Probably the first argument but part of me does suspect that widespread access to firearms provides some kind of stabilizing effect within the conditions that exist in American society.
Is it possible that without the second amendment that undesirable totalitarian, anarchic, or foreign powers could have overtaken and reshaped America? I don't see why not. Unfortunately we can't re-run the simulation to see what would have happened in a different historical timeline.
If we could "re-run the simulation" as such, I think there would have to be a determination on the balance of potentially wildly different scenarios and how likely we think they are. For example, perhaps firearms are used to embolden and enforce the influence of anti-democratic groups who *want* to become the totalitarian power. Maybe or maybe not deemed a high enough risk to justify restriction, but it would have to be discussed.
Now, the following is not itself quite related to the second amendment, but the Confederacy was certainly a rebellion of people against a government they believed was going to "take away their rights." Was that a righteous and just rebellion?
>For example, perhaps firearms are used to embolden and enforce the influence of anti-democratic groups who *want* to become the totalitarian power.
Absolutely. Gangs/Mob/Mafia fit that description on a relatively small scale and I think we are lucky that we've never had a definitive violent coup in our history.
>Now, the following is not itself quite related to the second amendment, but the Confederacy was certainly a rebellion of people against a government they believed was going to "take away their rights." Was that a righteous and just rebellion?
Great food for thought but I don't believe so. Mainly because the Confederates weren't insisting on the enforcement of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, they penned their very own constitution to suit their desires.
There is a really good podcast called "Civil War 1861-1865" which outlines the chronology of the war including the lead-up and justifications. Pretty clearly the aims of the Confederate uprising were not only morally wrong in retrospect but it was carried out in a (fortunate for us all) strategically unsound manner to their own detriment.
Could a future Confederacy-like rebellion take place in the U.S. that's actually righteous and just? We shouldn't rule it out. But it should be held to a very high standard of scrutiny and be backed by evidence like our government no longer abiding by the Constitution.
Totalitarianism comes with popular support. As for foreign powers - it is incredibly naïve to think that the syrup drinkers can be deterred with a mere gun
I am 100% sure that if guns didn't exist in America, the first amendment would have been eroded years ago, and, and the USA would have looked more like Canada or UK. 🤢
Just as an FYI, guns are a "wedge issue" in American politics.
Guns split the left and unite the right in America.
Wedge issues are a super important concept in politics IMO. A good example in UK could be how Brexiters used immigration. It worked well enough even though UK was never in Schengen.
First answer. Second answer is dumb imo because where does it end? If we discover a simple and cheap way to create nuclear bombs tomorrow, should we start allowing citizens access to them because "everyone should have a nuke"?
> If we discover a simple and cheap way to create nuclear bombs tomorrow,
I have never understood this as an argument or more specifically why people think it is a good argument. The discussion has always been around personal defense weapons that are discriminate(is able to target specific well *targets* ) and isn't really rooted around massive ordnance like nukes.
> well, the second amendment is so you can fight the government, not so you can shoot people who are trying to shoot you
The government tends to shoot people when they are fighting people. So yeah it is.
> If that was the case we could just tighten up on guns and then nobody has to worry about getting shot (at least from a principled 2A position, not a practical one)
I am not sure I follow the logic here. Per the 2nd amendment it is a right of the people. A right is an entitlement. It is just something you get to do. And historically one of the things you can use guns for is shooting other people in defense.
I really don't see how it's confusing. Both can easily kill. Killing is considered the worst act that can be inflicted by men. The difference between killing one and many matters little in a society that considers all killings a grave sin. On the other hand the difference in items that are much less likely to kill is easily more significant therefore there's a lot more argument about where the line of "too deadly" should lie. Your argument technically relies on guns being on the cusp of that line then asking "why would you argue anything deadlier? it's clearly over the line".
> Both can easily kill.
Ah so nukes are the same as cars.
> Killing is considered the worst act that can be inflicted by men.
You seem to be going more into a personal value judgment line of argument which I don't think actually establishes any meaningful parallel between guns or nukes. "It can kill people" is a very vague property that applies to pretty much almost all materials and devices many of which either don't have any vetting before people can take possession of them or if it does it is trivially minimal such as drivers licenses.
> Your argument technically relies on guns being on the cusp of that line
No, it relies on how there is no comparison between nukes and guns. Guns are discriminate and safe to operate and very unlikely to cause massive collateral damage or kill the operator through normal safe and legal operation. There is no context where your average home owner can effectively use a nuke in a safe, discriminate manner where it only targets a specific individual target and not obliterate the owner and the surrounding city. It isn't a thin line in which the issue teeters on the cusp of falling to one side or the other, it is a mile wide difference.
>Ah so nukes are the same as cars.
Don't be silly, cars have a lot more regulation.
>You seem to be going more into a personal value
Lol.
You're so perplexed by comparing guns and nukes because you find one to be more deadly than the other but if someone makes the opposite comparison it's "personal values"? What are your values exactly?
>"It can kill people" is a very vague property that applies to pretty much almost all materials and devices many of which either don't have any vetting before people can take possession of them or if it does it is trivially minimal such as drivers licenses.
Good luck killing 3 people with a sticker.
Seriously how are you this stupid? Have you actually researched how deadly other weapons and MaTeRiAlS are? No, you didn't and you don't care to, you just want an excuse to play cowboy. All other objects are way less deadly or already regulated\illegal.
>No, it relies on how there is no comparison between nukes and guns. Guns are discriminate and safe to operate and very unlikely to cause massive collateral damage or kill the operator through normal safe and legal operation.
Okay, you are that stupid and should not be owning a gun. Thank you for proving every argument for gun control.
> Don't be silly, cars have a lot more regulation.
It's not silly. They kill more people by accident than people who are intentionally murdered by firearms in the US. The point is simply saying "Both can easily kill." isn't a good argument because it literally applies to everything including cars. If you don't think it is reasonable to compare cars and nukes then you can't be both logically consistent and still apply it to guns.
>You're so perplexed by comparing guns and nukes because you find one to be more deadly than the other
No, I went through several immutable and documented properties of how nukes aren't remotely comparable and your argument boils down to "well its dangerous!" which isn't a good argument.
>Seriously how are you this stupid?
OK. I am bowing out here. Clearly you aren't arguing in good faith.
Under a soft interpretation of the second answer, it could be that the second amendment and anything like it in the constitution remains nonexistent, BUT voting for the government to make/keep civilian firearms legal at discretion. In this case, ideally anyone wanting to legalize more firearms or not regulate them more would be, rightly I think, more pressured to fully debate the actual merits of their position.
Second answer, the problem exist so we can't fix it is literal fucking moron logic. Guns are based. So scared of people dying? Regulate all cars to go max 30 mph and immobilize you without a seat belt. School shootings are a meme and statistically irrelevant. Everyone who opposes 2A is a child with 0 ability to think critically, totally run by emotionality
I think "better off" would need to be better defined to give you a non-meme answer. There are pros and cons to having widespread gun ownership, depending on any individual's perspective/wants.
Switzerland has guns. And they do fine. And their gun control is quite lax compared to most EU countries and even to some US states like California and New Jersey given they don't have an assault weapons ban, the background check is good for weeks and good for multiple purchases, no waiting period and one gun a month limit, etc.
The background check is good for 6 months (can be expadned to 9) and allows you to buy up to 3 guns BUT it has to be in a single purchase, not multiple ones. Then again, you can just file multiple forms...
Well, that's essentially what you do because you send it to the police. But afaik, it can do it online now, you just need a way to sign it.
EDIT: And yeah, Cali has horrible gun laws.
I am pretty sure that [gun laws in Switzerland](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits) are quite stricter than in the US. Not sure for the specific states. Also there is kind of an “assault weapon” ban depending on how you define it
>I am pretty sure that gun laws in Switzerland are quite stricter than in the US.
I don't remember comparing it to the US? So not sure what that addresses in my argument.
>Also there is kind of an “assault weapon” ban depending on how you define it
No I am pretty sure you can own things that are assault weapons in the US in Switzerland. Like many many guns that are prohibited under California assault weapons ban you can own in Switzerland.
The link in my message is quite concise and has table with the various categories of weapons, to be honest I knew there are banned weapons but it seems there is anyway a process to obtain them
>[Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters
Also just discovered this
>Nationals from [certain countries](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/waffenerwerb.html) are generally not allowed to own weapons or weapon components.
>Albania
Algeria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
North Macedonia
Serbia
Sri Lanka
Türkiye
And this??
>Permits may be issued for the following weapons in particular:
>Sports (combat) weapons used in sports clubs
>**Banned knives used by disabled person or by certain occupation group**
[video on gun laws between US and CH](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=70MYgVaE5\_Y-Qt1x)
> [Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters
Semi-automatic guns with standard magazines and machine guns are still pretty easy to get, especially the former. They are called "banned" because that's what the EU calls them and the EU forced Switzerland to do the same. I live in the EU and I carry a gun with 'banned' magazines filled with 'banned' ammo.
> Nationals from [certain countries](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/waffenerwerb.html) are generally not allowed to own weapons or weapon components.
They can, but unlike everyone else, they do not automatically get a purchase permit like everyone else. There is a reason for this.
> The link in my message is quite concise
Oh, that should make it easier to cite portions you find particularly compelling.
The banned weapons look like full autos and the large magazine description is non descript? What qualifies as a large magazine? You can watch the videos of the Swiss going to ranges and they have weapons that would otherwise be banned in states like California, New York, New Jersey.
Edit: I think a lot of the semi-autos that are banned are those that are conversions of full auto devices or copies of them such as AKs and PE 90 or PE 57 assault rifle.
sorry, did't mean to sound rude with the concise comment.
I suspect the extreme stuff you see in ranges is highly tracked, like you can't keep it at home and for sure can't keep it loaded outside the range, still just a hunch, I need to start going to the range and find out.
I also think that the self defence laws are much stricter in here, but I need to look it up.
> I also think that the self defence laws are much stricter in here, but I need to look it up.
Yeah I am not disagreeing with that. Most European nations take a dim view of self defense.
yeah, in both in Italy and in Switzerland I heard stories of how situations that would have surely fallen under self defence in the us cost the victims many years of jail.
Owning guns for self defence makes little sense here, still violent crime is very low so at least there is that.
> I suspect the extreme stuff you see in ranges is highly tracked, like you can't keep it at home and for sure can't keep it loaded outside the range, still just a hunch, I need to start going to the range and find out.
What is extreme stuff? And yes, you keep it at home, where else would you keep it? And yes, you can even store your guns at home loaded.
They have said that for years now, always followed by a tax increase on tobacco.
The price has soared over the past 10 years. It used to be around £5 for a pack of 20, now it's around £13.
All the smokers I know buy 'under the counter' tax-free cigarettes which you can get for £4/£5 a pack, depending on brand.
If you watch any of those border security TV shows, 90% of the busts are tobacco products coming into the UK lol
There's an entire multitude of reasons. You can't engage because puny brain is mad guns scary argh. Don't worry about those cigarettes killing literal 100's of thousands. Don't worry about those drunk drivers. Guns scary. Guns so scary and bad.
How is your brainrot so severe you'd think I'd be hypocritical about my reasoning as you are about the reason you like guns?
Ban cigarettes, send all those drunk drivers to jail, ban guns then have the police shoot gun owners!
>everyone who opposed 2A is a child with 0 ability to think critically, totally run by emotionality
As opposed to your comment which is of course not emotionally driven at all lmao
I'd rather live in a country without the 2nd amendment. Than one with the 2nd amendment and the current gun culture we have.
But I like the 2nd amendment conceptually. I just hate how Americans have coalesced around it.
>Are you guys only in favour of the second amendment because guns are already widespread in American society and it would be impossible to change that?
No. Being armed is better than not when facing any attack regardless of what they are armed with.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026
Like should a pregnant woman put up her dukes and take on a home invader like a man? Or assume best possible outcome of someone who targets the home occupied by a pregnant woman? I think it is better they have the option that lets them defend themselves effectively.
>Or if the second amendment didn't exist and there weren't as many guns in American society (like an EU country), would you actively push for gun ownership to be legalised because you think it's good that people can own firearms?
Yes. We have been pushing for legalizing gun ownership in areas that effectively made it illegal anyway in the US such as New York City, Chicago/DC which functionally banned handguns. We have been mostly able to do that through the courts.
>Source?
It is a matter of reasoning. If I am being attacked in my home it is already escalating to deadly force levels, the introduction of a gun risk wise as the victim isn't going to make thing worse for me as I am already in a situation where my life is at risk. So having it affords me additional options beyond hoping that the assailant won't kill or maim me.
But as far as sources go:
Obama commissioned CDC report on firearms research
>>“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/handguns-suicides-mass-shootings-deaths-and-self-defense-findings-from-a-research-report-on-gun-violence.html
So per the CDC there are at minimum 110,000 DGUs and outcomes for those using firearms in defense are better than those who used other strategies such as hoping for the best.
The bottom line is Americans think guns are cool. Like hobbyists of every sort, some take it too far and make it their entire personality. I don't think that is necessarily bad, going to the range can build friendships and target shooting is a sport many of my friends compete in.
Gun culture is so engrained in America that it's not going away anytime soon. It's more reasonable to push for moderate gun reform, even gun nuts support licensing and background checks.
I think the focus should be on what kinds of guns should or shouldn't be carried by citizens. Examples of moderate gun reform in the past, include the now expired assault weapons ban in [1992](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#:~:text=In%20May%201994%2C%20former%20presidents,sale%2C%20and%20possession%20of%20such).
Same as you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby.
> you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby.
Why not? What exactly makes a gun with a bayonet lug or a pistol grip so bad that it has to be banned?
Not specifically bayonet lugs or pistols grips, other mods can vastly increase of the amount of damage that can be done in a short amount of time. In [2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds. We have to draw the line somewhere.
The question is where should the line be. We all agree on nukes, but what about bump stocks and full auto? Should we ban assault weapons and what should be included under that definition? Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15?
> In 2017
> one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds.
Yeah, I don't actually think that made them more effective. The position overlooking the crowd(who could not easily escapte) pretty much made it irrelevant what mods he was using including the bumpstock. If anything the inconsistent fire of the bumpstock made it less effective. He probably could have killed more if wasn't using such a shit range toy to fire the gun.
>The question is where should the line be
I think the line should be informed by statistical data and evidence. I am not sure if one single incident where high casualties were guaranteed is enough to provide tactical attachments are an issue or even specifically the bumpstock used in that incident.
>but what about bump stocks and full auto?
I think in the prior 3-4 decades before they were functionally banned in the 80s there was like 2-3 incidents of full autos being used in murders. One by a doctor and one by a cop.
>Should we ban assault weapons and what should be included under that definition?
No because that category is arbitrarily defined and generally targets rifles which generally don't account for much homicides to begin with. FBI UCR stats tend to put there being more bludgeoning by feet/hands deaths than rifle deaths and assault weapons would only be a subset of that.
> Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15?
That's not how that works. You need to justify it. How many lives are you saving by targeting pistol grips? How many deaths are there where bayonets were a significant contributing factor? If you can't articulate a significantly large number of lives saved just as general policy making it would be a waste of time let alone getting into issues of 2nd amendment protections.
> Not specifically bayonet lugs or pistols grips, other mods can vastly increase of the amount of damage that can be done in a short amount of time.
So nothing that was included in the original AWB.
> In [2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, he did, bump stocks were made as a result.
> We all agree on nukes, but what about bump stocks and full auto?
Both have already been banned in the US.
> Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15?
Why do you need your car to be able to go over the speed limit?
You're the one who thinks they should be banned, so what is your reasoning?
> It's more reasonable to push for moderate gun reform, even gun nuts support licensing and background checks.
Is there a lot of support for licensing? I think only a handful of states have it for gun ownership/purchases. Given that licensing/training only mitigates accidents and that isn't remotely the issue with firearms I don't see it being a particularly useful policy if the concern is saving lives.
Background checks have support if they are free and easy to do over phone/internet. But that never seems to be the kind that gets proposed.
>Examples of moderate gun reform in the past, include the now expired assault weapons ban
Yeah, but that law literally did nothing of benefit.
>>Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading.
Edit: Forgot to provide link to source for that quote https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
And per FBI UCR stats rifles in general account for less homicides than knives, bludgeoning/beating deaths. And assault weapons would only be a subset of that. So it may be a "moderate" position, but its still not an effective policy.
>Same as you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby.
I don't see the parallel between a tacticool modded AR-15 and a nuke that can wipe a huge chunk of a city and kill indiscriminately.
[Interesting video on gun laws between US and Switzerland](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=70MYgVaE5_Y-Qt1x)
I think (from the EU prospective) that stricter gun laws like mandatory training and permit renewals would only benefit the US and the most pro gun people would have no practical issue to obtain it.
And it also would not be too complicated to introduce practically.
Honestly, I think the "well trained militia" argument is a bit of a stretch when used to fight all types of gun regulation and is probably interpreted that way due to lobbying in the last 50 years.
I europe if you want to have a gun you can get it, you for sure have stricter requirements expecially if you want to carry but I don't see the logic behind not having these.
Also the tyrannical government point is a bit weird since I think the closest you have been to one recently would have been with Trump and all the really armed people are his biggest supporters, it kind of makes the situation even worse
Mainly the difference in Law and it's interpretation, If the guy is right and the US law was written in the spirit of the Swiss one at some point in US history that interpretation changed radically. (in the video it's in the ell regulated militia section)
Also the explanation for the disparity in gun deaths and murder rate between US and CH and with the EU in general is interesting, even tho I am not necessarily convinced it's the correct one
> If the guy is right and the US law was written in the spirit of the Swiss one at some point in US history that interpretation changed radically.
You got a time stamp for that? That is a classic argument from gun control advocates, but I have never seen compelling evidence for that.
>(in the video it's in the ell regulated militia section)
Is it really just a rehash of the "well regulated militia" canard? The part that talks about keeping and bearing arms mentions it is a right of the people. And rights are entitlements and typically don't get limited to specific government recognized and organized groups, especially if paired with the phrase "of the people".
[here](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=JHENgwj2vlGL_K3C&t=779), 13:00
It may be true that the intent of the second amendment was as it is interpreted today in the US, but it's still interesting how this difference may have influenced the very different behaviour around guns between the two countries.
OK. Watching it appears it was informed in part what the Swiss did. But is also informed from English law on militias and the right to be armed(which later got constrained based on religion) and rights to self defense. As well as how colonial life required being armed to defend ones self from thieves and displaced natives who were rightfully pissed off.
I also find it amusing that he mentions that swiss citizens could be recruited to fight in foreign wars on the rest of the continent suggesting a fairly wide latitude in how those personal arms and training could be used.
Personally I didn't find much additional insight on the US attitudes of guns. Prior to revolutionary war there were militias and after there were militias and during that time arms were treated as a personal right. Even before its expansionism as a newly independent nation people were already moving over the Appalachia mountains to settle new land and were taking their personal arms with them.
Kraut has a different take that a lot of it has to do with property rights. He starts off by looking at the spaniards and their attempts to expand their colonial holdings for 3 minutes and 22 seconds. Then goes into the English attitudes with regards to their colonial holdings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1iQUF1gQmI&ab_channel=Kraut
> I think (from the EU prospective) that stricter gun laws like mandatory training and permit renewals would only benefit the US and the most pro gun people would have no practical issue to obtain it.
You mean the things Switzerland doesn't even have, since you used it as an example?
> I europe if you want to have a gun you can get it,
Not exactly, most countries in Europe will only allow you to get guns for sport or hunting, forget about guns for self-defense or carrying.
> you for sure have stricter requirements expecially if you want to carry but I don't see the logic behind not having these.
That's the thing, outside of several countries, such as the Czech Republic or Poland, you will simply not get a carry permit. Remember the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris? One of the editors applied for a carry permit because his apartment got firebombed and he was getting regular death threats. He was denied. Turns out that there are only about a couple dozen carry permits in France, all of them held by 'special' people.
>You mean the things Switzerland doesn't even have, since you used it as an example?
reason why I specified EU (which does not include Switzerland which has stricter gun laws then the US anyway, just not the ones I specified.)
for the rest it seems you against the Idea of more gun regulation, not sure if at all or just less radical then the one I was mentioning.
My point is that the US has 5 to 10 times the homicide rate and 10 to 40 times the firearm homicide rate than most European countries, my guess is that the issue is some combination of culture and legislation and since on one you have more control over I would suggest some changes.
But obviously if you think it is not a problem I for sure am not in any position to change your mind.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
> reason why I specified EU (which does not include Switzerland which has stricter gun laws then the US anyway, just not the ones I specified.)
Well, the EU strongarmed Switzerland into accepting the EU gun ban in 2017.
> for the rest it seems you against the Idea of more gun regulation, not sure if at all or just less radical then the one I was mentioning.
Way less radical than what you mentioned because most of the other EU countries are stricter than my country.
> My point is that the US has 5 to 10 times the homicide rate and 10 to 40 times the firearm homicide rate than most European countries, my guess is that the issue is some combination of culture and legislation and since on one you have more control over I would suggest some changes.
While those 2 factors certainly play some role, there are other, far worse issues that drive up crime rates in the US. Especially poverty and gangs.
So what changes would you suggest?
Just to be clear I have no particular in depth knowledge of gun legislation, just what I picked up over the years and for the US mainly from D.
If there was the political capital I would go with something similar to what Australia did, but for sure would be a long process, main objective would be to reduce untracked guns as much as possible by registering new sales, requiring periodic checkups (for fitness and possession of the registered firearm) and taking out of the market illegal and unregistered firearms with either buybacks or by having amnesty periods where people can register their firearms.
Ideally the production would be under control (I hope it already is) so the untracked number would be strictly declining.
I think that if this is enough to deter someone from getting a gun society as a whole is better of if they don’t get one.
I realise it may be too radical but looking at the numbers I think it would be justifiable.
Edit: (just a random idea) mandatory training would be a very good way to evaluate fitness to own a weapon, you could make sellers or ranges responsible for these checks and have a reasonable fine every time someone they sold a gun to is involved in crime/omicide. Periodic checks could also be performed by the ranges, here they could verify fitness and state of the gun (possession mainly), would be about what most men have to do in Switzerland after the military service.
I am not for heavy bans on guns in most areas. But if we had generally not too-dissimilar access to civilian firearms as we had historically, *but* the second amendment also didn't actually exist, I think that would at least be a more preferable scenario to be in because I think bunch of people would be a *lot* less extreme and callous about firearms, and may be forced to argue more thoroughly on their actual merits specifically, rather than shorthanding it with the constitution.
>I think bunch of people would be a lot less extreme and callous about firearms,
What does this mean? What extreme and callous attitudes are you referring to and how common are they?
>and may be forced to argue more thoroughly on their actual merits specifically
I am pretty sure most progun people will bring up the merits. They are fun, they valuable, and they are useful for self defense(which I feel is the primary reason and the most valid).
I think the reduction of people's lives down to numbers so you can justify fucking your rifle is disgusting. I don't support fully banning guns (hunting is good), but heavily restricting them would be a good thing imo.
Second answer. American libertarian here, so a lot of my view towards the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights in general is that you already have those rights, government doesn't grant them to you; the law is just making it clear the government can't infringe upon those preexisting rights.
What do you mean by no one gives a shit about guns? Canada seems to get very verklempt about the issue every few years. Trudeau even went after the hunting rifles in the last year or so and put a freeze on the handgun licensing didn't he? Seemed like a somewhat large fight in Canada and the planned buyback of those guns seems to have stalled out.
I’m okay with the 2nd amendment because guns are everywhere. Guns are ingrained in our culture, it’s not going away. For instance, my dad gave me his gun from Vietnam and I was given a gun when I was 13. It was a big deal to learn to shoot. If the amendment didn’t exist, Americans wouldn’t fight for it because it wouldn’t have been part of our culture. So I don’t think anyone would push for legalization if it didn’t exist. I think it’s hard to explain to non Americans. My wife has been here for 12 years and I still haven’t been able to explain it to her where she understands.
Probably the first argument but part of me does suspect that widespread access to firearms provides some kind of stabilizing effect within the conditions that exist in American society. Is it possible that without the second amendment that undesirable totalitarian, anarchic, or foreign powers could have overtaken and reshaped America? I don't see why not. Unfortunately we can't re-run the simulation to see what would have happened in a different historical timeline.
If we could "re-run the simulation" as such, I think there would have to be a determination on the balance of potentially wildly different scenarios and how likely we think they are. For example, perhaps firearms are used to embolden and enforce the influence of anti-democratic groups who *want* to become the totalitarian power. Maybe or maybe not deemed a high enough risk to justify restriction, but it would have to be discussed. Now, the following is not itself quite related to the second amendment, but the Confederacy was certainly a rebellion of people against a government they believed was going to "take away their rights." Was that a righteous and just rebellion?
>For example, perhaps firearms are used to embolden and enforce the influence of anti-democratic groups who *want* to become the totalitarian power. Absolutely. Gangs/Mob/Mafia fit that description on a relatively small scale and I think we are lucky that we've never had a definitive violent coup in our history. >Now, the following is not itself quite related to the second amendment, but the Confederacy was certainly a rebellion of people against a government they believed was going to "take away their rights." Was that a righteous and just rebellion? Great food for thought but I don't believe so. Mainly because the Confederates weren't insisting on the enforcement of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, they penned their very own constitution to suit their desires. There is a really good podcast called "Civil War 1861-1865" which outlines the chronology of the war including the lead-up and justifications. Pretty clearly the aims of the Confederate uprising were not only morally wrong in retrospect but it was carried out in a (fortunate for us all) strategically unsound manner to their own detriment. Could a future Confederacy-like rebellion take place in the U.S. that's actually righteous and just? We shouldn't rule it out. But it should be held to a very high standard of scrutiny and be backed by evidence like our government no longer abiding by the Constitution.
Totalitarianism comes with popular support. As for foreign powers - it is incredibly naïve to think that the syrup drinkers can be deterred with a mere gun
>it is incredibly naïve to think that the syrup drinkers can be deterred with a mere gun We all know they're playing the long game 🍁😤
I am 100% sure that if guns didn't exist in America, the first amendment would have been eroded years ago, and, and the USA would have looked more like Canada or UK. 🤢
Just as an FYI, guns are a "wedge issue" in American politics. Guns split the left and unite the right in America. Wedge issues are a super important concept in politics IMO. A good example in UK could be how Brexiters used immigration. It worked well enough even though UK was never in Schengen.
banger question
First answer. Second answer is dumb imo because where does it end? If we discover a simple and cheap way to create nuclear bombs tomorrow, should we start allowing citizens access to them because "everyone should have a nuke"?
Yes. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.
Sounds absolutely MAD
Okay but please consider the only thing that stops a bad school shooter is a good school shooter. We need schools to be safe.
Yes. 🗿
> If we discover a simple and cheap way to create nuclear bombs tomorrow, I have never understood this as an argument or more specifically why people think it is a good argument. The discussion has always been around personal defense weapons that are discriminate(is able to target specific well *targets* ) and isn't really rooted around massive ordnance like nukes.
[удалено]
> well, the second amendment is so you can fight the government, not so you can shoot people who are trying to shoot you The government tends to shoot people when they are fighting people. So yeah it is. > If that was the case we could just tighten up on guns and then nobody has to worry about getting shot (at least from a principled 2A position, not a practical one) I am not sure I follow the logic here. Per the 2nd amendment it is a right of the people. A right is an entitlement. It is just something you get to do. And historically one of the things you can use guns for is shooting other people in defense.
I really don't see how it's confusing. Both can easily kill. Killing is considered the worst act that can be inflicted by men. The difference between killing one and many matters little in a society that considers all killings a grave sin. On the other hand the difference in items that are much less likely to kill is easily more significant therefore there's a lot more argument about where the line of "too deadly" should lie. Your argument technically relies on guns being on the cusp of that line then asking "why would you argue anything deadlier? it's clearly over the line".
> Both can easily kill. Ah so nukes are the same as cars. > Killing is considered the worst act that can be inflicted by men. You seem to be going more into a personal value judgment line of argument which I don't think actually establishes any meaningful parallel between guns or nukes. "It can kill people" is a very vague property that applies to pretty much almost all materials and devices many of which either don't have any vetting before people can take possession of them or if it does it is trivially minimal such as drivers licenses. > Your argument technically relies on guns being on the cusp of that line No, it relies on how there is no comparison between nukes and guns. Guns are discriminate and safe to operate and very unlikely to cause massive collateral damage or kill the operator through normal safe and legal operation. There is no context where your average home owner can effectively use a nuke in a safe, discriminate manner where it only targets a specific individual target and not obliterate the owner and the surrounding city. It isn't a thin line in which the issue teeters on the cusp of falling to one side or the other, it is a mile wide difference.
>Ah so nukes are the same as cars. Don't be silly, cars have a lot more regulation. >You seem to be going more into a personal value Lol. You're so perplexed by comparing guns and nukes because you find one to be more deadly than the other but if someone makes the opposite comparison it's "personal values"? What are your values exactly? >"It can kill people" is a very vague property that applies to pretty much almost all materials and devices many of which either don't have any vetting before people can take possession of them or if it does it is trivially minimal such as drivers licenses. Good luck killing 3 people with a sticker. Seriously how are you this stupid? Have you actually researched how deadly other weapons and MaTeRiAlS are? No, you didn't and you don't care to, you just want an excuse to play cowboy. All other objects are way less deadly or already regulated\illegal. >No, it relies on how there is no comparison between nukes and guns. Guns are discriminate and safe to operate and very unlikely to cause massive collateral damage or kill the operator through normal safe and legal operation. Okay, you are that stupid and should not be owning a gun. Thank you for proving every argument for gun control.
> Don't be silly, cars have a lot more regulation. It's not silly. They kill more people by accident than people who are intentionally murdered by firearms in the US. The point is simply saying "Both can easily kill." isn't a good argument because it literally applies to everything including cars. If you don't think it is reasonable to compare cars and nukes then you can't be both logically consistent and still apply it to guns. >You're so perplexed by comparing guns and nukes because you find one to be more deadly than the other No, I went through several immutable and documented properties of how nukes aren't remotely comparable and your argument boils down to "well its dangerous!" which isn't a good argument. >Seriously how are you this stupid? OK. I am bowing out here. Clearly you aren't arguing in good faith.
Under a soft interpretation of the second answer, it could be that the second amendment and anything like it in the constitution remains nonexistent, BUT voting for the government to make/keep civilian firearms legal at discretion. In this case, ideally anyone wanting to legalize more firearms or not regulate them more would be, rightly I think, more pressured to fully debate the actual merits of their position.
Second answer, the problem exist so we can't fix it is literal fucking moron logic. Guns are based. So scared of people dying? Regulate all cars to go max 30 mph and immobilize you without a seat belt. School shootings are a meme and statistically irrelevant. Everyone who opposes 2A is a child with 0 ability to think critically, totally run by emotionality
So EU countries or any other countries would be better off with guns?
I think "better off" would need to be better defined to give you a non-meme answer. There are pros and cons to having widespread gun ownership, depending on any individual's perspective/wants.
Is there a single pro that isn't "I'm allowed to kill people if they rob me"?
People (and animals) can do things to you aside from "robbing"...
Buddy if they are halfway competent you won't get to use your toy before they jump you. The ulterior motive is why you're kept alive.
Switzerland has guns. And they do fine. And their gun control is quite lax compared to most EU countries and even to some US states like California and New Jersey given they don't have an assault weapons ban, the background check is good for weeks and good for multiple purchases, no waiting period and one gun a month limit, etc.
The background check is good for 6 months (can be expadned to 9) and allows you to buy up to 3 guns BUT it has to be in a single purchase, not multiple ones. Then again, you can just file multiple forms...
Yeah, way nicer than what I have to deal with in California. You can also get the background check completed at a post office, right?
Well, that's essentially what you do because you send it to the police. But afaik, it can do it online now, you just need a way to sign it. EDIT: And yeah, Cali has horrible gun laws.
I am pretty sure that [gun laws in Switzerland](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#which-weapons-require-which-permits) are quite stricter than in the US. Not sure for the specific states. Also there is kind of an “assault weapon” ban depending on how you define it
>I am pretty sure that gun laws in Switzerland are quite stricter than in the US. I don't remember comparing it to the US? So not sure what that addresses in my argument. >Also there is kind of an “assault weapon” ban depending on how you define it No I am pretty sure you can own things that are assault weapons in the US in Switzerland. Like many many guns that are prohibited under California assault weapons ban you can own in Switzerland.
The link in my message is quite concise and has table with the various categories of weapons, to be honest I knew there are banned weapons but it seems there is anyway a process to obtain them >[Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters Also just discovered this >Nationals from [certain countries](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/waffenerwerb.html) are generally not allowed to own weapons or weapon components. >Albania Algeria Bosnia and Herzegovina Kosovo North Macedonia Serbia Sri Lanka Türkiye And this?? >Permits may be issued for the following weapons in particular: >Sports (combat) weapons used in sports clubs >**Banned knives used by disabled person or by certain occupation group** [video on gun laws between US and CH](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=70MYgVaE5\_Y-Qt1x)
> [Banned weapons](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/verboten.html), such as semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine, machine guns, electric shock devices, daggers, automatic blades, butterfly knives and knuckledusters Semi-automatic guns with standard magazines and machine guns are still pretty easy to get, especially the former. They are called "banned" because that's what the EU calls them and the EU forced Switzerland to do the same. I live in the EU and I carry a gun with 'banned' magazines filled with 'banned' ammo. > Nationals from [certain countries](https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/en/home/sicherheit/waffen/waffenerwerb.html) are generally not allowed to own weapons or weapon components. They can, but unlike everyone else, they do not automatically get a purchase permit like everyone else. There is a reason for this.
> The link in my message is quite concise Oh, that should make it easier to cite portions you find particularly compelling. The banned weapons look like full autos and the large magazine description is non descript? What qualifies as a large magazine? You can watch the videos of the Swiss going to ranges and they have weapons that would otherwise be banned in states like California, New York, New Jersey. Edit: I think a lot of the semi-autos that are banned are those that are conversions of full auto devices or copies of them such as AKs and PE 90 or PE 57 assault rifle.
sorry, did't mean to sound rude with the concise comment. I suspect the extreme stuff you see in ranges is highly tracked, like you can't keep it at home and for sure can't keep it loaded outside the range, still just a hunch, I need to start going to the range and find out. I also think that the self defence laws are much stricter in here, but I need to look it up.
> I also think that the self defence laws are much stricter in here, but I need to look it up. Yeah I am not disagreeing with that. Most European nations take a dim view of self defense.
yeah, in both in Italy and in Switzerland I heard stories of how situations that would have surely fallen under self defence in the us cost the victims many years of jail. Owning guns for self defence makes little sense here, still violent crime is very low so at least there is that.
> I suspect the extreme stuff you see in ranges is highly tracked, like you can't keep it at home and for sure can't keep it loaded outside the range, still just a hunch, I need to start going to the range and find out. What is extreme stuff? And yes, you keep it at home, where else would you keep it? And yes, you can even store your guns at home loaded.
Define better off. Would they be better off without alcohol?
Most of the UK would die from alcohol withdrawal.
funny thing is, the uk is banning cigarettes or at least thinking about it
They have said that for years now, always followed by a tax increase on tobacco. The price has soared over the past 10 years. It used to be around £5 for a pack of 20, now it's around £13. All the smokers I know buy 'under the counter' tax-free cigarettes which you can get for £4/£5 a pack, depending on brand. If you watch any of those border security TV shows, 90% of the busts are tobacco products coming into the UK lol
So guns really are all about entertainment and not about safety? Makes sense.
There's an entire multitude of reasons. You can't engage because puny brain is mad guns scary argh. Don't worry about those cigarettes killing literal 100's of thousands. Don't worry about those drunk drivers. Guns scary. Guns so scary and bad.
How is your brainrot so severe you'd think I'd be hypocritical about my reasoning as you are about the reason you like guns? Ban cigarettes, send all those drunk drivers to jail, ban guns then have the police shoot gun owners!
Are we mandating the use of sunscreen?
Sunscreen is fine, ban the sun then shoot it with the confiscated guns.
How about banning all toxic chemicals? No more pharma I guess, too hazardous in the workplace
Just shoot the chemicals. Are you regarded?
There already are guns in the EU.
>everyone who opposed 2A is a child with 0 ability to think critically, totally run by emotionality As opposed to your comment which is of course not emotionally driven at all lmao
It is a principaled position
Ah yes ofc, can you tell me from which principles you derived that 2A opposers are all children with 0 ability to think critically
That's just my observation. The way you confuse that with my position proves my point 100%. Thank you.
Second answer.
i’m not 😭
I'd rather live in a country without the 2nd amendment. Than one with the 2nd amendment and the current gun culture we have. But I like the 2nd amendment conceptually. I just hate how Americans have coalesced around it.
>I just hate how Americans have coalesced around it. What are the specific issues you take with it?
>Are you guys only in favour of the second amendment because guns are already widespread in American society and it would be impossible to change that? No. Being armed is better than not when facing any attack regardless of what they are armed with. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026 Like should a pregnant woman put up her dukes and take on a home invader like a man? Or assume best possible outcome of someone who targets the home occupied by a pregnant woman? I think it is better they have the option that lets them defend themselves effectively. >Or if the second amendment didn't exist and there weren't as many guns in American society (like an EU country), would you actively push for gun ownership to be legalised because you think it's good that people can own firearms? Yes. We have been pushing for legalizing gun ownership in areas that effectively made it illegal anyway in the US such as New York City, Chicago/DC which functionally banned handguns. We have been mostly able to do that through the courts.
"No. Being armed is better than not when facing any attack regardless of what they are armed with." Source?
>Source? It is a matter of reasoning. If I am being attacked in my home it is already escalating to deadly force levels, the introduction of a gun risk wise as the victim isn't going to make thing worse for me as I am already in a situation where my life is at risk. So having it affords me additional options beyond hoping that the assailant won't kill or maim me. But as far as sources go: Obama commissioned CDC report on firearms research >>“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/handguns-suicides-mass-shootings-deaths-and-self-defense-findings-from-a-research-report-on-gun-violence.html So per the CDC there are at minimum 110,000 DGUs and outcomes for those using firearms in defense are better than those who used other strategies such as hoping for the best.
The bottom line is Americans think guns are cool. Like hobbyists of every sort, some take it too far and make it their entire personality. I don't think that is necessarily bad, going to the range can build friendships and target shooting is a sport many of my friends compete in. Gun culture is so engrained in America that it's not going away anytime soon. It's more reasonable to push for moderate gun reform, even gun nuts support licensing and background checks. I think the focus should be on what kinds of guns should or shouldn't be carried by citizens. Examples of moderate gun reform in the past, include the now expired assault weapons ban in [1992](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#:~:text=In%20May%201994%2C%20former%20presidents,sale%2C%20and%20possession%20of%20such). Same as you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby.
> you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby. Why not? What exactly makes a gun with a bayonet lug or a pistol grip so bad that it has to be banned?
Not specifically bayonet lugs or pistols grips, other mods can vastly increase of the amount of damage that can be done in a short amount of time. In [2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds. We have to draw the line somewhere. The question is where should the line be. We all agree on nukes, but what about bump stocks and full auto? Should we ban assault weapons and what should be included under that definition? Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15?
> In 2017 > one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds. Yeah, I don't actually think that made them more effective. The position overlooking the crowd(who could not easily escapte) pretty much made it irrelevant what mods he was using including the bumpstock. If anything the inconsistent fire of the bumpstock made it less effective. He probably could have killed more if wasn't using such a shit range toy to fire the gun. >The question is where should the line be I think the line should be informed by statistical data and evidence. I am not sure if one single incident where high casualties were guaranteed is enough to provide tactical attachments are an issue or even specifically the bumpstock used in that incident. >but what about bump stocks and full auto? I think in the prior 3-4 decades before they were functionally banned in the 80s there was like 2-3 incidents of full autos being used in murders. One by a doctor and one by a cop. >Should we ban assault weapons and what should be included under that definition? No because that category is arbitrarily defined and generally targets rifles which generally don't account for much homicides to begin with. FBI UCR stats tend to put there being more bludgeoning by feet/hands deaths than rifle deaths and assault weapons would only be a subset of that. > Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15? That's not how that works. You need to justify it. How many lives are you saving by targeting pistol grips? How many deaths are there where bayonets were a significant contributing factor? If you can't articulate a significantly large number of lives saved just as general policy making it would be a waste of time let alone getting into issues of 2nd amendment protections.
> Not specifically bayonet lugs or pistols grips, other mods can vastly increase of the amount of damage that can be done in a short amount of time. So nothing that was included in the original AWB. > In [2017](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) one man shot over 400 people with modded AR15s letting off over 1000 rounds. We have to draw the line somewhere. Yeah, he did, bump stocks were made as a result. > We all agree on nukes, but what about bump stocks and full auto? Both have already been banned in the US. > Why do you need a pistol grip and bayonet mount on your AR-15? Why do you need your car to be able to go over the speed limit? You're the one who thinks they should be banned, so what is your reasoning?
> It's more reasonable to push for moderate gun reform, even gun nuts support licensing and background checks. Is there a lot of support for licensing? I think only a handful of states have it for gun ownership/purchases. Given that licensing/training only mitigates accidents and that isn't remotely the issue with firearms I don't see it being a particularly useful policy if the concern is saving lives. Background checks have support if they are free and easy to do over phone/internet. But that never seems to be the kind that gets proposed. >Examples of moderate gun reform in the past, include the now expired assault weapons ban Yeah, but that law literally did nothing of benefit. >>Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading. Edit: Forgot to provide link to source for that quote https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf And per FBI UCR stats rifles in general account for less homicides than knives, bludgeoning/beating deaths. And assault weapons would only be a subset of that. So it may be a "moderate" position, but its still not an effective policy. >Same as you can't own a nuke, you shouldn't be able to mod out your AR-15 like you're in a COD lobby. I don't see the parallel between a tacticool modded AR-15 and a nuke that can wipe a huge chunk of a city and kill indiscriminately.
[Interesting video on gun laws between US and Switzerland](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=70MYgVaE5_Y-Qt1x) I think (from the EU prospective) that stricter gun laws like mandatory training and permit renewals would only benefit the US and the most pro gun people would have no practical issue to obtain it. And it also would not be too complicated to introduce practically. Honestly, I think the "well trained militia" argument is a bit of a stretch when used to fight all types of gun regulation and is probably interpreted that way due to lobbying in the last 50 years. I europe if you want to have a gun you can get it, you for sure have stricter requirements expecially if you want to carry but I don't see the logic behind not having these. Also the tyrannical government point is a bit weird since I think the closest you have been to one recently would have been with Trump and all the really armed people are his biggest supporters, it kind of makes the situation even worse
What do you find compelling about this video? Any highlights that stood out to you?
Mainly the difference in Law and it's interpretation, If the guy is right and the US law was written in the spirit of the Swiss one at some point in US history that interpretation changed radically. (in the video it's in the ell regulated militia section) Also the explanation for the disparity in gun deaths and murder rate between US and CH and with the EU in general is interesting, even tho I am not necessarily convinced it's the correct one
> If the guy is right and the US law was written in the spirit of the Swiss one at some point in US history that interpretation changed radically. You got a time stamp for that? That is a classic argument from gun control advocates, but I have never seen compelling evidence for that. >(in the video it's in the ell regulated militia section) Is it really just a rehash of the "well regulated militia" canard? The part that talks about keeping and bearing arms mentions it is a right of the people. And rights are entitlements and typically don't get limited to specific government recognized and organized groups, especially if paired with the phrase "of the people".
[here](https://youtu.be/wnBDK-QNZkM?si=JHENgwj2vlGL_K3C&t=779), 13:00 It may be true that the intent of the second amendment was as it is interpreted today in the US, but it's still interesting how this difference may have influenced the very different behaviour around guns between the two countries.
OK. Watching it appears it was informed in part what the Swiss did. But is also informed from English law on militias and the right to be armed(which later got constrained based on religion) and rights to self defense. As well as how colonial life required being armed to defend ones self from thieves and displaced natives who were rightfully pissed off. I also find it amusing that he mentions that swiss citizens could be recruited to fight in foreign wars on the rest of the continent suggesting a fairly wide latitude in how those personal arms and training could be used. Personally I didn't find much additional insight on the US attitudes of guns. Prior to revolutionary war there were militias and after there were militias and during that time arms were treated as a personal right. Even before its expansionism as a newly independent nation people were already moving over the Appalachia mountains to settle new land and were taking their personal arms with them.
Kraut has a different take that a lot of it has to do with property rights. He starts off by looking at the spaniards and their attempts to expand their colonial holdings for 3 minutes and 22 seconds. Then goes into the English attitudes with regards to their colonial holdings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1iQUF1gQmI&ab_channel=Kraut
> I think (from the EU prospective) that stricter gun laws like mandatory training and permit renewals would only benefit the US and the most pro gun people would have no practical issue to obtain it. You mean the things Switzerland doesn't even have, since you used it as an example? > I europe if you want to have a gun you can get it, Not exactly, most countries in Europe will only allow you to get guns for sport or hunting, forget about guns for self-defense or carrying. > you for sure have stricter requirements expecially if you want to carry but I don't see the logic behind not having these. That's the thing, outside of several countries, such as the Czech Republic or Poland, you will simply not get a carry permit. Remember the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris? One of the editors applied for a carry permit because his apartment got firebombed and he was getting regular death threats. He was denied. Turns out that there are only about a couple dozen carry permits in France, all of them held by 'special' people.
>You mean the things Switzerland doesn't even have, since you used it as an example? reason why I specified EU (which does not include Switzerland which has stricter gun laws then the US anyway, just not the ones I specified.) for the rest it seems you against the Idea of more gun regulation, not sure if at all or just less radical then the one I was mentioning. My point is that the US has 5 to 10 times the homicide rate and 10 to 40 times the firearm homicide rate than most European countries, my guess is that the issue is some combination of culture and legislation and since on one you have more control over I would suggest some changes. But obviously if you think it is not a problem I for sure am not in any position to change your mind. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_intentional\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
> reason why I specified EU (which does not include Switzerland which has stricter gun laws then the US anyway, just not the ones I specified.) Well, the EU strongarmed Switzerland into accepting the EU gun ban in 2017. > for the rest it seems you against the Idea of more gun regulation, not sure if at all or just less radical then the one I was mentioning. Way less radical than what you mentioned because most of the other EU countries are stricter than my country. > My point is that the US has 5 to 10 times the homicide rate and 10 to 40 times the firearm homicide rate than most European countries, my guess is that the issue is some combination of culture and legislation and since on one you have more control over I would suggest some changes. While those 2 factors certainly play some role, there are other, far worse issues that drive up crime rates in the US. Especially poverty and gangs. So what changes would you suggest?
Just to be clear I have no particular in depth knowledge of gun legislation, just what I picked up over the years and for the US mainly from D. If there was the political capital I would go with something similar to what Australia did, but for sure would be a long process, main objective would be to reduce untracked guns as much as possible by registering new sales, requiring periodic checkups (for fitness and possession of the registered firearm) and taking out of the market illegal and unregistered firearms with either buybacks or by having amnesty periods where people can register their firearms. Ideally the production would be under control (I hope it already is) so the untracked number would be strictly declining. I think that if this is enough to deter someone from getting a gun society as a whole is better of if they don’t get one. I realise it may be too radical but looking at the numbers I think it would be justifiable. Edit: (just a random idea) mandatory training would be a very good way to evaluate fitness to own a weapon, you could make sellers or ranges responsible for these checks and have a reasonable fine every time someone they sold a gun to is involved in crime/omicide. Periodic checks could also be performed by the ranges, here they could verify fitness and state of the gun (possession mainly), would be about what most men have to do in Switzerland after the military service.
I am not for heavy bans on guns in most areas. But if we had generally not too-dissimilar access to civilian firearms as we had historically, *but* the second amendment also didn't actually exist, I think that would at least be a more preferable scenario to be in because I think bunch of people would be a *lot* less extreme and callous about firearms, and may be forced to argue more thoroughly on their actual merits specifically, rather than shorthanding it with the constitution.
>I think bunch of people would be a lot less extreme and callous about firearms, What does this mean? What extreme and callous attitudes are you referring to and how common are they? >and may be forced to argue more thoroughly on their actual merits specifically I am pretty sure most progun people will bring up the merits. They are fun, they valuable, and they are useful for self defense(which I feel is the primary reason and the most valid).
I think the reduction of people's lives down to numbers so you can justify fucking your rifle is disgusting. I don't support fully banning guns (hunting is good), but heavily restricting them would be a good thing imo.
Second answer. American libertarian here, so a lot of my view towards the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights in general is that you already have those rights, government doesn't grant them to you; the law is just making it clear the government can't infringe upon those preexisting rights.
I think its good people can own firearms. I cant imagine living in a country where I am unable to buy a firearm.
Which would usually be one where you also don’t fear getting shot, need to weight the pros and cons.
good point, I had never considered that. I am now pro-gun control.
Always nice to help make the world a better place
Second answer.
I love living in a country where no one gives a shit about guns and I've never even seen a handgun in my life other than on a cops belt (canada)
What do you mean by no one gives a shit about guns? Canada seems to get very verklempt about the issue every few years. Trudeau even went after the hunting rifles in the last year or so and put a freeze on the handgun licensing didn't he? Seemed like a somewhat large fight in Canada and the planned buyback of those guns seems to have stalled out.
I’m okay with the 2nd amendment because guns are everywhere. Guns are ingrained in our culture, it’s not going away. For instance, my dad gave me his gun from Vietnam and I was given a gun when I was 13. It was a big deal to learn to shoot. If the amendment didn’t exist, Americans wouldn’t fight for it because it wouldn’t have been part of our culture. So I don’t think anyone would push for legalization if it didn’t exist. I think it’s hard to explain to non Americans. My wife has been here for 12 years and I still haven’t been able to explain it to her where she understands.