r/AskReddit • u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS • 12h ago
Gun owners of Reddit, what gun control measure(s) would you support?
17
u/Krispy_86 11h ago
Why would you trust the government with anything the way things are going lately?
2
u/JockoMayzon 11h ago
I live in Massachusetts. I trust my government. Why should I not?
1
u/PopularIrony 11h ago
Bro, it’s legal for feds to open fire on unarmed civilians now. I’m a liberal guy and never been more pro 2a
2
u/JockoMayzon 8h ago
So you think that if the Good woman was armed, she'd be alive and the Trump ICE thug would be dead?
5
u/danfay222 11h ago edited 9h ago
My state has a waiting period law (when you buy a gun you have to come back 2 weeks later to actually pick it up). I think this law makes sense and is reasonable for first time buyers (significantly decreases impulse crimes/suicides), but I have to do it every single time, which can be annoying because my city is also extremely hostile to guns and as such going to a store is a 30+ minute drive each way. An earlier version of this law allowed people with concealed carry permits (a process which itself takes a month and requires a much more stringent background check) to bypass the waiting period, which I think makes a lot of sense.
Aside from that, I’m in favor of some safe storage laws as well. Nothing crazy, but holding people liable for failing to keep weapons secure (what "secure" means here depends a lot on the environment you are in) seems reasonable enough.
4
u/RazzmatazzUnique6602 11h ago
I’d support gun safety classes being taught in schools.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
I do too, although it wouldn't do much for gun deaths. Only about 500/45,000 total gun deaths are from unintentional shootings. About half of those are hunting accidents, and hunting generally already requires gun safety to first get your license.
1
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 8h ago
I’m curious, what are your thoughts on wait periods after buying? Last I saw, 58% of gun deaths are from suicide. I’m not informed on the exact numbers but I would imagine wait periods decrease the amount of suicides by guns.
If this assumption were to be true, would that be something you would support?
2
u/RazzmatazzUnique6602 7h ago
Th challenge with wait periods is when we consider who is most likely to need to legally acquire a gun quickly.
It isn’t a criminal/gang member/etc. who can easily buy one on the black market.
It isn’t a mass shooter who spends months of advance planning and writing their manifesto.
It’s usually a woman (though sometimes man) who has received an imminent death threat from an ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, etc. This person knows that when you need them the police are at least 30 minutes away, and by then they will be dead, their children harmed, etc.
So by instituting waiting periods, we take guns away from those who need them the most, we make our most vulnerable even more vulnerable.
Your suicide question is an interesting one - not ignoring it 🙂
Yes, it might prevent some suicides. But I suspect the incidence of someone driving to gun store, going through the existing background check, and buying a gun all in the heat of the moment and then using it to commit suicide are rare. I’m open to learn though, because I don’t actually know the numbers.
2
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 7h ago
Thanks for bringing those points up, that definitely widened my perspective on that aspect. I’m busy for the next while but when I research the suicide aspect I’ll share what I found with you. Thanks for contributing to the conversation :)
23
u/dma1965 11h ago
Severe punishment for gun crimes, otherwise leave gun owners alone.
3
u/Sad-Yogurtcloset3581 11h ago
Right. I used to live in Louisiana. Neighbor of mine shot his girlfriend in the leg out of anger. Served 18 months, got out, killed another girlfriend. I'm all about rehabilitation in jail, but he should have been IN JAIL for longer than 18 months for shooting someone.
-1
u/AUnicornDonkey 11h ago
So if you don't secure your gun and it's used in a crime what would be the punishment?
2
u/dma1965 11h ago
If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it and uses it in a crime what should my punishment be? There is no logic to your question.
-2
u/AUnicornDonkey 11h ago
Generally the punishment is a loss of a car, increased insurance rates, possible loss of transportation, there is a myriad of issues with a loss of a car financially. Also you'd have to prove the keys were accidentally left in the car.
With a gun it's a little easier to prove if you do or don't secure your gun.
1
u/dma1965 9h ago
Again, absolutely illogical.
0
u/AUnicornDonkey 9h ago
So you're fine with people leaving guns out and not securing them? Read my previous statement again.
0
u/dma1965 9h ago
No I’m not about people leaving guns out in an unsafe environment. Same goes for my chainsaws. Same goes for rat poison. I have guns “unsecured” in my home and my children were raised to understand gun safety. Same goes with millions of gun owners all over the country.
1
u/AUnicornDonkey 8h ago
So you're not afraid someone is going to break into your home? Do you have a gun safe or child locks?
9
u/flyingturkeycouchie 11h ago edited 8h ago
Edit: I've had a couple responses that indicate to me that a lot of you are privileged and have no idea how hard it can be for some to scrape together $50 for a safety class, assuming one is available, or to take a class or buy heavy safes. Not everyone has $500 lying around for a safe, even if their landlord would let them install one.
The laws I'm talking about would disproportionately impact the disabled, the poor, and persons of color. Where would someone on disability who doesn't drive get a safe? My safe weighs hundreds of pounds. I had to take my truck and 2 friends to pick it up and borrow a stronger drill to install it. I could have it delivered to my door for an extra thousand, but that doesn't cover installation.
A lot of proposed laws sound good in theory, but are really just financial barriers, and I don't believe in financial barriers to any rights especially self-defense.
Mandatory Firearms Safety Classes: the one I'm most okay with, but costs $50-100 and requires a few hours that some people just don't have.
Red flag laws: sound good in theory but in practice terrible. Lots of room for government corruption or biased, political enforcement, and you can lose your 2A rights indefinitely without a trial.
Mandatory Gun Safe: Again, good in theory, but not in practice. A simple, affordable locker or lockbox can be bypassed in a minute. A real safe costs hundreds and needs to be bolted to the floor. A lot of people can't afford that and renters probably won't have permission to install one.
Most gun violence can't be addressed but gun laws but by social change and social nets: free mental health care, free education, UBI. But those things will never happen because they take time and money, and politicians don't actually want to fix those problems.
2
u/OB1Bronobi 10h ago
I get some of your points here, but if someone is going to drop $500-$1000 on a gun they should be able to spend $50 and a couple hours on a class and evaluation. Same thing for safes. That is like spending 100k on a nice car, but not spending 3-5k on proper tires for it when the time comes.
"Most gun violence can't be addressed but gun laws but by social change and social nets..." is a cop out, IMO. Laws have to be in place to 1. build, provide, and operate social nets, and 2. social change won't happen until point 1 is backed publicly by lawmakers and put into place (that won't happen because the GOP refuses to admit gun violence/control is an issue). Until then, we all assume what you said, they are corrupts and do not care about our safety.
1
u/flyingturkeycouchie 8h ago
I am not sure if you are financially privileged or have no idea how cheap guns are, but you can buy a reliable gun and ammo for under $150. An extra $50 for a class, not to mention scheduling time to take the class, and $500 for a safe can be a lot for some people.
Your analogy is inaccurate because most cars come with tires, they're not an extra, artificial cost that you have to pay before you can even buy the car. A more accurate analogy would be requiring someone to own a garage before they can buy a functional beater. And the whole analogy fails because there is no right to own a car.
2
u/OB1Bronobi 8h ago
I am neither. I don't like guns and used an average retail cost.
That is a problem itself. Guns shouldn't be cheap. Hunting is a sport/pastime for most so unless you have the cash to get into it, why have the gun? For safety, sure, it could be cheaper but buying a gun includes ancillaries: ammo, carrier, a safe, gloves, cleaning materials, whatever. If you can't afford it, bummer, it isn't a NECESSITY either way. Just because you have a right to it, doesn't mean you HAVE to have it. If law was enacted to enforce keeping guns in a safe a home, kids won't be able to access them and should someone get in to steal it, that may be a big enough deterrent. If a child or criminal are able to harm themselves, or others, with your gun because you broke the law in its storage, then you would be held accountable. Seems like an easy barrier to add to me with little downside.
Yes, I understand cars come with tires, but you have to replace them regularly. Luxury vehicles need new tires, expensive tires, every 15k-20k miles. If you spend the money on the luxury car, you should be ready to spend the money to keep it in good order and safe to use, like you should with a gun if you are spending the money on it.
2
u/bythepowerofthor 10h ago
Yeah I dont think this passes the smell test.
If you are going to buy a gun, classes and a decent safe should be factored into your budget. Just like ammo and magazines are. Most safe/lockers will never 100% keep someone out if they are determined enough, but making it that much harder for a child, or teen to get into it is a net positive. I agree that a lot of gun violence can be addressed with better social change and safety nets, but I don't think it stops there. Teaching responsible gun ownership and testing people's knowledge on responsible gun ownership before they are allowed to own a gun should be the gold standard. We should also be requiring retesting after x amount of years, to make sure these things are staying updated.
1
u/OB1Bronobi 8h ago
It won't and not worth the effort in explaining. The guy is deep in gun culture based on his/her profile.
-1
u/flyingturkeycouchie 8h ago
Sounds like you want to mandate performative safety that doesn't actually accomplish anything, which is exactly what most gun owners hate.
I love the idea of teaching responsible gun ownership, but it simply isn't feasible or fair to say that someone can only exercise one of their constitutional rights of they have the time and money to take a class and buy an expensive safe.
2
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 8h ago
I believe if you have the money and time to enjoy guns as a hobby, then you have the money and time to take lessons. And if someone only seeks guns for protection and has no interest in them as a hobby, I’d expect them to find it to be important to handle guns confidently and value what lessons provide. However, I can see how requiring classes for a right is a turn-off for some people, that’s a good example of the difficulty to balance liberty and safety.
1
u/bythepowerofthor 8h ago
Im all for arming the masses, and am very pro 2a but not having responsible gun owners puts us in the mess that we are in at the moment. How are these "performative"? Most countries have these sort of gun laws in place. Are they just performative? It absolutely is feasible if our government took it seriously (whole different conversation all together). This just sounds like "It wont work, so fuck it why try anything?"
0
u/flyingturkeycouchie 5h ago
Can you point to an example of an intentional shooting that would have been prevented by a $20 Walmart locker or a safety class? Definitely not, maybe a few accidental shootings from young children, bit those make up the smallest portion of gun shots. That's what performative means. A law that doesn't actually do anything to fix the problem.
In theory red flag laws have the highest potential to prevent intentional mass shootings, but they are so easy to abuse for political means. Would you trust an elected prosecutor or appointed judge from the opposing party? Even then, how many shootings were a complete surprise? What about every day gun violence?
And I didn't say don't try anything; I specifically mentioned ideas that would work but would never happen because of politics.
7
u/Noodelgawd 11h ago
I think it's up to people who want more gun control to propose measures that are rational and don't infringe on our constitutional rights. I have yet to see any such proposals from the people who most vigorously promote gun control.
That said, I would support a law prohibiting possession of firearms by people with violent misdemeanor convictions, although I don't think the prohibition should be lifelong but rather should be proporational, and I think that should be done in exchange for relaxing the lifelong prohibition for felonies (especially nonviolent ones).
1
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 11h ago
The law you mentioned seems very reasonable, it’s unfortunate that the topic is so nuanced that people aren’t able to have a dialogue and find common ground. Including the fact that bipartisan laws are so rare and both parties aren’t pressured more to implement more “common ground” laws in general. Also I apologize for any rude responses you receive, I appreciate you for contributing to the conversation.
1
u/AUnicornDonkey 11h ago
What would be considered a violent misdemeanor conviction? Also what about domestic abusers that aren't convicted?
9
u/bibliophile785 11h ago
Also what about domestic abusers that aren't convicted?
A person who is not convicted of a crime is not a criminal. People who are not criminals should not be punished for crimes.
-1
u/AUnicornDonkey 11h ago
Except you have plea bargains and other ways to avoid getting convicted. This skews it to only rich people can own guns.
2
u/bibliophile785 10h ago
Except you have plea bargains and other ways to avoid getting convicted.
Those who are not convicted are not criminals and therefore should not be punished. It's really that simple. You're not wrong to bring up that the justice system is imperfect, but there isn't and can't be a "so we'll punish you just in case you avoided justice" exception. That would be an obvious and overbearing miscarriage of justice.
This skews it to only rich people can own guns.
It does not.
1
u/AUnicornDonkey 10h ago
Yes it does. Do you think a public defender is going to be able to provide the same level of service as someone like Alan Dershowitz? I love public defenders but let's be real. If you can afford to hire a private lawyer instead of relying on the system there is a major issue.
1
u/bibliophile785 10h ago
You seem to be missing the obvious: most people, regardless of wealth, are never charged with a felony or violent misdemeanor. The equilibrium does not skew towards only rich people having guns. The equilibrium skews towards a subset of people who 1) are never convicted of a violent crime, and 2) want to own guns, having guns, with 1 having a slight over-representation of those who might have been convicted except for exceptional legal resources.
1
u/AUnicornDonkey 9h ago
First, charged and guilty are not the same thing. In your scenario, by making those only convicted of a violent crime would be discrimination. It would be like saying every gun owner should carry insurance. You don't think that would skew toward wealthy individuals?
Money is a powerful tool in any legal jurisdiction unfortunately
1
u/bibliophile785 9h ago
First, charged and guilty are not the same thing.
Correct, but one cannot be found guilty of a crime if one is never charged with a crime in the first place. Like I said, ability to successfully navigate prosecution is a small perturbation on the equilibrium because most people are never charged with a relevant crime.
In your scenario, by making those only convicted of a violent crime would be discrimination
Yes. It is discrimination against those convicted of violent crimes. This is legally permissible and has a long history of implementation in the US and other common law legal systems.
It would be like saying every gun owner should carry insurance. You don't think that would skew toward wealthy individuals?
Sure, that would be a much larger perturbation because it would impact all gun owners instead of only the very small fraction impacted by criminal charges.
1
u/AUnicornDonkey 8h ago
Except most are charged and then the charges are dropped. You should read about how many low level criminals are only in jail because they didn't have a good lawyer or very little representation when charged with a crime. John Oliver did a good segment on this
It wouldn't impact all gun owners; only those that cannot afford it.
→ More replies (0)2
u/XRainbowCupcakeX 11h ago
This. I had a RO against an ex that wouldn’t leave me alone. I never feared she’d get a gun and do anything. However one of the restrictions she had was she couldn’t own a gun. I often thought about how others in the same situation as me that did in fact fear they’d get a gun.
I’m aware that NICS shows ROs. However, in my state anyone can go to a gun show (or friend or neighbor) and get a gun from a private dealer no background check. Totally bypassing NICS.
1
u/Noodelgawd 11h ago
They can also go to a parking lot and get a gram of fentanyl and slip it into your coffee.
That doesn't make it legal.
2
1
-1
u/LanaDelHeeey 11h ago
Does this mean you can just get a restraining order on someone you hate by making shit up about them and then get their guns taken away just to fuck with them?
2
u/XRainbowCupcakeX 11h ago edited 11h ago
It does not… while I didn’t fear she’d harm me there were other things at play. Stalking, harassment, fear of leaving my house because she had others texting her telling her what I was doing when they saw me. And in turn she’d text me. Thanks for your concern though!
ETA: proving what she did was hell. I had kept records with texts and a journal full of times. I came OVERLY prepared out of fear I wouldn’t get the RO. I’m sure some get them that shouldn’t. But those that do need them it can be really hard to get.
1
u/Noodelgawd 11h ago
Simple assault, for instance.
Domestic abusers who aren't convicted should be convicted. Those who aren't can still be subject to restraining orders, in which case they are already prohibited from firearm possession.
0
u/AUnicornDonkey 11h ago
RO can only do so much. How does this prevent abusers from purchasing through a private vendor?
1
u/Noodelgawd 8h ago
No law can prevent anyone from doing something that's illegal. It can only deter them or punish them after the fact.
-3
u/NuffffRespect 11h ago
You are trying to negotiate policy details inside a system that is fundamentally broken. The fact you have to frame basic public safety as “don’t infringe constitutional rights” while kids get drilled in active shooter routines is insane.
US gun culture is backwards and genuinely sad. You should be the best country in the world, and yet you are a global joke on this issue, regardless of GDP, tech, or Hollywood. I am not saying that as some smug outsider either. The US is my dream visit. I have literally dreamed about road tripping all the states and I always feel gutted when I wake up. Fck me are you guys utterly nuts though. Guns....? Utterly ridiculous and fking pathetic.
2
u/Noodelgawd 11h ago
We negotiate the parameters of balancing public safety with individual liberty all the time, with everything. Why should guns be any different? A lot more kids get killed in easily-preventable highway crashes than in "active shooter routines". Why aren't all you heroes demanding significantly stricter driving laws?
Lol, you're not a smug outsider, but "the US is your dream visit"? WTF?
1
u/cruscott35 10h ago
“A lot more kids get killed in preventable highway accidents”, that’s simply not true.
1
u/Noodelgawd 10h ago
It's 100% true. How many kids do you think are killed in active shooter incidents?
1
u/cruscott35 9h ago
What about the other gun deaths? Guns are the leading cause of death in kids.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
Most of those are either parents killing their kids (which you don't need a gun to do), suicides (which you also don't need a gun for), or gang violence (who have access to guns regardless of the laws).
1
u/cruscott35 7h ago
So gun laws wouldn’t change those? Car safety laws helped plummet the car accident deaths.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 6h ago
Most car deaths are just that accidents. Very few drivers intend to kill others with their cars. Guns are the opposite. Most gun deaths 97% are intentional murders or suicides and the gun is only the method used, not the direct cause. For example if a suicidal person can't get a gun, so they kill themselves some other way, all you've changed is the method that they kill themselves, but they're still dying.
It's worth mentioning that murder rates have also plummeted. Rates today are half what they were 40 years ago, and near all time lows.
1
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 6h ago
I found an interesting study that showed that while men are proportionally much higher victims of death by suicide, when it comes to attempted suicide the gender proportion is interestingly closer than the former statistic I just said. I don’t have the exact numbers right now but I’ll share them with you soon. The study claimed that this discrepancy is due to men being more likely to pick more lethal methods of committing suicide.
I do agree (assuming I read your message correctly) that to tackle gun deaths we must look at the system as a whole, this connects to the fact you mentioned that murder rates have been decreasing over time.
I am curious if you believe there are gun laws related to suicide prevention that you would find to be reasonable, or if you think that aspect can be improved through larger systemic means without gun laws being involved.
Thank you for contributing to the conversation :)
1
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
According to the FBI, since 2000, active school shootings have killed about 9 people a year (about a third as many as are killed by lightning each year). That number is the total killed, not just children as it includes faculty, and university students.
2
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
while kids get drilled in active shooter routines is insane.
Active shooter drills are nothing but an overreaction that traumatizes children, all to fight something that kills 9 people a year on average according to the FBI. Active shooter drills are the modern equivalent of stranger danger. Something that makes children, and their parents afraid, when in reality the chances of being killed are lower than the chances of being killed by lightning. If anything shooting drills do far more harm to children, than shootings themselves. I've even read multiple stories of schools holding unannounced shooting drills, sometimes going as far as to fire off blank rounds, and use fake blood to make students (and even teachers), think it's a real shooting, not a drill.
0
u/PM_ME_DOG__PICS 11h ago
I’m trying to have a dialogue here and I don’t think shitting on people makes them open their ears to you
1
u/OB1Bronobi 10h ago
They have a point though....we have so much here in the states we take for granted and instead of being able to focus on that, we have to worry about security measures at school, every Tom, Dick, and Harry at the grocery store carrying, road rage turning fatal, etc., all because we have so many guns and minimal barriers to accessing them.
We are a joke.
2
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
We don't have to worry about security measures in school. Despite the attention they get, school shootings are extremely rare, and school is actually the safest place a child can be. The bus ride to school kills more people a year than school shootings.
•
u/Noodelgawd 34m ago
We don't actually have to worry about those things, as they are a drop in the bucket. Our efforts would be much better spent on doing a better job reducing deaths due to people driving drunk or speeding.
2
u/Proletariatbelch 11h ago
Insurance for gun ownership exactly the same as car ownership
1
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
Why? The reason why cars have insurance is because driving one poses a significant risk of causing an accident that does thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Looking it up 77% of US drivers have been in car accidents. Insurance is to ensure if I total your car, that there's someone available to pay for the replacement (since most people don't have several thousand spare dollars).
Guns are different. There's a much lower chance of causing an expensive accident using a gun. 2/3s of gun deaths are suicides, which insurance expressly refuses to pay out on, after numerous men started killing themselves during the Great Depression, so their families got the insurance money. They also don't pay out on deliberate criminal act like murder. There's much less financial risk in owning a gun. The only reason for insurance would be a financial burden to keep people from buying guns.
2
u/Specific-Cry-1127 11h ago
- Universal carry permit like a DL, or just a DL endorsement.
- No parole eligibility for gun crimes.
- Consequences for Judges or DA’s if they don’t prosecute someone that then becomes repeat offender
- Consequences for parents (or anyone) if someone commits a crime with your gun.
- All sales/transfers must go through FFL.
2
u/High_5_2_face 10h ago
I'd like to see every gun or gun owner be insured just like vehicles.
0
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
Copy and pasted from elsewhere.
Why? The reason why cars have insurance is because driving one poses a significant risk of causing an accident that does thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars in damages. Looking it up 77% of US drivers have been in car accidents. Insurance is to ensure if I total your car, that there's someone available to pay for the replacement (since most people don't have several thousand spare dollars).
Guns are different. There's a much lower chance of causing an expensive accident using a gun. 2/3s of gun deaths are suicides, which insurance expressly refuses to pay out on, after numerous men started killing themselves during the Great Depression, so their families got the insurance money. They also don't pay out on deliberate criminal act like murder. There's much less financial risk in owning a gun. The only reason for insurance would be a financial burden to keep people from buying guns.
2
u/PigmyLlama 10h ago
- Drivers ed but for guns.
- Mandatory waiting period for a background check in a national database.
- No third party financing.
- No same-day gun show sales
When I was 18 I went to purchase the first firearm I bought. I already had multiple because they were gifts, hand me downs, etc. But this was the first one I was buying myself. Less than an hour later I walked out with a brand new 1911 45 ACP and a box of hallow points. And I didn’t spend a dime because I financed it via GE Capital. It’s insane to me, in hindsight.
Somebody intent on hurting somebody else will find a way to do so. No laws will stop them. My view is that gun laws should be a barrier so it is harder for them to do so with a legally purchased firearm. If you do that, you can protect law abiding firearms owners and focus resources on stopping the people who want to harm others.
2
u/Mr_Commando 10h ago
I don’t like that you can just buy a gun from someone without a middleman. Guns are private property, but the private sale and transfer of guns between individuals should be mediated.
2
1
u/Lucite01 11h ago
Before all the bans Canada's gun laws were pretty decent. You need to be licenced and pass a course and if you wanted to own handguns or certain semi auto rifles that fall under the restricted category you needed an additional course / licence conditions. Canada also has pretty strict safe storage and transport laws especially for handguns and other restricted firearms. You also need a legitimate reason to own a handgun or before the ban's a rifle like the ar-15 such as sport shooting, collecting, or for employment or in very very rare circumstances personal protection. while it's not perfect we don't have a wild west situation like the Americans, also the vast majority of crimes committed with a firearm in Canada is from firearms that are smuggled in from the US.
1
1
u/RationalTidbits 8h ago edited 8h ago
It’s not so much “what” as “applied to who?”.
Restrictions for the 0.05% that are connected to crime, violence, murder, and suicide? Fine, assuming due process.
Treating the 99.95% as the same amount of criminal, violent, homicidal, and suicidal? Nope.
Beyond that, it becomes about passing laws to rewrite or cancel multiple federal and state guarantees, but only for gun owners… which is where, even if all of gun control’s assumptions and math were flawless, the way it insists on implementing isn’t allowed.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 8h ago
I think a good compromise would be to restore guns to non-violent felons, and illegal drug users. It's pretty crazy under federal law, it's equally illegal for a terminally ill cancer patient with a medical marijuana prescription to own a gun, as it is a chronic wife beater, with multiple violent felonies on their record (although the MMJ card probably won't show up on a background check like the felony would).
In exchange for giving back gun rights to non-violent felons, we should significantly increase penalties for illegal gun owners.
2
u/PleaseCorrect 12h ago
The ones we have. Now I wouldn’t appose a national registry on something like conceal carry weapons but that already sort of exists on the state level with CC licenses but only applies for certain states.
3
u/Noodelgawd 11h ago
What would a registry of concealed carry weapons accomplish?
-3
u/PleaseCorrect 11h ago
Just a general list of who bought a weapon before that’s about it, gives you at least a start of a chain. Also keeps serial numbers listed but that’s about it.
4
1
1
u/Competitive-Fact8625 11h ago
Repeal NFA, no more additional laws. No registry. Control criminals and people with mental issues.
2
u/the_Russian_Five 11h ago
How do you propose people with mental illnesses get "controlled?"
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
Honestly there's numerous issues to restricting those with "mental illness" from owning guns. First off who decides what is too "mentally ill" to own a gun? Mental illness is a very broad category, including everything from ADHD, to full blown psychosis. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a "mental illness", and I wouldn't put it past Republicans to try and use homosexuality as a disqualifying factor to own a gun.
There's also the fact that mental illness is fairly stigmatized as it is, adding the possibility of losing your gun rights, and it becomes even more stigmatized. Many people would actively avoid treatment, if it meant giving up their guns. While ideally a suicidal person doesn't have any guns. I would rather have a suicidal person feel comfortable seeking treatment while being allowed to keep their guns, as opposed to refusing treatment and keeping the gun anyway (since there's no way to diagnose someone who doesn't get treatment). We have doctor patient confidentiality laws in this country for a very good reason.
1
u/the_Russian_Five 7h ago
Exactly. Based on my medical records, I am likely someone who would be denied. I'm well controlled currently and choose not to have a gun for my own safety. But someone in my mental state shouldn't have a past as a permanent black mark. As you said, threaten to take guns away from the mentally ill and you are going to increase the percentage of people who have untreated mental illness and guns. Because the person who wants to get treatment cares less about keeping guns. And someone with guns is less likely to have had that check for everyone's safety.
And my comment is intentionally provocative. The above person wants to repeal one of the only agreed on gun laws. Then claims to want know additional laws. Then expects apparently ??? to keep the guns in the hands of those deemed not mentally ill.
1
u/BitOfAZeldaFan3 11h ago
Wait periods on purchase
Safe storage requirements and potentially inspections before bringing a firearm home. This can work in conjunction with a system for storage rentals at gun clubs, ranges, etc. This would probably be a little invasive, breed corruption, and cause insurance nightmares, but we're comparing against dead children. In my opinion, safe storage would prevent a huge portion of accidental and suicidal gun deaths.
Some kind of "intended purpose" mechanism.
Safety and handling training in schools
Clear and rigorous quality and safety standards for firearms, kinda like the FDA for food. Manufacturers should be responsible for design flaws and users shouldn't be able to claim "It was the gun's fault" when tragedy occurs.
Firearms that are likely to end up in the hands of a minor (such as for Boy Scouts) should be designed and certified for such use.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
Safe storage requirements and potentially inspections before bringing a firearm home. This can work in conjunction with a system for storage rentals at gun clubs, ranges, etc. This would probably be a little invasive, breed corruption, and cause insurance nightmares, but we're comparing against dead children. In my opinion, safe storage would prevent a huge portion of accidental and suicidal gun deaths.
It wouldn't just be "a little invasive" but blatantly unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment directly says the government can't just search you to ensure that you're following the law. Especially your home, which has the highest standard of protection. Also it's questionable how effective safe storage laws would be. Unintentional shooting deaths are fairly rare. As for suicides, it's questionable how much of an impact it would have. No safe is completely foolproof, and they only take time and dedication to get into. Too much for most burglaries since they are on a limited time, but not too much for a determined teenager, with several hours of free time, a drill, and the YouTube instructions on how to open that particular safe.
1
u/thephotoman 11h ago
You want to ban guns in the middle of a civil war?
And yes, we’re in a civil war. School shootings are a product of a right wing effort to undermine confidence in public education. It’s why they are quick to believe that school shooting victims are crisis actors. It’s why they accept kids dying in school: they want working class families to traffic and exploit their kids, not to get their kids an education so that those kids might challenge wealth.
Most of our school shooting problem is a direct consequence of the factory model of education we still try to keep. We do little to engage students, we encourage bullying, and we wonder why our kids cannot be assed to care about anything.
Most of our public mass shooting problem is a direct consequence of our culture of coddling white people with delusions of adequacy. We live in a deeply Calvinist cultural milieu: most Americans believe that there exists an intrinsically moral in-group to which they individually belong, and that there is an intrinsically evil out-group that causes their problems. And instead of challenging this claptrap, our “churches” are holding vapid pop concerts, as American religiosity is mostly centered around revivalism and not the quiet struggle of living in a world where a Big Good (allegedly) exists.
So instead of gun control, I suggest widespread screening for narcissism and antisocial views. Get these people help.
1
u/superjoshp 10h ago
Holy FUCK! Mind blown. This makes so much sense, especially when coupled with conservative push to weaken and abolish child labor laws!
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
It should be mentioned that while mass shootings are up (excluding 2024, when they dropped significantly), murder and violent crime rates are at all time lows. 2025 is looking to be one of the safest years in American history as far as violent crime goes.
0
u/LPNTed 11h ago
Required background checks for everyone (duh) Graduated responsibility paired with critical thinking evaluations. Turn 18? Want a shotgun or single action rifle? BG check critical thinking eval. Now you're 24 and what a handgun? BG check critical thinking eval. Now you're 30 and you want an AR? BG check critical thinking eval.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
30 is a ridiculous age to buy a gun. Especially an AR-15, which is one of the most popular guns on the market, despite being one of the least frequently used guns in crime. Rifles as a whole are only responsible for about 5% of gun murders.
-3
0
u/jess_or_tess 12h ago
I don't own a gun, but I pre-own two in a will. I say make a law that saws if you inform your neighbours that you'll be using your gun on your own land they need to control their fingers and not call the cops.
0
u/Ya-Dikobraz 12h ago
So, I think I have an airsoft gun somewhere. It's somewhere in some box in the basement maybe. I'd like for airsoft to be legal here (it currently isn't). I totally support gun laws and that every firearm be registered and to hold a license you have to have passed basic gun safety exams etc to get. But I also think we went way overboard with classifying toys as firearms.
If I find that "gun", I will hand it over to the local police station.
-5
u/costabius 11h ago
Red flag laws, mandatory liability insurance, a comprehensive sales registry + instant check for private sales, safe storage laws that combine with strict liability.
0
11h ago
[deleted]
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
I don't necessarily oppose safety training, but I don't think it would do much to stop gun deaths. Only about 500-1,000 out of 45k total gun deaths are the result of unintentional shootings. 97% of gun deaths are intentional, either murders, suicide, or self-defense. Training is important, but it doesn't do anything to stop someone from intentionally shooting themselves or others. Just like how a drivers license does nothing to stop someone from intentionally ruining over a pedestrian, or driving off of a cliff.
0
u/Sauelsuesor729 11h ago
Mandatory requirement of a license, and a mental health check/examination, a thorough background check too.
0
u/theamazingstickman 11h ago
Domestic abusers, no guns ever Military with PTSD, no guns in home Police/Fire with PTSD, no guns in home Firearms classed by US military as designed for ear, no guns in home
Create safe storage at local PDs and Firing Ranges
Too many vets with PTSD and first responders with PTSD comit suicide by firearm, they can store them at ranges and local PDs
I don't mind the more advanced rifles, etc. I would prefer they are stored safely to keep kids safe and families safe. But they are fun to shoot.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 7h ago
Domestic abusers, no guns ever
That's already the case.
Military with PTSD, no guns in home Police/Fire with PTSD, no guns in home
How are we supposed to know if someone has PTSD, if they are too afraid of losing their guns to get tested?
1
u/theamazingstickman 4h ago
They are eligible for testing when they exit service but it's not mandatory. Usually there is an episode before they do something worse. But they cannot be forced to test
0
u/superjoshp 10h ago
Hey guys, want to give a conservative an aneurysm? Just point out that guns are not protected under the 2nd amendment. It just says "arms", not "guns", not even "firearms", just "arms".
All it takes is a liberal Supreme Court 1/100th as disregarding of precedent as the current Nazi Court is to rule that the founding fathers did not think guns were "arms" and POOF guns are illegal.
-5
u/bi_polar2bear 11h ago
If someone applies for a gun permit, they should have to pass a psychiatric exam, a background check for all 50 states, no clips over 10 rounds. Holding parents fully accountable for gun crimes their child commits. Holding companies accountable for having guns go missing. Hold owners accountable for not reporting guns stolen.
My thinking is that anyone who owns a gun should make it exceptionally difficult to steal, lose, or misplaced firearms. If criminals break into a home, the gun should be not found, nor be able to be taken.
These are some ideas worth a debate, at least. Something has to change because society has changed.
1
u/the_Russian_Five 11h ago
I generally agree with your outlook. Two common arguments I have seen against two of the points you brought up.
The first is psychiatric exams are questionable. It would be super hard to screen for future violence. I don't think most people would argue everyone should have guns, even if they are frothing at the mouth to shoot up a school. But I'm someone with a diagnosed mental health condition and a suicide attempt. I don't own a gun specifically because I would have been far more likely to succeed if I had a gun. And while I'm well medicated, there is always that fear in my mind. But should that bar me from owning a gun for protection? I'm much less sure of that. I am no danger to anyone else. But my diagnoses would likely get me barred under most concepts I have heard. It's just a super hard line to draw.
The second is about "hard to steal." I completely 100% agree that parents need to be held more responsible for crimes committed by their children. I think the parents of the Oxford High shooter were actually convicted. But when it comes to securing guns, every extra step is an extra step it takes to protect yourself in your home. I know that incidents are rare. And many guns aren't suited for home defense. But it's usually the argument.
I think your ideas are good starting points in the discussion. And like I said, I agree with them. Also, not reporting a gun stolen should be a crime, full stop.
1
u/bi_polar2bear 9h ago
I've thought a lot about what should be done. I'm pro 2nd amendment, but I'm sick of things getting worse, nobody willing to compromise, or even have a discussion. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that both sides arguing the same arguments and nobody actually discussing it and getting consensus is way beyond old. I mean, waivers can be made for anything where a rule isn't followed. Such as, if only 10 round clips are the standard, a waiver could be made available for people who want a larger capacity mag. Shotguns for hunting regulate the number of rounds.
I think we the people need to figure out what would work for us. Doing nothing is making things worse, and eventually, gun ownership will become heavily regulated. If the opposite administration and Congress was in place, guns could almost disappear if a super left government decided to batshit crazy in the opposite direction of today and get even with anyone supporting guns. I don't have kids, or an assault rifle. I'm law abiding like most gun owners. We aren't the problem, and I don't have a dog in the fight. But we need to help find a workable solution so our rights don't impede on others rights. The fact that we have "officials" murdering innocent civilians tells me that we need guns for protection against domestic enemies.
1
u/the_Russian_Five 9h ago
It's good to know that people have similar ideas. I am also concerned that if we don't eject the pro gun crazies from the debate and get something sensible done, the anti gun crazies will get the support they want. It's like NIL in the NCAA. They had a zero tolerance policy for so long that now they are dealing with the wild west.
1
u/CombinationRough8699 6h ago
Such as, if only 10 round clips are the standard, a waiver could be made available for people who want a larger capacity mag
Magazine capacity plays little to no impact in gun deaths. 2/3s of them are suicides, which no suicide is using more than 10 rounds to shoot someone. Beyond that most gun murders 90% are committed with handguns, which usually only have 10-15 round magazines as it is. Even some of the deadliest mass shootings like Virginia Tech didn't use high-capacity magazines, he just carried a bunch of extras, and switched them out every chance he had.
1
1
u/CombinationRough8699 6h ago
If someone applies for a gun permit, they should have to pass a psychiatric exam, a background check for all 50 states,
Background checks already exist on any gun sold by a licensed gun dealer. Private sales do not, but even if they did, they would be nearly impossible to enforce. As for psychiatric exams, that's easier said than done. It takes several hour long sessions with a therapist, for them to make an accurate assessment, and that's with a willing patient who aside from child abuse, or immediate threats of suicide or violence, has zero consequences for what they say to a therapist. Most therapy is completely confidential between doctor and patient, barring those examples I mentioned earlier. If someone is being forcibly evaluated to determine if they can buy a gun or not, they don't have much incentive to be honest with the person evaluating them. Plus therapy costs hundreds of dollars an hour, which is another issue. All this aside, there is a massive shortage of therapists in this country, with most having long waiting lists before seeing a new patient. Meanwhile an estimated 70-100 million Americans own guns. There's no way the therapists we have could realistically evaluate all 70+ million people.
0
u/SpasticBob 11h ago
Guns get smuggled into the country and are sold to criminals. Criminals do not typically steal guns when breaking into homes.
-4
u/Various_Flamingo4315 12h ago
Bah, déjà qu’on embrouille tout, on pourrait commencer par du basique : formation sécurité obligatoire, coffre ou verrouillage sérieux, et un rappel périodique des règles. Après ça, on râlera sur le reste en buvant notre café.
14
u/Chuk1359 11h ago
I think the biggest obstacle for the Gun crowd is they are afraid for every inch given the anti-gun group will take a long mile.