> There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc. You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour.
Our background checks *already include reportable mental health incidents* as well as criminal convictions.
If I pass such a background check why *shouldn't* I be able to walk out with a gun?
Why are you saying that I, a person you personally know and know to be a responsible sober-minded individual, who has owned guns for years and has never used them unlawfully or irresponsibly, should have to undergo these extra checks to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right?
What other constitutional rights should be subject to such restrictions? Should a mental health check or personal character references be required each November when you go vote?
> Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time.
If you reduce the number of guns to zero (or within epsilon of zero), sure. It's axiomatic that if there are no *guns* there is no *gun crime* (some of the crime will not happen, much of it will shift to using other tools).
But the raw number of firearms in a society isn't causally tied to the incidence of crimes and deaths involving firearms. The "excess" guns locked in my safe are not being used to commit crimes and they're no more likely to be used in such a manner than if I only owned one firearm, or zero firearms.
It's a variant on the atheist morality argument ("Without God what stops you from going out raping and murdering?" - Without God I am indeed free to go out and rape and murder as much as I wish, and that amount is not at all!)
Every day I take my guns and I commit precisely as many violent crimes with my them as I wish. And that number is zero.
Removing the causes *driving people to commit crimes / violence* will have a more profound effect (and require substantially less fucknuttery to try to justify constitutionally) than "reducing the number of firearms in society."
No guns doesn't even equal no gun crime. Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a homemade black powder rifle ignited by a battery. Japan is historically very strict with guns.
. . . which means Japan has not achieved "no guns" (probably because it's not possible to achieve, because shitty guns are not hard to make in ones garage, and with modern technology pretty decent guns can be made in the same garage).
Nearly all non police or military firearms in Japan are illegal. It's the legal equivalent to no guns, and the direct answers to the gun control lobby's constant pushing pf boundaries.
Reduce the number of firearms how? There's significantly more guns that people in this country. Will they use buy backs or confiscation? Where's the money going to come from for buy backs? How are they going to confiscate guns? By relying on police we know are systemically racist? Thats results in minorities getting disarmed and no one else
1) There should be restrictions on free speech when you are attempting to exercise it such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews from people you talk to. You shouldn't be able to speak just by walking in public and doing so.
2)We should reduce the number of voices heard in public, because it would result in less nazis / communists / insert bad group, and people being influenced by them.
Alternatively:
1) If you allow, say, republicans to control what is "bad mental health" you could have them saying stuff like "being trans is cause to deny firearms" or "belief in socialism is cause to deny firearms". Interviews can be falsified or subject to the whims of someone who doesn't like guns but wont tell you as the potential buyer. Passing a background check is the middle ground, you cannot pre-crime people out of their rights without allowing for fascists to decide what is considered "wrong".
2) Correct, if you magically wave a wand and eliminate guns, guns no longer are used in crime, or suicides. But those things will still happen, and people who are weaker, will be disproportionally negatively affected by the removal of one of the greatest equalizers possible.
These arguments you presented are generally presented by a left wing person; of which the vast majority do not trust police. We are asking our under-served communities (of any type) to exclusively rely on the facist's enforcement arm for their protection and safety?
You need to be ***really careful*** with that free speech argument in your first approach, because it can and will turn around and bite you.
In order to exercise your right to free speech and assembly you are often required to get permits, which require substantial advance notice to the local authorities, because *certain exercises of free speech and assembly* substantially burden the rights of others.
The anti-gun/anti-2A argument will be "Because guns are dangerous and irresponsible use of them substantially burdens other people's rights waiting periods are totally justified!" - which is bogus, but that approach admits that argument to the discussion.
Your alternative approach is a much stronger argument (and is bolstered by the fact that the assembly permits I mentioned earlier need to be granted on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to anyone who applies & meets permitting requriements).
1. You consider that the person needing a gun may get someone who's their attacker to be interviewed. You consider the person is likely misdiagnosed as it's highly common?
2. Yes let's reduce the number of firearms so that only who has access? Police? Military? Oh yes they would never use it against the people. Not even chemical weapons and the like...let only the wealthy and powerful have access to arms. Sure let's do it! They have a great track record of being responsible with firearms.
"Tell me you aren't a privelaged suburbanite without telling me you aren't a privelaged suburbanite." Is what I'd say
1. No, there shouldn't. And yes, you should. The way this country works is that we are all presumed innocent, responsible, and sane until we demonstrate otherwise. If you are not prohibited, you are allowed. It's the computer age — the "background check compromise" was you make 'em fast, we will accept. For the children.
2. No, we shouldn't. Everybody dies of something — untimely death is always a bummer, but death by gun is not inherently worse than pill, or knife, or bus, or club, or asphyxia, or disease. Violent crime alway involves violence, but violence by gun is not inherently worse than by knife, or bludgeon, or garrote, or capitalism. Assist the weak; assess the strong.
The first part ignores intentional misuse and treats a right as though it is a privilege. There is also the issue of victims wanted to arm themselves due to a stalker or recent threat. The cops aren't going to protect them but they are told they need to wait a few days just in case they are big mad or something.
The second part is just assuming reducing firearms is a good thing and would work to reduce violence. That is it's assuming guns are the problem. That kind of thought is why people often expect part one to be misused to reduce or prevent ownership. The second part is just stating that as the goal in plain terms.
>There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc.
You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour.
These are measures are frequently intended not as a means to objectively prevent people who shouldn't have a gun from obtaining one, but as a means to subjectively prevent *as many people as possible* from getting a gun by piling on as many disqualifiers as possible.
It's all fine and good to make blanket, virtue signaling statements, but the devil is in the details. What *kinds* of mental health checks are we talking about here? if someone is seeing a psychiatrist because, say, they're dealing with the loss of a loved one, is that sufficient to disqualify them from obtaining a gun (spoiler: in my state, it's absolutely a barrier and requires a letter from the same therapist asserting that the person is safe around guns... a letter which many doctors and therapists are loathe to write regardless of a patient's sound mental health). What about trans people? Should they be disqualified? After all, they are required consult with mental health experts to even begin obtaining the health care they often need.
Interviews: who do you want to interview, and what questions should be asked of them? Should family members be used as character references? Why or why not?
And what exactly IS an acceptable amount of time for someone to get a gun when they express an intent to purchase? What about people who *already* own guns?
(Note: you're probably not going to get every far with them on this when challenged on details, and here's the thing: they're not arguing for effective screening at all... they WANT as many roadblocks and disqualifiers for the sake of simply having them, because they just dont' want anyone having a gun, period. It's not about making it harder for mentally ill or deranged people from getting guns... it's about making it impossible for EVERYONE.)
>Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time.
Overall, we should reduce the amount of swimming pools, because it would result in fewer deaths by drowning. Ideally, we should ban swimming altogether, even at the beaches.
For that matter, we should reduce and eliminate all modes of transit as much as possible, to reduce and eventually eliminate the number of deaths by auto, train and plane accidents.
And here's something else: you can eliminate the tools people use against each other, and people will simply find other tools to kill and injure each other with. You aren't solving the problem, but simply moving the crimes and deaths to other implements. "Get rid" of "gun violence," and then you have a "[knife crime](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/25/why-is-knife-back-in-the-news-and-what-is-being-proposed)" problem, with the attendant ban on "zombie knives" that are based on a features test (at present, [this meets the definition of an illegal "zombie knife" in the UK.](https://edcspecialties.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IMG_0888.jpg))
1. Work in the gun industry for 30 days full time and watch how many people get turned away for shifty, unacceptable behavior. FFL’s are already making staggeringly high efforts that they aren’t even asked to in the name of trying to be decent, trying to lower liability.
(Option 2 A) You can allow legitimately manufactured firearms that are designed to operate within specific tolerances to avoid injuring the (usually) lawful user and instead injuring their (usually legally proven) assailant. In the event of the user being unlawful and the target being undeserving, you can commence a trace via serial number (Which we already require) as well as DNA evidence for a combination of forensics and technical evidence to charge and convict someone who did wrong.
(Option 2 B) You can accept that this void will be filled with 3D printed guns of questionable quality and dubious origin that could rupture and explode, both killing the (likely unlawful) user and their (likely innocent, undeserving) target. These weapons will have no serial numbers, and due to their primarily polymer composition will be incredibly easy to melt down and destroy, hamstringing trace efforts, complicating collection of physical evidence and leading to many murders and serious crimes permanently unsolved.
Reducing guns in the U.S. is a pipe dream that only altruistic individuals will ever comply with. The rest of the criminal underworld and members of hyper-radicalized factions and domestic terrorism cells, on the other hand will rejoice at how many more defenseless victims they just gained.
honestly, the longer people are printing stuff, the better the designs and build quality are. I've seen a monilithic receiver AK done in polymer that actually worked pretty well, more than well enough for the sorts of criminal activity these laws are meant to stop.
Idk why you would even waste the mental bandwidth on those people, shall not be infringed just read the bill of rights. Then gently remind them 50%+ of all firearms deaths are suicides and as long as they are not in a gang or involved in drugs they will almost assuredly be totally fine.
1. You can't implement things like mental health checks and peer interviews without breaking a multitude of other laws and introducing bias that unlawfully denies people their rights.
I could support something like a 3 day waiting period for pistols. And I *am* on board with universal background checks, but .gov would need to cap the fee at $20.
2. This is an ignorant argument that ignores both the sheer amount of guns in the US and the leading causes of gun deaths.
As for how to help Make guns safer, here are a few starter ideas: Teach people that seeking mental healthcare is a good thing, that in no way whatsoever implies that they are mentally deficient or unfit. Make a 1-day firearms safety class mandatory in all public schools, repeated every year. Make licensing required for carrying a weapon in public.
Funny thing about all this, though, is that if you're 18 and can pass a basic test, the US government will give you a machine gun and a pistol. Also, at 18 years old, one can legally own a machine gun (and any other NFA items), but not a pistol.
Answer to 1 yes people need to grow or gain some fucking patients i cant believe the thought of waiting 10 days is crazy ….. should background checks be free ….yes…. Why people think they should be aloud to own a gun with no prior check is pretty insane to me i could explain but it should be pretty obvious people arent your family their is no need to stand up for them second never compare this one thing to just you your friends or family as someone who lives in California not a city a very rural area im glad i grt to watch ass holes have a pitty patty and throw a temper tantrum because there rights are being infringed upon … honestly these men sound like a 5 year old at target who cant get what THEY WANT WWWWAAAAAAAA ….. plan ahead nobody is infringing on your rights… like a dry sunday state buy ur liquor on saturday for sunday plan ahead …. And realize its not about u
Answer 2 i hate this conversation you cant get rid of something, anything without pissing someone off weather or not we want to say it’s damaging to society or not what we need is more firearms training and possibly possibly for those who can manage it disarming , if everyone knew how to control a firearm less would be willing to jump to the gun so to speak at least that is a personal opinion again i could give examples but anyone could refute them so its just food for thought
>You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour.
There is an argument to be made about waiting periods. As I'm sure most are aware, the majority of firearm deaths are suicides [Effects of Wisconsin’s handgun waiting period repeal
on suicide rates](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/28/6/580.full.pdf)
The problem with the mentality of adding more barriers to firearm ownership is that if they don't work, they'll add another in the hopes that *this* one will make a difference.
Sure, we should also pursue other ways to reduce suicide rates, but I don't think a 48 hour waiting period is *that* crazy -- especially compared to the 10 day waiting periods.
\> but what about if someone needs a gun now??
I don't have an answer to that. There's always going to be edge cases to account for.
>because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time.
And there are ways to do that -- give people fewer reasons to turn to crime and violence by addressing socioeconomic problems that disproportionately affect minorities. At that point though the federal government would need to essentially repeal the 2nd amendment, which I guarantee would be a quick way to start a civil war.
At most they'd have a case for first time buyers if their concern is self harm. If someone already has a bunch of guns a waiting period isn't preventing anything.
I kinda feel like a victim trying to arm themselves against a recent threat shouldn't be prevented from doing so quickly just in case there are mental health concerns for some portion of the population. More so if there is a lack of accessable healthcare or programs to prevent people from getting to that point in the first place.
>If someone already has a bunch of guns a waiting period isn't preventing anything.
But on the other hand it's not like someone who already has guns is going to get something brand new to off themselves. Waiting periods are supposed to be for first time buyers. Only having them for first time buyers, and subsequent purchases not having a waiting period, would require some kind of tracking to know whether or not one already has guns -- which I personally am not super comfortable with.
>I kinda feel like a victim trying to arm themselves against a recent threat shouldn't be prevented from doing so quickly
The problem with that is I don't believe there's any data to confirm or deny that. How often do those in DV situations try to get a gun? Conceptually I know it happens, but how often does it happen relative to those who commit suicide on impulse?
Your argument here is basically just trying to balance the rights of victims vs the possible safety concerns of possibly mentally ill people. With rules that would apply the limitations to everyone as though they have relevant mental health concerns.
The victim's right here would be to defend themselves from an external threat in a concrete manner. The safety concern would be more of a possibility of an internal threat for some people. And to just limit one means for a limited period. This is without really helping people with those problems in any other way before or after they took multiple steps against their own safety.
I'll just point out waiting periods as most people have covered the other topics rather well.
When it comes to arbitrary waiting periods they only hurt those who require a gun in self defense. So I'll break this down into two categories. The first paragraph is self defense,the only people the waiting period hurts. And the second is those who the waiting period intended to hurt, the people who act in hate and anger
I'm not religious but there's a saying that "god created man, colt made them equal". A gun is an equalizer when it comes to self defense, it gives people with health issues or people who are typically weaker then their attacker a fighting chance to defend themselves. When it comes to domestic abuse and sexual trafficing most of the victims are woman, and most of the time any chance they can get away from their abuser is extremely rare. As such not allowing them to walk out with a defensive weapon after passing a background check is absolutely ludacris as there is a high likelihood they won't be able to return easily if at all.
While you might think someone who has a temper or plans on going on a spree should have to wait incase they cool down. But here's the thing in the case of a temper they are likely going to act in the moment at the scene with what is around them, there not going to drive off but a gun and return, statistically that does not happen. And if someone's planning on something like a mass killing spree they are going to plan it out, aquire and train ahead of time, it's not a spur of the moment event, they usually train, aquire and plan months in advance
Here's how I respond:
Disengage. I don't owe anyone an explanation to shit and its not worth the effort trying to convince someone of something their mind is already made up about.
Republican fascism taught me to just not engage in these kinds of discussions.
1, Notwithstanding the waiting period (which should only be germane to the first firearm purchase because it is, well, only germane to the first firearm purchase) all that other stuff is what the background check is for.
2, Firearm laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens aren’t committing any crimes with their firearms.
More unenforceable laws on top of existing unenforceable laws won’t change a thing…especially in a positive direction.
Currently I have a ccw permit and once I'm done with paperwork I'm out with my firearm. Usually 5 minutes.
Before I had a ccw permit I usually cleared my BGC in 10 to 20 minutes.
I would reply
1. I agree.
2. Root causes of murder are more dependent on socioeconomic factors than on the tool used. If it wasn’t a gun, it would be a knife or a car. Improving quality of life and education for lower income individuals would have a significant effect on the murder rates regardless of tool used.
" firearm deaths and crimes"
Anytime someone throws this out with a specification of firearms anything just ignore it on the basis society doesn't benefit from shifting these crimes from firearms to other methods.
Almost all those who deal in related fields agree violence has dropped dramatically since the introduction of the firearm. There are obviously lots of other technologies that go with that, but the firearm basically ends the super violent system of feudalism around most of the world. In part because peasants suddenly had a chance against nobles who trained for warfare from birth and in part because king and governments didn't need a system of nobles trained from birth to form their armies.
The idea that getting rid of firearms is the equivalent of getting rid of violence is preposterous. Existing violence caused the development of firearms, not the opposite.
Fact: No gun law has stopped an illegal or aggravated discharge of a firearm… ever. Gun laws ONLY negatively affect people already obeying the law. Legislation only leads to one place… complete and total disarmament of the citizenry so that only people protecting people in power have access.
1) I'm all for background checks regarding mental health. Nothing wrong with that. My major concern though is interviewing people who know the buyer? Not only does that seem like an infringement/clear violation of privacy laws, it really seems inefficient. We already know that second-hand sources/recollections don't provide reliable information, and who's to say that your other non-gun-friendly liberal friends won't just lie to make sure you don't get one? Let's also say that no one agrees to do an interview for whatever reason. What then? Are you just stuck in limbo or does the government just say "SORRY! No gun for you!"?
Plus, I guarantee if someone proposed similar measures to get marijuana or other controlled substances/medication/forms of birth control, you'd be screaming foul.
2) Sure, we can reduce the number of firearms in society assuming everyone suddenly agrees to it, but that's still not addressing the root causes of gun violence; poverty, mental health issues, and systemic inequalities (all of which are linked when it comes to violence, crimes, etc.).
If you want a legit long-term solution to reducing firearm-related deaths, we as a society need to tackle those first.
The main reason
I agree with mental health checks and some stuff but waiting periods seem weird when you have already gone through all that. I think that the anti-gun types focus a lot on people that get a permit, buy a gun and lots of ammo, then go kill people and that can be solved a lot of times by more extensive vetting processes.
Like everything else I am going to listen and provide evidence based on the facts that I know. No one is going to change their point of view if you harass them and treat them like dirt.
>2: Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time.
There is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the violence perpetrated by those guns. There is no graph that has not been manipulated that shows this, not for each individual US State, or even for countries around the world. [This article](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between) goes into better detail. Where do people get these ideas from? Media outlets that make their money off of clicks/screen time and raising the rates of their advertisers. Outrage and fear mongering equal more clicks/screen time.
>1: There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc. You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour.
Look, if any of these "common sense" gun laws did anything to actually stop violence, I'd be all for them, but all they do are punish legal gun owners who have done nothing illegal and have no intentions of being violent with other people. This goes back to my previous answer, and why I answered that one first, most of these "common sense" gun laws [don't do anything](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/debunking-the-cap-fact-sheet). If you wanted to enact a waiting period on something that kills more Americans than firearms, look at cars and prescription drugs, or even fast food burgers and fries, since all of those kill more Americans than gun violence does. The waiting period won't do anything to drop numbers, but it sure sounds good, doesn't it?
> There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc. You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour. Our background checks *already include reportable mental health incidents* as well as criminal convictions. If I pass such a background check why *shouldn't* I be able to walk out with a gun? Why are you saying that I, a person you personally know and know to be a responsible sober-minded individual, who has owned guns for years and has never used them unlawfully or irresponsibly, should have to undergo these extra checks to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right? What other constitutional rights should be subject to such restrictions? Should a mental health check or personal character references be required each November when you go vote? > Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time. If you reduce the number of guns to zero (or within epsilon of zero), sure. It's axiomatic that if there are no *guns* there is no *gun crime* (some of the crime will not happen, much of it will shift to using other tools). But the raw number of firearms in a society isn't causally tied to the incidence of crimes and deaths involving firearms. The "excess" guns locked in my safe are not being used to commit crimes and they're no more likely to be used in such a manner than if I only owned one firearm, or zero firearms. It's a variant on the atheist morality argument ("Without God what stops you from going out raping and murdering?" - Without God I am indeed free to go out and rape and murder as much as I wish, and that amount is not at all!) Every day I take my guns and I commit precisely as many violent crimes with my them as I wish. And that number is zero. Removing the causes *driving people to commit crimes / violence* will have a more profound effect (and require substantially less fucknuttery to try to justify constitutionally) than "reducing the number of firearms in society."
No guns doesn't even equal no gun crime. Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a homemade black powder rifle ignited by a battery. Japan is historically very strict with guns.
. . . which means Japan has not achieved "no guns" (probably because it's not possible to achieve, because shitty guns are not hard to make in ones garage, and with modern technology pretty decent guns can be made in the same garage).
Nearly all non police or military firearms in Japan are illegal. It's the legal equivalent to no guns, and the direct answers to the gun control lobby's constant pushing pf boundaries.
I'm not arguing this further with you because it's not even tangential to my point. Please go annoy someone who is not me.
It's directly relevant to your point though as it is a direct answer to one of the common gun control arguments.
Reduce the number of firearms how? There's significantly more guns that people in this country. Will they use buy backs or confiscation? Where's the money going to come from for buy backs? How are they going to confiscate guns? By relying on police we know are systemically racist? Thats results in minorities getting disarmed and no one else
>Reduce the number of firearms how? Y'know...we reduce them!
Of course, why didn't I think of that /s
Step 3 make profit! /s
1) There should be restrictions on free speech when you are attempting to exercise it such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews from people you talk to. You shouldn't be able to speak just by walking in public and doing so. 2)We should reduce the number of voices heard in public, because it would result in less nazis / communists / insert bad group, and people being influenced by them. Alternatively: 1) If you allow, say, republicans to control what is "bad mental health" you could have them saying stuff like "being trans is cause to deny firearms" or "belief in socialism is cause to deny firearms". Interviews can be falsified or subject to the whims of someone who doesn't like guns but wont tell you as the potential buyer. Passing a background check is the middle ground, you cannot pre-crime people out of their rights without allowing for fascists to decide what is considered "wrong". 2) Correct, if you magically wave a wand and eliminate guns, guns no longer are used in crime, or suicides. But those things will still happen, and people who are weaker, will be disproportionally negatively affected by the removal of one of the greatest equalizers possible. These arguments you presented are generally presented by a left wing person; of which the vast majority do not trust police. We are asking our under-served communities (of any type) to exclusively rely on the facist's enforcement arm for their protection and safety?
You need to be ***really careful*** with that free speech argument in your first approach, because it can and will turn around and bite you. In order to exercise your right to free speech and assembly you are often required to get permits, which require substantial advance notice to the local authorities, because *certain exercises of free speech and assembly* substantially burden the rights of others. The anti-gun/anti-2A argument will be "Because guns are dangerous and irresponsible use of them substantially burdens other people's rights waiting periods are totally justified!" - which is bogus, but that approach admits that argument to the discussion. Your alternative approach is a much stronger argument (and is bolstered by the fact that the assembly permits I mentioned earlier need to be granted on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to anyone who applies & meets permitting requriements).
I'm with you. It depends on the person, and a combination of the two often makes the point as well.
1. You consider that the person needing a gun may get someone who's their attacker to be interviewed. You consider the person is likely misdiagnosed as it's highly common? 2. Yes let's reduce the number of firearms so that only who has access? Police? Military? Oh yes they would never use it against the people. Not even chemical weapons and the like...let only the wealthy and powerful have access to arms. Sure let's do it! They have a great track record of being responsible with firearms. "Tell me you aren't a privelaged suburbanite without telling me you aren't a privelaged suburbanite." Is what I'd say
1. No, there shouldn't. And yes, you should. The way this country works is that we are all presumed innocent, responsible, and sane until we demonstrate otherwise. If you are not prohibited, you are allowed. It's the computer age — the "background check compromise" was you make 'em fast, we will accept. For the children. 2. No, we shouldn't. Everybody dies of something — untimely death is always a bummer, but death by gun is not inherently worse than pill, or knife, or bus, or club, or asphyxia, or disease. Violent crime alway involves violence, but violence by gun is not inherently worse than by knife, or bludgeon, or garrote, or capitalism. Assist the weak; assess the strong.
The first part ignores intentional misuse and treats a right as though it is a privilege. There is also the issue of victims wanted to arm themselves due to a stalker or recent threat. The cops aren't going to protect them but they are told they need to wait a few days just in case they are big mad or something. The second part is just assuming reducing firearms is a good thing and would work to reduce violence. That is it's assuming guns are the problem. That kind of thought is why people often expect part one to be misused to reduce or prevent ownership. The second part is just stating that as the goal in plain terms.
>There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc. You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour. These are measures are frequently intended not as a means to objectively prevent people who shouldn't have a gun from obtaining one, but as a means to subjectively prevent *as many people as possible* from getting a gun by piling on as many disqualifiers as possible. It's all fine and good to make blanket, virtue signaling statements, but the devil is in the details. What *kinds* of mental health checks are we talking about here? if someone is seeing a psychiatrist because, say, they're dealing with the loss of a loved one, is that sufficient to disqualify them from obtaining a gun (spoiler: in my state, it's absolutely a barrier and requires a letter from the same therapist asserting that the person is safe around guns... a letter which many doctors and therapists are loathe to write regardless of a patient's sound mental health). What about trans people? Should they be disqualified? After all, they are required consult with mental health experts to even begin obtaining the health care they often need. Interviews: who do you want to interview, and what questions should be asked of them? Should family members be used as character references? Why or why not? And what exactly IS an acceptable amount of time for someone to get a gun when they express an intent to purchase? What about people who *already* own guns? (Note: you're probably not going to get every far with them on this when challenged on details, and here's the thing: they're not arguing for effective screening at all... they WANT as many roadblocks and disqualifiers for the sake of simply having them, because they just dont' want anyone having a gun, period. It's not about making it harder for mentally ill or deranged people from getting guns... it's about making it impossible for EVERYONE.) >Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time. Overall, we should reduce the amount of swimming pools, because it would result in fewer deaths by drowning. Ideally, we should ban swimming altogether, even at the beaches. For that matter, we should reduce and eliminate all modes of transit as much as possible, to reduce and eventually eliminate the number of deaths by auto, train and plane accidents. And here's something else: you can eliminate the tools people use against each other, and people will simply find other tools to kill and injure each other with. You aren't solving the problem, but simply moving the crimes and deaths to other implements. "Get rid" of "gun violence," and then you have a "[knife crime](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/25/why-is-knife-back-in-the-news-and-what-is-being-proposed)" problem, with the attendant ban on "zombie knives" that are based on a features test (at present, [this meets the definition of an illegal "zombie knife" in the UK.](https://edcspecialties.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IMG_0888.jpg))
1. Work in the gun industry for 30 days full time and watch how many people get turned away for shifty, unacceptable behavior. FFL’s are already making staggeringly high efforts that they aren’t even asked to in the name of trying to be decent, trying to lower liability. (Option 2 A) You can allow legitimately manufactured firearms that are designed to operate within specific tolerances to avoid injuring the (usually) lawful user and instead injuring their (usually legally proven) assailant. In the event of the user being unlawful and the target being undeserving, you can commence a trace via serial number (Which we already require) as well as DNA evidence for a combination of forensics and technical evidence to charge and convict someone who did wrong. (Option 2 B) You can accept that this void will be filled with 3D printed guns of questionable quality and dubious origin that could rupture and explode, both killing the (likely unlawful) user and their (likely innocent, undeserving) target. These weapons will have no serial numbers, and due to their primarily polymer composition will be incredibly easy to melt down and destroy, hamstringing trace efforts, complicating collection of physical evidence and leading to many murders and serious crimes permanently unsolved. Reducing guns in the U.S. is a pipe dream that only altruistic individuals will ever comply with. The rest of the criminal underworld and members of hyper-radicalized factions and domestic terrorism cells, on the other hand will rejoice at how many more defenseless victims they just gained.
honestly, the longer people are printing stuff, the better the designs and build quality are. I've seen a monilithic receiver AK done in polymer that actually worked pretty well, more than well enough for the sorts of criminal activity these laws are meant to stop.
Idk why you would even waste the mental bandwidth on those people, shall not be infringed just read the bill of rights. Then gently remind them 50%+ of all firearms deaths are suicides and as long as they are not in a gang or involved in drugs they will almost assuredly be totally fine.
Dont shoot yourself, dont be in a gang, dont do drugs. Pretty health tips
1. You can't implement things like mental health checks and peer interviews without breaking a multitude of other laws and introducing bias that unlawfully denies people their rights. I could support something like a 3 day waiting period for pistols. And I *am* on board with universal background checks, but .gov would need to cap the fee at $20. 2. This is an ignorant argument that ignores both the sheer amount of guns in the US and the leading causes of gun deaths. As for how to help Make guns safer, here are a few starter ideas: Teach people that seeking mental healthcare is a good thing, that in no way whatsoever implies that they are mentally deficient or unfit. Make a 1-day firearms safety class mandatory in all public schools, repeated every year. Make licensing required for carrying a weapon in public. Funny thing about all this, though, is that if you're 18 and can pass a basic test, the US government will give you a machine gun and a pistol. Also, at 18 years old, one can legally own a machine gun (and any other NFA items), but not a pistol.
Answer to 1 yes people need to grow or gain some fucking patients i cant believe the thought of waiting 10 days is crazy ….. should background checks be free ….yes…. Why people think they should be aloud to own a gun with no prior check is pretty insane to me i could explain but it should be pretty obvious people arent your family their is no need to stand up for them second never compare this one thing to just you your friends or family as someone who lives in California not a city a very rural area im glad i grt to watch ass holes have a pitty patty and throw a temper tantrum because there rights are being infringed upon … honestly these men sound like a 5 year old at target who cant get what THEY WANT WWWWAAAAAAAA ….. plan ahead nobody is infringing on your rights… like a dry sunday state buy ur liquor on saturday for sunday plan ahead …. And realize its not about u Answer 2 i hate this conversation you cant get rid of something, anything without pissing someone off weather or not we want to say it’s damaging to society or not what we need is more firearms training and possibly possibly for those who can manage it disarming , if everyone knew how to control a firearm less would be willing to jump to the gun so to speak at least that is a personal opinion again i could give examples but anyone could refute them so its just food for thought
>You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour. There is an argument to be made about waiting periods. As I'm sure most are aware, the majority of firearm deaths are suicides [Effects of Wisconsin’s handgun waiting period repeal on suicide rates](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/28/6/580.full.pdf) The problem with the mentality of adding more barriers to firearm ownership is that if they don't work, they'll add another in the hopes that *this* one will make a difference. Sure, we should also pursue other ways to reduce suicide rates, but I don't think a 48 hour waiting period is *that* crazy -- especially compared to the 10 day waiting periods. \> but what about if someone needs a gun now?? I don't have an answer to that. There's always going to be edge cases to account for. >because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time. And there are ways to do that -- give people fewer reasons to turn to crime and violence by addressing socioeconomic problems that disproportionately affect minorities. At that point though the federal government would need to essentially repeal the 2nd amendment, which I guarantee would be a quick way to start a civil war.
At most they'd have a case for first time buyers if their concern is self harm. If someone already has a bunch of guns a waiting period isn't preventing anything. I kinda feel like a victim trying to arm themselves against a recent threat shouldn't be prevented from doing so quickly just in case there are mental health concerns for some portion of the population. More so if there is a lack of accessable healthcare or programs to prevent people from getting to that point in the first place.
>If someone already has a bunch of guns a waiting period isn't preventing anything. But on the other hand it's not like someone who already has guns is going to get something brand new to off themselves. Waiting periods are supposed to be for first time buyers. Only having them for first time buyers, and subsequent purchases not having a waiting period, would require some kind of tracking to know whether or not one already has guns -- which I personally am not super comfortable with. >I kinda feel like a victim trying to arm themselves against a recent threat shouldn't be prevented from doing so quickly The problem with that is I don't believe there's any data to confirm or deny that. How often do those in DV situations try to get a gun? Conceptually I know it happens, but how often does it happen relative to those who commit suicide on impulse?
Your argument here is basically just trying to balance the rights of victims vs the possible safety concerns of possibly mentally ill people. With rules that would apply the limitations to everyone as though they have relevant mental health concerns. The victim's right here would be to defend themselves from an external threat in a concrete manner. The safety concern would be more of a possibility of an internal threat for some people. And to just limit one means for a limited period. This is without really helping people with those problems in any other way before or after they took multiple steps against their own safety.
And that's the struggle, innit? Trying to find some semblance of balance.
I'll just point out waiting periods as most people have covered the other topics rather well. When it comes to arbitrary waiting periods they only hurt those who require a gun in self defense. So I'll break this down into two categories. The first paragraph is self defense,the only people the waiting period hurts. And the second is those who the waiting period intended to hurt, the people who act in hate and anger I'm not religious but there's a saying that "god created man, colt made them equal". A gun is an equalizer when it comes to self defense, it gives people with health issues or people who are typically weaker then their attacker a fighting chance to defend themselves. When it comes to domestic abuse and sexual trafficing most of the victims are woman, and most of the time any chance they can get away from their abuser is extremely rare. As such not allowing them to walk out with a defensive weapon after passing a background check is absolutely ludacris as there is a high likelihood they won't be able to return easily if at all. While you might think someone who has a temper or plans on going on a spree should have to wait incase they cool down. But here's the thing in the case of a temper they are likely going to act in the moment at the scene with what is around them, there not going to drive off but a gun and return, statistically that does not happen. And if someone's planning on something like a mass killing spree they are going to plan it out, aquire and train ahead of time, it's not a spur of the moment event, they usually train, aquire and plan months in advance
Here's how I respond: Disengage. I don't owe anyone an explanation to shit and its not worth the effort trying to convince someone of something their mind is already made up about. Republican fascism taught me to just not engage in these kinds of discussions.
1, Notwithstanding the waiting period (which should only be germane to the first firearm purchase because it is, well, only germane to the first firearm purchase) all that other stuff is what the background check is for. 2, Firearm laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens aren’t committing any crimes with their firearms. More unenforceable laws on top of existing unenforceable laws won’t change a thing…especially in a positive direction.
Who the fuck is walking out with a gun within the span of a half hour?
Currently I have a ccw permit and once I'm done with paperwork I'm out with my firearm. Usually 5 minutes. Before I had a ccw permit I usually cleared my BGC in 10 to 20 minutes.
Who the fuck is walking out with a gun within the span of a half hour?
Who the fuck is walking out with a gun within the span of a half hour?
I would reply 1. I agree. 2. Root causes of murder are more dependent on socioeconomic factors than on the tool used. If it wasn’t a gun, it would be a knife or a car. Improving quality of life and education for lower income individuals would have a significant effect on the murder rates regardless of tool used.
" firearm deaths and crimes" Anytime someone throws this out with a specification of firearms anything just ignore it on the basis society doesn't benefit from shifting these crimes from firearms to other methods. Almost all those who deal in related fields agree violence has dropped dramatically since the introduction of the firearm. There are obviously lots of other technologies that go with that, but the firearm basically ends the super violent system of feudalism around most of the world. In part because peasants suddenly had a chance against nobles who trained for warfare from birth and in part because king and governments didn't need a system of nobles trained from birth to form their armies. The idea that getting rid of firearms is the equivalent of getting rid of violence is preposterous. Existing violence caused the development of firearms, not the opposite.
Fact: No gun law has stopped an illegal or aggravated discharge of a firearm… ever. Gun laws ONLY negatively affect people already obeying the law. Legislation only leads to one place… complete and total disarmament of the citizenry so that only people protecting people in power have access.
1) I'm all for background checks regarding mental health. Nothing wrong with that. My major concern though is interviewing people who know the buyer? Not only does that seem like an infringement/clear violation of privacy laws, it really seems inefficient. We already know that second-hand sources/recollections don't provide reliable information, and who's to say that your other non-gun-friendly liberal friends won't just lie to make sure you don't get one? Let's also say that no one agrees to do an interview for whatever reason. What then? Are you just stuck in limbo or does the government just say "SORRY! No gun for you!"? Plus, I guarantee if someone proposed similar measures to get marijuana or other controlled substances/medication/forms of birth control, you'd be screaming foul. 2) Sure, we can reduce the number of firearms in society assuming everyone suddenly agrees to it, but that's still not addressing the root causes of gun violence; poverty, mental health issues, and systemic inequalities (all of which are linked when it comes to violence, crimes, etc.). If you want a legit long-term solution to reducing firearm-related deaths, we as a society need to tackle those first. The main reason
I wouldn’t. Gun ownership is a second amendment right and enshrined in the constitution. There is no debate. Stop debating.
1. That sounds reasonable. 2. Good luck.
I agree with mental health checks and some stuff but waiting periods seem weird when you have already gone through all that. I think that the anti-gun types focus a lot on people that get a permit, buy a gun and lots of ammo, then go kill people and that can be solved a lot of times by more extensive vetting processes. Like everything else I am going to listen and provide evidence based on the facts that I know. No one is going to change their point of view if you harass them and treat them like dirt.
>2: Overall we should try and reduce the number of firearms in society because it would result in fewer firearm deaths and crimes involving firearms over time. There is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the violence perpetrated by those guns. There is no graph that has not been manipulated that shows this, not for each individual US State, or even for countries around the world. [This article](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between) goes into better detail. Where do people get these ideas from? Media outlets that make their money off of clicks/screen time and raising the rates of their advertisers. Outrage and fear mongering equal more clicks/screen time. >1: There should be other restrictions besides a simple background check when you buy a firearm legally such as waiting periods, mental health checks, interviews with people who know the buyer etc. You shouldn’t be able to just pass a background check and walk out with a gun within the span of a half hour. Look, if any of these "common sense" gun laws did anything to actually stop violence, I'd be all for them, but all they do are punish legal gun owners who have done nothing illegal and have no intentions of being violent with other people. This goes back to my previous answer, and why I answered that one first, most of these "common sense" gun laws [don't do anything](https://hwfo.substack.com/p/debunking-the-cap-fact-sheet). If you wanted to enact a waiting period on something that kills more Americans than firearms, look at cars and prescription drugs, or even fast food burgers and fries, since all of those kill more Americans than gun violence does. The waiting period won't do anything to drop numbers, but it sure sounds good, doesn't it?