I typed something like this yesterday, but deleted it, so here's a shorter version:
1. I'm 100% in favor of strict gun control (and would go for a near total ban, or something along the lines of at least what one of the framers of the constitution had in mind, with controls on carrying firearms away from home).
2. The rise in shootings is NOT correlated to the availability of high capacity, high calibre, reasonably accurate semi-automatic weapons. These have been available in large numbers in the US for decades.
3. It is correlated (at least from my perspective) to the right-wing fetishization of guns, increasing inequality and the culture proxy-war that's raging. I say proxy-war as I don't believe the instigators (at least on the right) really give a crap about trans/drag/abortion/CRT, they care about them as easy ways to build outrage, and hence power. Fascism really is on the rise here.
4. It's also correlated with a decline in mental health, and in the state and social structures that used to support people. A stunning statistic is that suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10-14 year olds. source.
5. I don't know how we fix it, it feels like a crisis is slow rolling in, and I think the 2024 elections will be the crux.
I'm making backup plans in case it makes sense to leave, fortunately we are in the (fairly) sane PNW.
At least the riding is excellent.
Local Nashville congressman Andy Ogles claims that the right to bear arms is essential to “prevent tyrannical rule”.
Surely thoughts and prayers would deal with those tyrants?
Or is it that, in reality, something more is needed.
Tactical shizzle sells units to muppets (the article is fairly depressing):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-america-gun-culture-politics/
I know, I judge them quite harshly. But people love playing dress up. Always love seeing a mealteam six cosplayer out and about.
Surely thoughts and prayers would deal with those tyrants?
Or is it that, in reality, something more is needed.
The irony is Senators are a part of the potential 'tyrannical' govt. ****ing nutjobs.
Look, here comes one of the crack Gravy Seals now
https://twitter.com/You****ingIdio9/status/1640021263375532033
But people love playing dress up. Always love seeing a mealteam six cosplayer out and about.
My favorite so far has been the guy taking his baby for a stroll around our neighborhood wearing some sort of 2ndAmend t-shirt and his gun on his hip. I'm guessing in case he had to defend himself from a tyrannical group of soccer moms intent on overthrowing the government. Nobody expects tyrannical soccer moms.Or something.
5. I don’t know how we fix it
No I am sure that there is no easy fix. However as the problem appears to be that the views of a minority are profoundly impacting on the majority it should be fixable, in a country which prides itself as a democracy.
Any fix presumably would involve constitutional change. The Founding Fathers might have spoken of the "tyranny of the majority" but opposition to gun control appears to be "tyranny of the minority".
Would tackling the issue of "independent expenditures” from unaccountable organisations help to loosen their grip?
Free speech is fine but it isn't free if you have to pay for it.
The solution may be in governmental/political accountability. If you genuinely have checks, balances and accountability with outcomes that ensure democracy isn't being usurped by corrupt or compromised individuals you can work on the narrative of the perceived need for defence from a tyrannical state.
I can absolutely see why some feel more secure packing heat, even if it is a false sense of security. How bad and sad is it that a nation's politics has got so divisive, aided by a complicit media and funded and driven by corporations that leads people to think guns are the solution?
After 24 years of service, if I felt the need to have to arm myself as a civilian, something is utterly broken. A view that is shared by some of my brothers across the pond.
5. I don’t know how we fix it
Move.
The problem is that a lot of the US doesn't want it fixing. The reason they have so many guns is because they like them.
The stats linked earlier is damning; people want tighter gun control so long as it doesn't apply to them. You might as well be asking how in the UK we can fix the problem of cars (and they're a lot harder to conceal).
I find it absolutely staggering that anyone would object to a cooling-off period or to basic background checks. Surely, surely, "we still want guns but let's stop giving them to nutters" can't be a wild and crazy notion. What sort of person needs a gun _right now_ and can't wait a couple of weeks? That's never going to end well, is it.
you can work on the narrative of the perceived need for defence from a tyrannical state.
That doesnt work well against the level of conspiracy theories in play nowadays and the sheer sense of victimhood.
Plus if you are seriously scared about tyranny effort would probably be best placed in learning chemistry and electronics for IEDs and getting friendly with foreign states (okay guess the NRA being in the pay of Putin has managed this one).
After 24 years of service, if I felt the need to have to arm myself as a civilian, something is utterly broken.
I worked with one yank for a time who happily announced how in every room there was a handgun or shotgun within easy reach (large rooms had a couple) in case of someone breaking into the house.
Couldnt help but think a better solution would be to move.
After all at that level of risk surely you cant afford to go out for a hard ride and come back knackered or go for a few beers.
Oddly though they didnt go for the more boring home security such as heavy duty doors, vicious hedge and a couple of loud mutts.
I can absolutely see why some feel more secure packing heat, even if it is a false sense of security.
You see this is the bit that I don't understand at all, how can it even give them a false sense of security?
Congressman Andy Ogles and his family might feel that they are well-armed but how can they begin to imagine that they can take on the might of the United States government and outgun them?
Surely they cannot believe that even if they were to form a militia with like-minded individuals that they could achieve what the confederacy couldn't achieve against a much weaker opponent?
The problem is that a lot of the US doesn’t want it fixing. The reason they have so many guns is because they like them.
It's slightly OT, but I think to how many hours of instruction & practice I've had on various systems to maintain a high degree of competency on firearms and in the US they're given out like candy.
My view has put me at odds with American friends because I've stated I don't want some fat, bloating walt anywhere near me in public with a firearm who has had little to no training. I don't subscribe to the 'good guy with a gun' maxim because if they don't know what they're doing they can pose a wider threat to others.
But then the other side of that coin is if training and proficiency became a requirement of ownership then when shootings occured, the body count would be a lot higher.
I work with a few hard core gut totting Americans. One at least has a whole arsenal as he genuinely believes in his lifetime either some dictatorial government will try to suppress the people or some natural disaster will happen which basically precipitates civil war. Even he believes there should be more gun controls. BUT and I think this was the "ahha" moment for me. Its like taxes - there should be more gun controls right up until the point that it limits HIS freedoms. Much like asking people if we should increase taxes on the rich - yes, just so long as we have defined rich ad people who earn more than me! He actually would tell you its all the Brit's fault - if we had simply acceded to their independence there would be much less fear of governments oppressing the people.
I'm surprised that in the US, the land of litigation, there is not more vicarious liability. Gun owners, guns sales people etc being held liable for the consequences.
@dissonance, I did miss a bit out about feeling like they're too far down that rabbit hole. So your point absolutely stands and I agree.
@ernielynch it's not based in any reality hence the false sense. Weapons possession is an odd thing, to some they're a tool that has specific use, to others it transfers a sense of power. The reality is as you point out, they would get steam-rollered if the military were onside with the Govt. If they were not then there would be limited conflict as a coup would be in motion as the military who swear an oath to uphold the constitution would be duty bound to remove a tyrannical govt*.
*all in theory.
The problem is that a lot of the US doesn’t want it fixing. The reason they have so many guns is because they like them.
Have got a link?
Everything I have seen suggests the opposite.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The problem is that there are somewhere between 350-450 million guns in America. Cramming that genie back in the bottle with the way things stand right now seems improbable - maybe in 20 years or so?
At this point in America, we can't even agree on "what is" - let alone "what should be" there is a difference in opinion about objective reality, let alone an idea for what a better future would look like.
And, while the random deaths of school children at the hands of the mentally unwell is unacceptable, horrific, and a stain on the nation, it's not even close to the leading cause of death, even including those involving firearms. I'm not downplaying the trauma (my kid texted me during a lockdown at her school - which was terrifying), but we have to address the wider issues leading to all this shit as well. Focusing on these hugely emotive events involving a mental health crisis of a single person gives too many easy-outs for those who use the 2nd Amendment to win power, or make money.
The same goes on focussing on a type of weapon, or a subclass (AR15), yes these are bought by your classic 'meal team 6' wannabee types who mistake a custom stock and a red dot for a personality, but they aren't involved in that many killings, and they make those calling for a ban look hysterical and ill-informed.
I think that one route to change might be to appeal to the strong vein of "American exceptionalism" that runs through this place. Going on at people about how shit things are makes them defensive. When debating healthcare with my fellow Americans I've had more success with "shouldn't the richest country in the world aspire to be a place where no one dies because they can't get medicine?" than "you guys are nuts, you should get an NHS".
There must be a similar approach that can reel in the decent "hand over heart with the national anthem" people I meet at the hockey games.
BUT and I think this was the “ahha” moment for me. Its like taxes – there should be more gun controls right up until the point that it limits HIS freedoms.
Surely if the majority of Americans don't own a gun, which seems to be the case, that attitude shouldn't present a problem?
I think that one route to change might be to appeal to the strong vein of “American exceptionalism” that runs through this place.
Yeah I can see the logic in that.
I find it absolutely staggering that anyone would object to a cooling-off period or to basic background checks. Surely, surely, “we still want guns but let’s stop giving them to nutters” can’t be a wild and crazy notion. What sort of person needs a gun _right now_ and can’t wait a couple of weeks? That’s never going to end well, is it.
The problem with ANY control at this point is the existence of <1 (not evenly distributed) gun per person already. It's like arguments about drug policy in most of the western word, there's just too much in circulation to make a meaningful dent on it. And so drug/gun liberals argue responsible use should be legal, etc etc etc.
If someone really want's to get a hold of a gun, there'd be someone on a street corner prepared to sell them one.
The difference between the UK <1996 and the US, is that the UK has never had a critical mass of guns. We could turn around the next day and effectively ban guns and have most of them voluntarily surrendered pretty quickly. Three decades on we're worried about badly made 3D printed guns that ware as likely to backfire as do any damage to a target.
The problem with ANY control at this point is the existence of <1 (not evenly distributed) gun per person already. It’s like arguments about drug policy in most of the western word, there’s just too much in circulation to make a meaningful dent on it.
If someone really want’s to get a hold of a gun, there’d be someone on a street corner prepared to sell them one.
Unless I am missing something obvious surely they could start by making carrying a gun illegal?
Even if the US is awash with guns making it a criminal offence to carry one in public would help to reduce their use?
Heavy fines and imprisonment for repeated offenders would surely have an affect?
It would certainly reduce some of the perceived benefits of owning a gun. And that would be a start.
https://theweek.com/articles/478773/nypds-infrared-gun-scanner
No one argues that it should be legal to carry a knife in the UK because there are more potentially lethal kitchen knives than there are people.
Great interview highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the GOP on this
https://twitter.com/SouthpawLeftist/status/1640797477128527872?s=20
Also just because a problem can't be fixed overnight doesn't mean you shouldn't start the process. Do future generations have to keep fearing their children be murdered at school because the current generation are to weak and feeble to even start the process.
@MSP funnily enough was talking about this concept with a ge tremendous today who met with the Dalai Lama once, he said something similar about suffering in general.
We seem to be unable to think beyond our own horizon with problem solving, more so now than ever.
I only took a cursory look, but I couldn't find a federal crime for the gun owner in the event their gun is used in a felony by someone else. If this doesn't exist already, then it's a good starting point. Min sentence of 10 years should help people keep their shit safer. If it does exist and isn't working for prosecution, changing it would be good. This is of course, assuming that there is an actual registry of guns. This is probably not at fed level, so that will probably screw this idea.
IDK anything about gun ownership and have very little interest in finding out about it!
Wouldn't the simplest solution be to ban the sale of ammunition to the general public?
Guns are really rubbish without bullets - a baseball bat would be more useful!
Obviously there would be a black market but the inability to pop down to Walmart for your ammo would surely create a chronic shortage?
And quite easy to implement I would have thought.
Zero chance of that attracting political support.
Zero chance of that attracting political suppor
Yup.
https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators
Having had a flick through this thread it occurred to me that given many of these 2nd amendment types all think the Trump had the election stolen from him, if now isn’t the time for small well organised militias to rise up against the US Government, when is? And given that they aren’t, doesn’t it show that they are either cowards or don’t believe in the 2nd amendment?
Now, having written it down, I realise calling MAGA-types bluff on a second US Civil war is quite a bold move, but still, I think the logic stands.
Zero chance of that attracting political support.
There is broad consensus for more controls, even from Republicans. Right up until the NRA and the various gun nuts get their hands on it and start screaming about their rights being infringed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_background_check
crazylegs - my post was a direct response to the clearly impractical and unworkable suggestion that ammunition sales to the general public should be banned.
hard core gut totting Americans.
Excellent typo that deserves recognition in a conversation involving Gravy Seals and Meal Team Six
Making owners responsible and banning carrying would be a great start. I also agree with the old classic Chris Rock routine. Make bullets really expensive to purchase.
I genuinely feel sorry for the majority of US citizens who are trying to live a normal life amongst the epic levels of arsehattery displayed by a minority. The constitution, like many old documents people cling to, was written in a very different time with a whole other bunch of stuff going on that influenced it. It’s not fit for purpose in a modern world. A bit like a lot of other old texts.
Guns just seem so engrained in American culture. From the militaristic police force to depictions in cinema and games to music and TV series. The gun is everywhere and seems, on the surface at least, to be widely accepted. God forbid you see a nipple though! Very odd morales and values
It’s slightly OT, but I think to how many hours of instruction & practice I’ve had on various systems to maintain a high degree of competency on firearms and in the US they’re given out like candy.
My view has put me at odds with American friends because I’ve stated I don’t want some fat, bloating walt anywhere near me in public with a firearm who has had little to no training.
Yeah, this is a really good argument. I forget the exact details now but read a statistic a while back that the accuracy rate of trained armed response types under pressure in an actual combat situation is something like 30%. It might not even be that high. Some redneck who thinks he's John Goodman in The Big Lebowski has no chance.
I don’t subscribe to the ‘good guy with a gun’ maxim because if they don’t know what they’re doing they can pose a wider threat to others.
But then the other side of that coin is if training and proficiency became a requirement of ownership then when shootings occured, the body count would be a lot higher.
The absolute body count might be higher, but the number of innocent bystanders getting shot by accident might fall considerably? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
The problem is that a lot of the US doesn’t want it fixing. The reason they have so many guns is because they like them.
Have got a link?
Everything I have seen suggests the opposite.
I said "a lot," not "most." Just 1% of the USA is three million people, and the stats are considerably higher than that.
In any case, whilst there's a near 1:1 ratio of guns to people, gun ownership is not an even distribution as you said yourself. Those who like guns often tend to really like guns.
my post was a direct response to the clearly impractical and unworkable suggestion that ammunition sales to the general public should be banned.
The suggestion was that ammunition sales to the general public could be banned, not should be banned. I said yesterday, quote, "lack of political will is probably the biggest obstacle".
So I fully recognise "zero chance of that attracting political support".
I fail to see how it would be "unworkable" though if the political will existed. Can you explain how with the political will it would be impractical and unworkable to ban the sale of ammunition to the general public?
Most countries don't have any problem banning the sale of ammunition to the general public.
I said “a lot,” not “most.” Just 1% of the USA is three million people, and the stats are considerably higher than that.
Oh yeah fair enough. All the polls suggest that the majority of people don't own guns and that the majority want tighter controls.
I believe that the problem might be that it is very low down on people's list of priorities, consequently politicians don't feel strongly motivated to respond.
I believe that the problem might be that it is very low down on people’s list of priorities, consequently politicians don’t feel strongly motivated to respond.
I think its more those in favour are a lot more vocal and engaged in single issue politics. Whereas the majority of those against whilst not overly fans dont have the same commitment (outside those who have had friends and family killed by people with guns).
Plus the gun lobby has quite a lot of money to throw around even leaving aside the Russian money funnelled by the NRA.
The counter lobby doesnt have the same cash since are mostly bereaved people rather than gun manufacturers raking in the cash.
The absolute body count might be higher, but the number of innocent bystanders getting shot by accident might fall considerably? I honestly don’t know the answer to that.
Apologies @Cougar I was talking from the perspective of the perpetrators. If there was a higher bar on competency it would potentially increase the lethality when these types of incidents occur in favour of the maniac doing the killing.
Like you I don't know what the first step is, especially with the amount of sway the firearms industry has with political figures.
I think its more those in favour are a lot more vocal and engaged in single issue politics
Yeah it would seem that in a pro-gun control politician verses a pro-gun politician scenario the pro-gun control politician loses out.
Simply because those in favour of greater gun control don't treat it as a priority in the way that those in favour of guns do.
"From my cold dead hands" suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
Yeah, it's a bit like a fetish, like brexit.
They don't care until something happens to make them care, and then all of a sudden it's a big issue for 2 days.
Then it's right back to 'Guns = awesome'!
Apologies @Cougar I was talking from the perspective of the perpetrators. If there was a higher bar on competency it would potentially increase the lethality when these types of incidents occur in favour of the maniac doing the killing.
I think we're at angry dolphins and it's probably me who is not being clear. I was talking about US shootings generally, not any specific incidents like the recent one. Like for instance, gang activity - someone taking a potshot at a rival gang member is more likely to hit their target if trained, but less likely to hit someone else.
I'm no expert on how to go about a mass shooting (I'm a sociopath not a psychopath😁) but if I were a deranged lunatic wanting to go on an indiscriminate killing spree then I think I'd likely favour quantity over accuracy.
“From my cold dead hands” suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
I don't think it's all that exceptional, sadly.
“From my cold dead hands” suggests an exceptional level of fanaticism.
There's a reason why Trump held his latest rally at Waco, pretty close to the 30th anniversary of the tragedy there.
It's a potent symbol of government over-reach for much of his base, a demonstration of 'what happens when you come and try to take my gunz'. The fact that the cult at Waco were involved in child rape further shows the order of priority in terms of child safety vs guns.
He wants to take their fear and paranoia about the federal government and tie it in with his current legal troubles.
Going back a bit to ownership,
Amongst gun owners, about a third own just one, a third own 2-4 and a third own five or more. It's a similar split for don't own / might own / will never own.
Uvalde school shooting was on May 24, 2022. It was the TWENTY SEVENTH school shooting of the year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/
[img] 
[/img]
A think that always strikes me as sad isn't that it's polarised, it's that it's daftly polarised. You say, are you in favour of gun control, a lot of people say no. But then you say...
Are you in favour of making guns easier to get than they are now? No
Are you in favour of removing age restrictions on guns? No
Are you in favour of allowing access to fully automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, bump stocks etc? No.
Are you in favour of stopping convicted felons from having a gun? Yes
Do you think people on the no fly list should be allowed to have a gun? No
Do you think people with a serious mental health issue should be allowed to have a gun? Probably not
Do you think guns should be locked in the home to protect kids? Yes
Do you think it should be legal to take a gun into a school? Probably not.
Are you in favour of wait times for guns? Yes
But gun control? No we hate gun control. The conversation is completely broken at a basic communications level, people can be pro and against gun control in teh same breath. A huge proportion of US voters are in favour of tighter gun control but absolutely opposed to the words gun control.
