Just two comments apart you support "gun rights" and then say we should be able to do what we like "as long as you don't hurt others".
Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale.
edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.
Owning a gun doesn't guarantee loss of life, and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it.
Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun. People use guns because of the fear, the spot light, and the ability to target.
I don't disagree people see things as common sense. I also don't disagree in having some laws governing weaponry. That doesn't mean I don't think we should be allowed to own them, nor that it isn't benificial. Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number.
> gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has changed radically within the past 50 years. The idea that government doesn't get to regulate even slightly the right to bear arms is a new interpretation.
Free speech is literally part of the foundation of the U.S., but we mostly all agree that slander is a thing that should be illegal. Separation of church and state is part of the foundation of the U.S., but churches are tax exempt.
These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances.
> Further, I can kill more people with a truck than I can with a gun
Trucks are highly regulated and licensed.
> Honestly, I'd like research done to prove it one way or the other and be rational about it.
Well we agree there, but in my view the research that has been done has already pointed in the direction of more regulation than we have now.
> Statistically it does. I.e. this particular gun might not kill anyone, but for every 100 guns there is n deaths, so adding another gun means another fraction of a death added to that number.
That's not how causation works. If you add more guns in one culture you may get more violence because people do the same violence with more lethal weapons. If you add more guns in a different culture you may get less violence because perpetrators are less likely to initiate violence when there is a higher likelihood that their victims are armed. In a third culture there will be negligible difference because people commit the same violence whether with guns or IEDs or other weapons.
And nothing exists in a vacuum. Something like mandatory firearms safety training in high schools will reduce the number of deaths without reducing the number of guns. In other words, you can determine the culture.
> These rules all have nuances. Why shouldn't "right to bear arms" have nuances.
The nuances that have historically made it into gun laws have no relation to reality. A law banning rifles based on cosmetic features scores political points with the gun control lobby but saves no lives. And the stated end goal of the gun control lobby is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns, which is not a nuanced position.
You can own a truck without even having a driver's license, and the regulations are unrelated to intentional use to do violence, which is covered by the general laws against murder and violence rather than anything specific to trucks.
If on one side you have the nra, who lobby against ANY gun regulations, such that only the most control-in-name-only "cosmetic" laws can get passed (then later repealed). And on the other side you have... idk the parents from sandy hook? Whoever this gun control lobby is i've not heard of them but i'll take your word they exist and they want no guns and no 2nd amendment. (To paint everyone who wants to have some gun control as a gun abolitionist is conpletely rediculous but... whatever).
Is it possible that the right place to be lies somewhere in between?
I find the American mentality is that all slopes are slippery. In Canada, where I live, we have some gun control and we have limits on free speech and it seems to be working pretty well.
The compromise you are asking for has already happened.
> If on one side you have the nra, who lobby against ANY gun regulations, such that only the most control-in-name-only "cosmetic" laws can get passed (then later repealed).
The NRA is not lobbying to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's not that we're at the top of a slippery slope, it's that we're 3/4ths of the way down it already and you're asking to keep going.
The problem is that there is no coherent compromise here. You can't have millions of guns in the hands of millions of gun owners and at the same time not. It's zero sum.
> And on the other side you have... idk the parents from sandy hook?
The parents from Sandy Hook are the people they put in front of the camera. The money behind the gun control lobby has the same motives as the money behind the other side's pro-life lobby -- it's a hot button issue that drives votes, so if you want a particular party to win and your real reasons are unsympathetic, you can beat the "think of the children" drum to get your party into office.
That is one of the reasons why the compromises are so ineffective -- and why real solutions like addressing the root causes of violence are never even considered. The funders (as opposed to the public faces) are not actually interested in fixing anything, they just want their party to get credit for Doing Something, and then have the problem continue to exist so they can get credit for Doing Something again tomorrow.
We are not 3/4 of the way down the slope. If we were the US wouldn't have such high rates of gun ownership, because lots of people wouldn't have the right to own guns. Very few people in the states aren't able to own a gun. Very very few.
Congress is undoing Obama's restriction on people who have someone taking care of their finances due to mental disability buying guns. The restriction wasn't that they couldn't own guns it was that they needed a bg check because idk maybe they are unfit to own one?
Your view of gun control advocacy as a drum to get people into office? Seems highly cynical and mostly untrue to me. Look at the democratic primaries. Bernie Sanders basically changed the subject whenever he was asked about gun control. The two top candidated were not of the same mind when it comes to gun control. That says to me that it is not simply a rallying cry for the left, but an issue americans are deeply conflicted about in both repub and dem camps.
As for addressing the root causes of violence: my view is that gun ownership actually is one of the root causes of violence. Not the only one, not the biggest one (thats poverty), but one.
> We are not 3/4 of the way down the slope. If we were the US wouldn't have such high rates of gun ownership, because lots of people wouldn't have the right to own guns. Very few people in the states aren't able to own a gun. Very very few.
"Not able to own a gun" is the bottom of the slope. It's the final 1%. What we have now is an ineffective mess that does nothing but interfere with honest gun owners, particularly at the state level.
Different state prohibit different things. If you live on the East Coast and legally own a particular pistol, and you want to travel to Maine where it is also legal, you have to drive hundreds of miles around Massachusetts where they will arrest you for it.
Acquiring a permit can cost more than a hundred dollars for each renewal and require you to come in person to a government building during work hours on a weekday, raising the barrier to low income people or anyone without flexible working hours. Blue states do this knowing it will have that effect.
States require permits not only for purchasing but also possession, so low income black men are commonly charged with a felony because they live in a bad neighborhood and acquired a gun for self-defense, and either didn't know a permit was required there or couldn't afford one or let it expire or moved from one state to another or owned it before the law changed. Even though they were entirely eligible to own it -- and now they're not. And have just lost their job and are going to prison. If poverty is a root cause of violence, what are we doing here?
> Congress is undoing Obama's restriction on people who have someone taking care of their finances due to mental disability buying guns. The restriction wasn't that they couldn't own guns it was that they needed a bg check because idk maybe they are unfit to own one?
If you have a diagnosis by a mental health professional that someone is a danger to themselves or others then they get institutionalized and they are obviously not going to have access to a gun in a psychiatric hospital. If that isn't the diagnosis then on what basis are you justifying a background check for someone with e.g. dyscalculia?
Laws like that are also inherently dangerous because they discourage people with mental health issues from seeking treatment for fear that they will be penalized for it. Then you have more people with untreated mental health issues and yet they still have access to firearms. Doctor-patient confidentiality is a thing for a reason.
> Your view of gun control advocacy as a drum to get people into office? Seems highly cynical and mostly untrue to me.
Explain the focus on mass shootings, and especially mass shootings of white kids, which constitute a very small minority of all gun violence, juxtaposed with the high death toll from drug and gang-related gun violence, none of whose victims are commonly individually held up as a reason to pass gun control laws.
> Look at the democratic primaries. Bernie Sanders basically changed the subject whenever he was asked about gun control.
Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. It's like a New Hampshire Republican being pro-choice. Not a representative example.
And his needing to change the subject rather than defend his position, and Clinton's revisiting of it to damage him in the Democratic primary, is only proving the point.
> As for addressing the root causes of violence: my view is that gun ownership actually is one of the root causes of violence. Not the only one, not the biggest one (thats poverty), but one.
You believe that people not otherwise prone to violent crimes, given guns, would commit more violent crimes?
I think it's a bit fallacious to say statistically it does. When you look at the numbers the number of guns doesn't really correlate to gun related fatalities.. for example the U.S. Has a ton of guns, but per capita Japan has a higher gun fatality rate (this includes suicides).
huh? Per that link, the gun fatality rate in the US is about 175x that of Japan (10.54/100k vs 0.06). Are you calculating deaths-per-gun or something goofy like that?
Guns per capita seems weird to me. Guns are not evenly distributed. One gun collector with 200 guns makes for a skewed representation of the prevalence of guns.
I'd like to see percentage of households with one or more gun. That, to me, would be representative.
> and gun rights are literally part of the foundation of the U.S. There's no reason to fight it.
This is a horrible way of thinking. Times change, just because something made sense in the 1700's doesn't mean it makes sense today. Every generation has a right to change the laws it lives under to better reflect the reality of the world they live in, the Constitution is not a sacred text that can't be disagreed with, it's just laws, and it's changeable. There is every reason to fight that which no longer makes sense. The second amendment was written in an era where muskets were state of the art; unrestricted access to arms hasn't made sense in a hundred years.
Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion.
> Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale.
The tendency toward loss of life is known and acceptable, much like the cost of having vehicles. You think it's a shocking scale and I think it's marginal. Vehicle deaths still outpace in the US, so your bias is transparent.
Motor vehicle deaths have now dropped top the point that they're about even with gun deaths. [0] But I would argue that the utility of having motor vehicles far outstrips the utility of having guns carried and in the home.
Maybe gun deaths could drop more if CDC and other researchers were allowed study their effects on health more and if gun safety regulations were handled more like car safety.
> Probably because you aren't interested in a discussion.
What makes you say that? Why would I delve into comment threads if I wasn't interested in a discussion.
> your bias is transparent
I also strongly believe cars should be heavily regulated. Lucky for us all, they are. I'm down for more regulation, if well thought out, to continue to bring this number down.
Does not compute. Mutually exclusive desires. Unchecked gun ownership leads to loss of life at a shocking scale.
edit: i see downvotes, but I don't see counterarguments. Parent post says "everyone I talk to agrees", if nothing else I'm trying to point out that while it may seem like common sense to you, others will see other things as common sense.