregon, where small armed groups (protected by the second amendment) were able to threaten the lives on elected representatives and make them back down, that’s not a block on tyranny, that is tyranny.

Tyranny doesn’t just come from an overzealous government, it very often comes from armed affluent groups of extremists. The 2nd amendment de powers caring governments against armed extremists while doing nothing to protect reasonable people from tyrannical governments.

Edited by Silasw on Jul 4th 2019 at 6:30:53 PM

All I've seen from gun advocacy groups were unreasonable arguments about how freedom will end if guns are even slightly restricted. I'm glad there are few such groups on the left, or things would be even more dire than the puzzling current inertia.

A US insurgency is such a remote possibility it’s really not even worth discussing, but the points that we need guns to prevent tyranny and that guns would never work against tyranny are both meaningless.

As we’ve seen in Syria and Yemen, tanks aren’t invincible. Aircraft aren’t invincible. Countries the world over have learned time and time again that a motivated insurgency with small arms is all but impossible to fully get rid of as long as the cause is there.

Of course, that doesn’t really have much to do with tyranny. A country can be in conflict with a successful insurgency and still exert tyrannical rule over most of its citizens. Hell, the existence of a successful insurgency in many cases causes more tyranny.

Something like 40% of gun owners lean left. Having some viable left-wing gun advocacy groups might keep some of them from voting Republican every now and then.

Rhetoric from mainstream Democrats on guns alienates potential voters. We need to reach out to them in a new way, like I said before.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2019 at 11:45:33 AM

I would prefer if the Democratic Party wasn't beholden to voters are skeptical of gun control. It has many other groups it can rely on to win elections, that don't require them to tone down their rhetoric on a deadly national emergency.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. They wouldn’t be “beholden” to left-wing gun owners any more than they’re “beholden” to any other left-wing advocacy group.

The vast majority of gun owners support stricter gun control. A significant portion of gun owners are left-leaning but are known to swing Republican at times because of gun rights. That seems like an obvious opportunity, both for getting more voters and for getting gun control passed.

For example, a significant portion of NRA members support stricter gun control [1]. If there was a left-wing advocacy group for them, it would not only take funding away from the NRA, which has consistently stymied gun control attempts, but counteract some of their lobbying as well.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2019 at 12:01:10 PM

I think there are reasonable reasons for owning a gun. If you live in the middle of Alaska and bears break into your house, you need a gun. Same with hunting. That being said, there being some regulations (for example not being allowed guns if you’re convicted of domestic violence charges) doesn’t mean stealing all the guns.

It's only a worthy shot if you support the mainstream Democrats toning down their opposition to appease those voters. I am absolutely against that, just as I don't see the need for them to soften their stance on racism to have more appeal in the South.

Edited by Grafite on Jul 4th 2019 at 8:02:25 PM

It’s not a matter of toning down rhetoric, it’s a matter of better rhetoric. Like I keep saying, most gun owners are actually in favor of gun control, but they’re turned off by things like calling all gun owners Nazis or potential terrorists, or by policy platforms like assault weapon and semi-auto bans.

Not only would outreach limit the influence of right-wing gun groups, it might let us make some actual headway on gun control.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 4th 2019 at 12:15:38 PM

Honestly, I always thought the argument "Citizens need guns to defend themselves against tyranical governments!" always kinda dumb.

Do you honestly think Joe Redneck and his bunch of untrained hillbillies with their pistols and shotguns would stand a chance against the full force and weaponry of the actual US military?

Edited by Forenperser on Jul 4th 2019 at 9:37:29 PM

Historically speaking, Joe Rednecks with guns have done pretty well worldwide with the proper motivation. As I mentioned above though that’s really neither here nor there, and has little to do with tyranny.

It seems here and there because the argument that kickstarted this whole shebang was the implication the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if Jews were armed to the teeth (i.e guns as defenses to tyranny).

Ignoring the leap from "white supremacists carrying AR-15s" to "the very well-trained armed forces of the Middle East", the question of tyranny to me comes down to what Silasw mentioned a few posts ago: would you rather cower at the ghost of a possible tyranny, or actually do something about the current, resident tyranny of 9/10 days including mass shootings? Always seemed like a no-brainer to me.

Especially when, as studies showed, the absurdly heavy-weaponry deployed by drug cartels in Brazil are imported from the US, as it is the only place can supply such weaponry with so few background checks (and importing them from Europe is too expensive even for drug cartels).

>would you rather cower at the ghost of a possible tyranny, or actually do something about the current, resident tyranny of 9/10 days including mass shootings?

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me.