• Alteon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Out of curiosity, why are you against not a fan of gun control?

    What kind of gun control laws do you think people are trying to pass that you would consider unnecessary or dangerous?

    • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a fan of government regulations beyond basic safety measures. Guns don’t just randomly shoot people.

      • reddwarf@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cars do not eject passengers violently onto the road. Safety belt laws try to prevent that from happening and it works rather good. So you still get to drive but there are regulations to prevent the human factor of causing to be ejected from cars.

        I dunno if this makes sense to you, maybe not the best comparison but it popped into my head suddenly.

        • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are also a lot of safety laws and rules for firearms. The thing is, it still requires people to follow them and not be a psychopath.

          • reddwarf@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True but cars also have more laws and rules. Seems the matter of enforcement could be an issue. Driving on public roads allows law enforcement to check if you comply. How are laws enforced for guns once in the hands of private individuals? Or perhaps there are no laws and rules from that point onwards? I honestly do not know. But I can see huge issues to enforce rules and laws if this has to be checked on the regular on private property. Perhaps some laws and rules where you, the private individual, have to come to some checkpoint? Depends on what laws and rules of course and again, I have no clue yet on this. Seems guns slip through the cracks once bought.

            But as uninformed as I am, it’s the militia part of the 2nd that could be an opening to get some regulations in place? If the 2nd can be read that, sure have guns but you have to be in a wel regulated militia to own them and storage is at designated places which can be checked for compliancy. Means no guns at home of course but the main point, you can own a gun and also be part of a militia, as noted in the 2nd, would be in place and should satisfy people?

            Well, lets have the flood of posts telling me I don’t understand the 2nd properly and people could be very right about that one 😀

            • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The main disconnect is that even with adding more laws, regulations, and enforcement; it still boils down to someone being of sound enough mind to not decide to haul ass down Main Street on Christmas Eve and crush several families with their SUV. You never see people blaming the car in those cases.

              • dezmd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You had to take a drugs and alcohol course, pass a written test, pass a vision test, and pass a driving test to be allowed to drive, and then renew the license every x number of years. Then, if you want to drive a motorcycle, or drive a large commercial truck, you need to take additional written and driving tests and even drug tests. For the safety of all.

                The system we have in place already has culpability focused on the individual who passed all that and takes part in a community/societal contract that the license represents, unless there is a defect in the vehicle that caused it.

                Say there was a constitutional amendment about the right to drive a vehicle, the onus would be on car manufacturers to create and/or take a dutiful part in a system that builds in physical safety features and create a sales process that trained the buyers on safety, effectively providing a standardized safety ‘licensing’ for new drivers as an integral part of buying their vehicles.

                Does that sound completely unreasonable? Or is Death Race 2000 the standard now?

              • reddwarf@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I understand. Could be the reason that because so many regulations are in place for cats that people stopped pointing at cars as the cause and started focussing on people? Lets not forget that when cars started to enter society people blamed cars for lots of bad things, same as when trains started to run. Regulations were applied and can be checked regularly. It made blaming cars and trains less of a thing, like you pointed out. So perhaps if we can create locations where guns can be stored and checked out? You would still have the legal right to own guns and you can access them to shoot at ranges and such. Would allow for interesting and new ways of checking and enforcing laws. You would still have crazy people shooting places up, I have no doubt, but perhaps society will see “enough is done to safeguard within reason, something else needs to be done apart from guns”?

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So the issue there is that it directly conflicts with the right to privacy, presumption of innocence, and your right to practice your constitutional rights. The government and law enforcement, hell even your neighbors or your HOA, cannot just check you or your stuff out to make sure you’re not doing bad things. We can’t mandate that you can only practice your religion at designated churches. You aren’t required to go get your free speech pass from City Hall that then allows you to go to approved places to discuss politics. What you are describing is not really a new and interesting way to check and enforce laws, secret police and dictators have been doing that for centuries. “If you don’t have anything to hide” is one of the worst things you could hear from law enforcement.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Law enforcement only gets to check that you comply with driving laws and regulations if you break them in front of them. They don’t just get to pull people over randomly and run checks on them because they feel like it because of the 4th amendment. There is also the difference between a privilege like driving, and a constitutional right. No other right requires that you allow law enforcement to keep tabs on you or your property. No one should live in a police state like that

              As to your understanding of the 2nd, the “well regulated” part means operating smoothly and in good order. It’s fallen out of every day parlance, but a well regulated clock or well regulated engine used to be in more common parlance and still is used in the military I believe. So a plain English reading would be “A fully functional and well operating militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is backed up by the Militia Act passed 2 years following the ratification, that confirmed that to join a militia require the militia member to provide their own arms and minimum starting ammunition. Without an individual right to keep and bear arms, that would make it hard to form said militia.

              • reddwarf@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thanks for the reply. I’m clearly out of my depth on this one and struggle to make sense of it all. I’m not American so this all is so strange to me.

                Personally I would say the constitution should not be so fixed in time as times and needs change. This would allow the 2nd to be adapted to modern times and needs.

                But as I am not American I have 0 say in this and will step aside.

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, I agree with that as well. We have a process to amend the constitution, it just requires 75% of Congress and the State legislators to agree instead of a simple majority to change it so it is a stable source of law. If it could be changed every 4-8 years as power changes, it would wreck havoc across all levels of society.

                • Narauko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  While non-Americans may not have the standing or skin in the game, I think taking an interest in how other governments and cultures work and evolve is a worthwhile endeavor. I think we can all learn something from each other regardless of nationality. We Americans like to criticize other countries and societies for things we think are backwards or harmful like humanitarian issues in certain countries and regions, but freak out when we get the same in return. I hope we are strong enough to rise above that as a country, but there are a lot of thin skinned individuals and ideologues out here.

                  There are also arguments to be made about interpretations of 200 year old amendments, such as the current courts originalist interpretation. Under originalism, the court tries to rule based on what the founders and signatories intended, rather than change interpretations as vocabulary drifts and evolves. There are some supporting documents like the Federalist Papers and other first and second hand documents, but it’s not exactly clear cut all the time and there is a lot of guesswork involved. I lean towards interpreting based on original intention for stability reasons and to avoid circumventing the legal processes by changing the meanings of words. Breaks the spirit of the law IMO. But that’s just like, my opinion man.

                  I personally tend to agree that the intent of the 2nd was for private ownership of all contemporary weapons of war to protect the Republic from both foreign invasion and internal tyranny if the government becomes co-opted and no longer is “of the people”. That probably needs to evolve and be updated as war has fundamentally changed, along with human society, and nukes are way to expensive for anyone to afford short of like the top 100 wealth list (who we shouldn’t trust anyway on oligarchal principles). The original militias were forged into the National Guard and Reserves (and to a degree the police forces), and there isn’t the same national drive for local/state militias for common protection and defense, but if we want to do away with the right of the people to do so then we need to come up with a modifying amendment that a super majority of the people and State governments can agree on and ratify.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but there’s evidence that basic gun control laws work.

        1.) Universal Background Checks 2.) Gun holding periods 3.) Banning under 21 purchases (I’d be okay with it if you have someone to co-sign with you - that they are responsible as well).

        Like you’d prevent something like one in four homicides. And people still fight against this. This is what it means to stand against gun control.

        Honestly, I wish we had a gun registry just like we have a car registry as it would prevent people transferring ownership to criminals and people that would otherwise fail background checks.

        • faceula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just don’t understand the need for guns in this day and age? Everybody knows how dangerous they are. The obsession with the craven desire to own guns is beyond me. How many people have died this year from mass shootings so far? On record pace this year. Ban guns, deaths reduce substantially. Just an opinion.

          • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A large percentage of the US is rural. That usually means concerns of animal predators, distant neighbors, and police response times of 45+ minutes. Most people own a firearm as a form of self defense for an immediate threat, or for hunting.

            • faceula@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah I kinda get the theory behind that but the reality I feel is completely at odds when considering your massively populous areas. Also how often are people defending themselves against wildlife? I’m really curious actually as I have no idea on the stats about this.

            • faceula@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Mixed really, it is a growing necessity but being in the UK only in required/specific situations.

        • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The things you listed are already in place, and have been in place for decades, though the age requirement differs by state. For example, in Florida, it’s 18 for a long gun and 21 for a pistol. There is often a 3 day holding period, unless you own a license (concealed carry or firearm permit). You cannot buy a gun from any retailer or FTL without a background check. You also have to fill out a firearm transfer form to purchase the gun, which also registers the serial number to your name.

          The only part where it breaks down is private sales, but the person selling the firearm can be held liable if they end up selling to someone who cannot legally own a gun. The same scenario of registering the sale applies to private car sales. You can sell a car to someone, and if you don’t inform the DOT you’ve sold the car (and the buyer never registers it), you’re on the hook if they find the car abandoned on the side of the road or at a crime scene.

          • Alteon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            …but… they’re not.

            1.) Background checks are only required at federally licensed gun dealers, however only 40% of dealers in the US are licensed. Guns sold at gun shows, flea markets, etc arent subject to that requirement. And only 20 US states have added requirements to the background checks…not even half…so your claim that this has already been implemented is not exactly true, or should be HEAVILY caveated.

            2.) Only 19 states have red flag laws (which would come up in background checks).

            3.) Only 10 states have withholding periods.

            So…yeah. A lot of room for improvement. That’s why I don’t get arguments against gun control. It makes us safer, it statistically prevents A LOT of homicides/suicides, and generally just make sense.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not personally a fan of general increases in gun control because I don’t think many of the ideas floated would help more than they would hurt law abiding citizens, but it really should be free and quick for anyone to request a background check for private party gun sales and thus should be mandatory. My own personal experience is background checks are done at my local gun shows, but yes there should be mandatory universal background checks and this 100% can be improved.

              Federally mandated waiting periods would be hard and burdensome to enforce on private party sales, but I’d be open to discussions on how it could be done. Red flag laws are also tricky because we have a presumption of innocence and protection against searches and seizures, but if it requires that you get to face a judge before they take your guns away then once again, an argument worth having. I argue against security theater gun control, and because I believe any restrictions of constitutional rights should by default be argued against since we need damn solid reasons to restrict rights.

        • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Owning a car makes it infinitely easier to drive it into a crowd of people. Owning a knife makes it infinitely easier to stab people.

          It’s not an outstanding argument when they all require someone to make the decision to hurt people.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And owning a spoon makes it infinitely easier to to go on a spoon based killing spree in a school. But wierdly, despite everyone in the US owning spoons and there being far more spoons than guns, spoons based killing sprees are much less common than shooting sprees.

            It’s almost, almost like one is a tool specifically designed to kill people as quickly and effectively as possible and the other isn’t. And in the very unlikely event that is the case, we should probably regulate them differently.

          • Zorque@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, but cars and knives (of certain kinds) have functions other than hurting people. Making the assumption that they’re exactly the same as a tool whose sole purpose is death and destruction is disingenuous at best.

            I dont disagree that they’re “just” tools, tools that people will use as they see fit. But if you can’t see that some tools are inherently more destructive and less useful then I dont think you’re trustworthy enough to speak on whether or not they should be regulated in any way.

            • Narauko@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m going to throw a curve ball here and say yes, obviously the purpose of a gun is to kill things. Americans have an inherent right to self defense through use of arms, which is the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment. Killing animals for food is of course another common task, along with livestock protection, but self defense against other humans using force was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The founders thought about the fact that these arms could be used in crime and violence, and decided that freedom comes with risk and it was worth that risk. The country was founded on principles that the government is not there to provide perfect safety to all individuals and to dictate their lives, but instead set ground rules and let people live their lives however they see fit. There are consequences for actions, not preventing all actions with negative consequences. There’s a reason that the phrase “those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither” is such a famous (or infamous) quote in America.

              Many people may feel they do not need to protect themselves with force of arms in modern society and would prefer more safety over more freedom, but until such time as over 3/4s of the population agree to cede their right to self defense to the government and change the 2nd with an overriding amendment, these tools are doing the job they are designed for. This argument that cars and knives and what have you serve another purpose so it’s “different” just strikes me as odd. Hell, the amount of people killed by cars when killing people is in fact the opposite of it’s purpose, is more concerning if you think about it because cars kill so many more people than the guns that are actually designed specifically for killing. But to do that we need to limit cars to traveling at 35mph and have internal and external airbags and giant soft air tube tires that can safely run over people without causing harm, but no one is advocating to make laws mandating such and no one would buy a car like that if it was available.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We require mandatory training before giving out drivers licenses and insurance in most states and a system where we take away licenses if people are too reckless. That’s because a hundred thousand people die from cars every year. Why not do the same for guns which kill tens of thousands of people a year? Instead we have to have mass shooter drills and emergency bleed-out kits in public areas rather than address this.

        • Narauko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think gun safety training should be mandatory as part of the US education system starting from the beginning of school. There are more guns than people in the US, so odds are good that many children will come into contact with them at some point, and they should know what they are and how to be safe. Unfortunately, the left acts like this will indoctrinate children towards being pro guns like the right thinks sex education will make kids have sex. Leaving these basic life knowledge “up to the family” to teach is just such a shitty idea.

          The issue of licensing is tricky because unlike driving a car, gun ownership is a constitutional right and we do not have a good track record of being fair and equitable when we make practicing rights require any “cost of entry”. Other than that and as has been mentioned already, many places require licenses and extra training to concealed carry, and if you are reckless with guns or just even with criminal behavior you can lose your gun rights.

          Also, even if mass shootings just weren’t a thing I think having trauma kits along with AEDs in public areas is just good practice, and adding hostile attacker drills to existing fire, earthquake, tornado, etc drills is also probably good practice. The more emergency situations people are even somewhat trained to “handle”, the better they react to both known and unknown emergencies. When the brain is overwhelmed in an emergency, having any ingrained reflex your subconscious can fall back on prevents freezing or panicked random action.

        • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Licensing, testing, and insurance are the requirement to take a vehicle into public. You can operate a vehicle on private land with none of those things.

          The same is required for firearms in most states; minus insurance, though it’s highly recommended.

          We should be asking why certain people are deciding they want to hurt as many people as possible before they can be killed; not asking why they chose their particular method. The ownership of firearms is not a new concept in the US, but “going down in a blaze of glory” has been a somewhat recent phenomenon increasing at a terrifying and disturbing rate.

          • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I always find it amazing when people make the argument that we shouldn’t regulate something because all we really need to do is solve the fundamental problems in society that ever cause people to do the wrong thing. Thanks buddy I’ll get right on that

            • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s already heavily regulated. Most of the regulations people want are already in place, or an outright ban.

              When something that has been around for a long time with heavy regulation, but there’s a growing trend; then most likely it’s something else influencing the problem.

              • Zorque@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well when you assume any regulation of something is “heavy”, I suppose you could make that argument.

          • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Republicans are blocking not only gun control legislation but any increase to mental health services, so they’re not making that argument in good faith. They even passed new laws in Georgia allowing people with diagnosed mental illness to have guns when they weren’t allowed before.

            Guns are the only way left to cause mass murder at this scale. We restrict access to planes and cars already, you don’t think guns should have some additional scrutiny?

            • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The situation in Georgia is certainly problematic, and I agree with you that people with certain diagnosed mental illnesses should not own firearms. However, firearms are certainly far from unregulated compared to driving.

              Have you tried to purchase a firearm? It’s not like going to the hardware store and walking out with a brand new chainsaw. You have to fill out all of the paperwork for a background check, wait for it to come back clean (often takes hours), fill out a transfer/registration form, pay applicable taxes, and then there’s a holding period. The only way around the holding part is if you possess a concealed carry or firearm license, which requires training, more background checks, more taxes and forms, and a very long waiting period (usually months) for the permit to be issued.

              These same requirements are also in place at gun shows, by the way. You often have to send your purchase to a local FTL for the holdover period, if you don’t already have a license.

              Also, in regards to the mass murder issue, France was having issues with people driving trucks into crowds a few years ago. England has mass stabbings, and Australia has machete sprees. The truly alarming thing with the US is the growing frequency.

              • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You forgot the giant loophole of private purchases, people selling guns via Instagram etc.

                It’s not an honest argument to compare car rammings or UK stabbing a to gun deaths. A man literally shot 500 people in Las Vegas with an assault rifle in a concert while car homicides are in single digits per attack. The U.S. is the only developed country with mass shootings and you keep trying to ignore guns as the problem and looking at everything but.

                • Dettweiler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You can also sell a vehicle privately, and that person can choose not to register it. That point is moot.

                  Yes, the US is the only developed country with mass shootings, despite there being other developed countries that allow citizens to own firearms with varying levels of regulation (some with even less regulation than the US). So, again, what is the particular thing that makes the US stand out from those other developed, firearm-carrying countries?

                  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Unregistered vehicles can’t get insurance and there’s criminal penalties if you’re caught without registration. It’s not moot though you really are trying to stretch the analogy in your claim that this means guns shouldn’t have the same.

                    The other firearm carrying countries have mandatory gun training and laws against mentally ill people from having guns. They also have red flag laws, which are shown to save lives but the gun lobby is fighting against extremely hard.

            • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are a lot of ways to cause mass murder so it certainly isn’t “the only way left”. People have and will used other methods. Something as simple as fire is a weapon with a history of use in terrorism.

              Guns do have laws associated with them. You’d know this if you ever went to a shop to buy one or just looked at the laws. I don’t need to pass a background check to buy a car from the dealership. There is no crime for a felon to own a car. A felon could even get a license to operate a car in public. There is no crime for “brandishing” a car in public.

              Which law in GA are you talking about? Most states don’t outright ban ownership over a diagnosis or seeking treatment. Making that a criteria becomes tricky when trying to determine what counts or who gets to decide. I’m sure you would find a ban on voting for the mentally ill questionable if say Republican law makers decided what counts.

              Involuntary commitment is a problem for gun ownership federally regardless of state laws as well. It should kinda take a lot to restrict a right and there are problems with essentially punishing people for seeking treatment.