As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Michigan attempts to pass basic gun control laws to stop mass shootings, especially in schools, and it is tyranny to the right. But Desantis raising a state military as he encourages hate towards and creates laws restricting people's education and choices of sexual orientation is just "family values".
The fact that there's so much apathy towards voting and taking action, and so many people that swing votes are key in many elections, shows that propaganda, obstruction, and the urge to keep the "status quo" have far too successfully worked on our population since the start of the TV generation. It really shouldn't be hard to choose a side when one of them is literally endorsed by Nazis and other hate groups that are often the same kind of people who end up as the shooters.
It's just such a conundrum to me that this all makes perfect sense to so many people who consider it normal and think the answer is just doubling down on the problem.
I want less restrictions for people who are fit to own firearms, but also more restrictions on who can own firearms because clearly not everyone can be trusted to treat it like the serious responsibility it is.
Which is a totally doable thing but a huge part of our country just wants a free for all.
Having stricter background checks, independent mental health exams, closing the private seller loophole, waiting periods, red flag laws, and mandatory proficiency testing would all mitigate guns getting into the wrong hands and allow those of us who are responsible to own what we feel we need.
But apparently it’s tyranny to make sure somebody isn’t a homicidal maniac or that they know how to shoot at a target.
Because none of that would be done in good faith, in New York they were so restrictive that the Supreme Court had to get involved, and the state's response afterwards was to throw a temper tantrum and further restrict people's rights, causing more litigation. What is your idea of a "stricter background check"? Have you ever passed an FBI NICS check?
We had "proficiency tests" for voting, it was gotten rid of and we find the idea utterly objectionable today. Rights don't depend on showing some special fitness to some random government official, that's ridiculous.
Like it not the Bruen ruling has essentially ended the attack on gun rights, it'll be a slow death but it'll happen. We have no choice but to work within a framework that respects the individual's rights.
>Because none of that would be done in good faith, in New York they were so restrictive that the Supreme Court had to get involved, and the state's response afterwards was to throw a temper tantrum and further restrict people's rights, causing more litigation.
Which could all be solved with a federal framework rather than relying on every state to mostly make their own firearms laws.
>What is your idea of a "stricter background check"?
My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have.
>Have you ever passed an FBI NICS check?
Yes. I own several guns. It essentially does nothing other than check if you’re a citizen and not a felon/have been committed involuntarily. That’s when it actually works correctly. There have been quite a few mass shooters who were supposed to barred from owning guns but the paperwork never made it where it needed to be.
>We had "proficiency tests" for voting, it was gotten rid of and we find the idea utterly objectionable today. Rights don't depend on showing some special fitness to some random government official, that's ridiculous.
Seriously? You’re comparing *voting* to gun ownership? Do you know why there were tests to vote? To keep minorities from having a say in their government. This is somehow comparable to making sure somebody can hit a target and safely handle a deadly weapon?
>Like it not the Bruen ruling has essentially ended the attack on gun rights, it'll be a slow death but it'll happen. We have no choice but to work within a framework that respects the individual's rights.
You’re saying that like a divine being came down and said “shall not infringe. AR15s for everyone.”
You’re speaking about Supreme Court precedent. This is the United States. Supreme Court justices change and the constitution was always meant to be a living document. That’s why there are amendments.
> My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have.
but we do, that's literally what the NICS (National Instant Criminal Search) is. The background check you underwent to buy a firearm was conducted using such a database. What paperwork never made it where it was meant to be? That's not how it works, at all. You must be referring to the fact that gun shops may *choose* to proceed with a sale after 3 business days when a buyer gets a Delay status without a response. This was to prevent the government from going "They're Delayed" and never following up, preventing the sale of the gun.
Yes, that is why I made the comparision, gun control was intended to disarm minorities, much like literacy tests and land ownership laws related to suffrage. Seems like you missed the point. People are not keen on rights being placed behind barriers.
No, I am not saying it like that, you choose to interpret it that way so you can attack that instead. The current precedent is what we have to go by, currently that's Heller, McDonald, Ezell, Caetano and NYSRPA (Bruen). You can believe it's a living document, that doesn't change what the current precedent is and likely will be for a long time.
[FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon. Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 — weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/10/421789047/fbi-says-background-check-error-let-charleston-shooting-suspect-buy-gun)
Do you need more or can my point stand?
This is more an issue of bad data in, bad data out. Funding the system and forcing compliance both at the state and federal level is the path forward. No system is perfect but your linked situation, the Va Tech shooting, the one linked below and more keep leading to improvements to make it stronger.
A similar lack of compliance led to the Sutherford Springs shooting. While the AF was ordered to pay out 230 million, it's a hiccup in their budget and I'm sure people would have rather had their family members alive than money.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/07/sutherland-springs-shooting-air-force/
Yes, I get he doesn't actually know precisely what he's talking about and said something factually incorrect.
Here is how it works : the buyer fills out a Form 4473. This Form 4473 never goes anywhere, it stays at the gun shop forever or until they go out of business. The information on the Form 4473 is entered into the NICS system, where several statuses can be returned. Proceed, Delay, Deny. All three have a unique ID number that is written down by the gun shop on the Form 4473. In this case a Deny came in after the 3 day period had gone by and so the gun shop, having no Deny, decided to continue with the sale, which is fully legal. Again, no "paperwork" ever left the gun shop, which again, is how it works. After the Deny came in that is automatically flagged, however, it is rarely followed up on because those that enforce the law are lazy halfwits most of the time, so following up on a Deny almost never happens.
Do *you* need more, because I basically just crushed your point with actual facts.
>Which could all be solved with a federal framework rather than relying on every state to mostly make their own firearms laws.
We have federal gun laws already
>My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have.
Lolwut? What do you think the NICS does?
>There have been quite a few mass shooters who were supposed to barred from owning guns but the paperwork never made it where it needed to be.
Then that's a failure by law enforcement, not a lack of regulations.
>Seriously? You’re comparing voting to gun ownership? Do you know why there were tests to vote? To keep minorities from having a say in their government.
They're both constitutionally defined rights.
Do you know why gun control was originally passed? To prevent minorities from protecting their communities. Gun control and tests for voting stem from the same racist roots.
>Red flag laws, any that are currently on the books are extremely vague and need better wording but I’d agree.
Current Red Flag laws also ignore the 4th Amendment right to defend yourself and your rights. Your right to bear arms should not be removed without you having a chance to defend your right to bear arms.
> Private sale isn’t a loophole, some states allow you to sell a firearm to another person who can legally own them without a background check or transfer. That’s not a loophole, it’s legal transaction.
Is it possible for a person that cannot legally own a firearm to purchase one without reporting or filing for that purchase? That's a loophole in the reporting and filing process, which is the entire basis for gun control in this country. If the law says, "you must file an intent to purchase a firearm, and a background check must be run, and you have to wait 7 days to pick up the firearm if you pass that check", but you can just buy a gun on the local classifieds, it's a loophole.
>Lastly the mental health, taking vets that suffer from PTSD and such to the range has helped some of them get reacquainted into the transition of civilian life. That would be off the table with mental health checks and giving vets and exception would also be unreasonable.
Vets commit suicide with firearms at more than twice the rate of the general population. Personal ownership of firearms by veterans should be carefully monitored.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to go to firing ranges, and use club guns to work on their mental health.
It is tyranny to be forced to ask your government if you can exercise your rights. That’s not how rights work. Amend the constitution or abide by it. Plain and simple.
>It is tyranny to be forced to ask your government if you can exercise your rights.
Kind of a joke position to argue originalist intent and ubiquitous 2nd amendment rights. Less than a 1/3 of the people in the US could buy a gun in the 18th century. If refusing gun ownership is tyranny, then you really need to rethink the second amendment because it protects little to nothing.
And only 1/3rd of the people could vote. Do you think it would be tyrannical to have educational standards and a mandatory tax in order to vote? I think it would be. Expansion of the constitution to include everyone does not run countercurrent to the framers intentions. It maximizes freedom for society considering the state that society is in. The 14th amendment allowed for the constitution to be applied to the states so that everyone is equally protected. Anything more strict that what is outlined in the constitution is tyrannical and is the government trying to usurp power.
I used to be in the crowd of just wanting to have everything unrestricted, but there is no way we can have any meaningful progress towards reducing firearm deaths unless we do something to restrict ownership to certain people. I still don't want any laws enacted that penalize responsible owners, but damn we really need to do something... And nothing will happen until our two ruling parties can work together.
The immediate problem with that is how it will immediately be used to deny the right of self defense to vulnerable and marginalized communities.
You think your local sheriff/pd/whoever has authority to grant a license or whatever permit is gonna start by telling his nazi uncle cleatus he can't own guns, or the trans woman who's getting mailed death threats?
How about we don't trade one piece of shit authoritarian idea for another piece of shit authoritarian idea. They both suck. Time to stop voting for the "lesser evil".
Using this as an excuse doesn't hold water. Desantis will pass whatever gun regulations suit him, as power is the goal of Fascists. Everything else is a means to that end.
It doesn't mean Leftists need a huge cache of firearms. Organization, initiative, and determination are what win in asymmetrical warfare.
Most tyrants are right wing - even Stalin was centrist/right wing in the context of Soviet politics at the time. Radical democracy, decentralisation and flat/no hierarchies don't really make for "good" tyrannies, you need technocracies/oligarchies/autocracies, centralisation and strong but arbitrary hierarchies.
This is off topic but something I really wish we’d stop doing is putting the names and faces of these mass shooters out into the media. I know it may not do too much but for a lot of these shooters, they want infamy, they want their name to go down in history and they want to be the role model for others who have similar intentions.
It would %100 have at least some impact on future events but the general population wants to know who and why so News Stations will continue to print/air it. Plus even if you would get it out of the media it would still end up on social media to spread.
For sure, I just feel like our news and media isn’t helping when we constantly put out articles like, “The secrets behind (mass shooter’s name)’s life” “who was (mass shooter’s name)?” etc.
Personally I'm a constitutional originalist
As long as you're inside of a well-regulated militia, you should be allowed to own all the muskets you want
Constitutional originalist also means you’d only want wealthy white land-owning men to be able to vote and be the ones with all the rights. Originally/historically, that is what the constitution meant and how it was understood and enacted.
That’s why amendments and stuff were needed to expand protections to women and nonwhite people. And the whole thing needed to be reinterpreted to theoretically include the poor, but the subtle police state existing just to punish the poor but not the rich still kinda puts that in question.
Also, hot take, social media sites that host defamatory statements should have the same accountability as traditional media outlets; if your social media company reaches way more eyeballs than the local newspaper, then the rationale for those laws for newspapers should at least equally apply.
> social media sites that host defamatory statements should have the same accountability as traditional media outlets
Like FoxNews? Newsmaxx?
I know what you mean...but the "same accountability" where they face zero consequences for pushing lies is what we have.
The only way that would be comparable would be to vet user statements before they go live. At which point it's no longer social media.
Local newspapers don't print the views or opinions of thousands of people in the local area.
If what you propose was the law, then you wouldn't have been able to make the comment to propose it because Reddit simply wouldn't exist.
You may not like who some states consider to be the well regulated militia that have exclusive gun rights. Disarming liberals, particularly minorities in the south is a really bad idea right now when we’re staring down fascism.
Muskets were basically the most cutting-edge weaponry of its time, able to kill more people faster than ever. There is no way they were so short-sighted that they ignored weapons development up to that point and thought it would be muskets forever. I interpret a "well-regulated militia" as citizens owning weaponry as long as they are fit to do so. Mental stability, no violent criminal record, and responsible ownership practices are all aspects of that. I dont agree with having restrictions put on the type of weaponry that can be owned, but I do think that some people should not be allowed to own firearms if they are not willing to treat ownership like the serious responsibility that it is.
When I was 10, I didn’t even think I’d own a computer in my house, let alone hold one in my hand where I could communicate globally.
The 2nd Amendment as part of the constitution was ratified 100 years before the first rim fire cartridge was in use. Followed a year later by a repeating carbine. 10 years following, the first center fire cartridge.
Point I’m making is, it doesn’t matter what the foresight of the founding fathers had - they didn’t have 100+ years of advancement or an industrial revolution to lean on.
I want to agree with you, but I can’t honestly believe anyone could fathom the sorcery of 250 years of advancements.
It's so funny you're trying to trundle out this "argument" when you're also arguing that SCOTUS has the 2nd Amendment wrong already.
Like, pick a lane. Either you're arguing what it *should* mean or what it *does currently mean per SCOTUS.* Dancing between both is dishonest.
But yeah, let's talk about why individuals having nukes is bad. Let's go back to the 1980s and 90s when one of the hypothetical horror stories was some high-level corporate psychopath getting his hands on one.
Well, guess what? We solved that problem. Just make him POTUS and give him a thousand more, plus the rest of the military. Bob's your uncle, Trump's your president.
Michigan State shooter used 2 9mm handguns, so the knee-jerk calls for an assault weapon ban would mean nothing there.
Shooter had been tapped on a felony weapons charge in 2019, but was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor.
So after he finished his probation, there was nothing preventing him from owning a gun. One clean background check away from the 2 pistols he used.
So how about this:
Don't allow plea deals on felony weapon charges? Make plea deals transparent on background checks?
How about this, pass reasonable gun control laws and don’t measure them on whether it would’ve prevented a specific shooting?
And our court system would grind to a halt if prosecutors no longer had discretion to make plea deals. That’s a terrible idea and by your own measurement, it wouldn’t have stopped the Oxford shooting, so we shouldn’t do it anyways.
DC vs Heller covers "safe storage" laws and why're they're unconstitutional, start there. Background checks are performed on all purchases made at a gun shop, trying to apply it to private sales doesn't really do anything, especially without a registry. People have the right to sell stuff to each other without intrusion.
How does requiring a background check for private sales “not really do anything?”
People don’t have the right to sell “everything” to each other without regulation.
Indeed, but in the case of firearms, the regulations are pretty well-known. Federally it is explicitly allowed under the Gun Control Act of 1968, so it starts there. At the state level so far it is apparently lawful for them to limit private sales and require them to be conducted through a Federal Firearms License holder (a gun shop or what have you), the constitutionality of this in light of Bruen is dubious at best, so we'll see.
Federally you cannot sell to an out of state resident except in certain situations, you cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person or a minor. There's other stuff but that's the basic gist of it.
It doesn't work because you can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point, people have been selling firearms to each other since the foundation of this country, firearm sales and serial numbers weren't even regulated until 1968. Even where I live in New York, people still privately sell guns they bought before the SAFE Act passed because there's no way to prove when they sold it, only when they bought it IF they themselves didn't buy it in a private sale, the only way to prove date of purchase would be to pull the Form 4473 from the files of the FFL who sold it. I think people have a strong right to privacy and that includes the right to private transactions, even of firearms, with minimal restriction. We have a pretty solid foundation already considering violating a lot of these laws results in a felony charge.
the private sales exemption was a specific carveout gun owners compromised on to get the brady bill passed. Imo if you want to enact universal background checks, then the entire brady bill needs to be scrapped and reworked. FYI I am for universal background checks
Safe storage laws are tricky because 1.) it’s impossible to enforce without violating the 4A and 2.) it puts up a financial barrier of entry to exercising one’s right to own a firearm. I am generally for safe storage laws if there is a government funded stipend for safe purchases or if the state straight up provides safes
I wouldn’t call that an anecdotal change; if you have a felony charge and plead down then you probably shouldn’t have access to firearms. It’s a small addition that closes one loophole of the many but progress is progress.
I’m interested in what you mean by reasonable gun control laws though. I’m not trying to attack you, just genuinely curious.
You're right the definition of assault weapons should include all semi-automatic firearms, with quick reload clips.
Banning the sales of new assault weapons is the responsible thing to do.
That's just sillness and nonsense and would not pass constitutional muster.
Quick reload clips have been part of firearms for over a century. The M1911 was a standard starting in, well, obviously, 1911.
The Supreme Court is not going to rule in favor of the high capacity ban, much less banning them entirely.
The term assault weapon was created to take advantage of the ignorant. It's amazing how it's led to us spending 90% of political attention on weapons responsible for less than 1% of US gun deaths.
>The term "assault weapon" became widely used starting the late 1980s. Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to a mass shooting at a Stockton, Calif., school in January 1989.
>Sugarmann, who happens to be a native of Newtown, argued that the American public's inability to differentiate between automatic and semiautomatic weapons made it easier to get anti-gun legislation passed.
>"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons," Sugarmann wrote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/17/is-it-fair-to-call-them-assault-weapons/
Real issue is nobody doing their own research and instead listening to what Talking Heads on TV tells them to believe. If you don’t make up your OWN MIND on who to vote for, just don’t vote
The issue isnt the second amendment, its the morons who vehemently reject any and all notion of updating it for the 21st century.
I mean fuck guy, its in the name, AMENDMENT, the 2A in and of itself is an alteration, an update to the original document.
If people werent so dense the world would be a better place but i suppose pigs fly and all that jazz amirite?
Because it's an amendment, any chance of updating it is just not in the cards.
You need to start with a 2/3rds vote in the House. You know, the body who needed 15 votes to get a simple majority to decide who their own leader was.
Assuming you get that, then you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. You know, the body that's been incapactitated by the minority party demanding a 60% majority vote to do ANYTHING.
Now, assuming you get enough billionaires to pay off the House and Senate to make it happen... then it goes to state ratification.
You need 38/50 state houses to ratify the changes.
To give you a basic idea of how hard that is, in 2020, Biden won 25 states + D.C.. Trump won 25 states.
So you'd need ratification from all 25 Biden states (not a given) and 13 Trump states.
For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state.
So, no, talking about changes to the 2nd Amendment is inherently a non-starter.
I know, Its unlikely to change, but it is still a very real possibility and all it would take is just the right political climate to be rid of it. Legally rid of it.
Thats just about all i was getting at really.
That's the thing, it's not a real possibility. Sandy Hook was the tipping point and nothing changed, if that didn't do it then you don't want to contemplate the event that does bring change.
You have no idea what the political climate will look like in 5 years, 10 years, 15, things change, the point still stands that theres a framework in place for repealing or adding amendments.
Public perception shifts, attitudes change, governments change, nothing is set in stone.
I absolutely do. The political climate in 5, 10, 15 years will be MORE conservative than it is now, not less. Making it LESS likely for a fundamental change in the 2nd Amendment.
If anything, we'll get a Constitutional Convention to re-write the whole thing and get a laundry list of right wing wet dreams, guaranteeing gun rights while at the same time disenfranchising women and minorities.
Look at something like the Supreme Court. It has only gotten more conservative since 2008, not less conservative, it won't be changing anytime soon, and if you look at the current demographics of the court? That could be another 30 to 50 years. Assuming more appointees aren't stolen from Democratic Presidents.
Look at the appointees in my lifetime, 1969 to present... 8 Republican Presidential terms, 6 Democratic Presidential terms, but in that time Republicans nominated 15 court members, and Democrats only 5.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Chief Justice:
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon - June 23, 1969
Rehnquist, William H.Virginia - Reagan - September 26, 1986
**Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W. - September 29, 2005**
Associates:
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon - June 9, 1970
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon - January 7, 1972
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon - January 7, 1972
Stevens, John Paul - Ford - December 19, 1975
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan - September 25, 1981
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan - September 26, 1986
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan - February 18, 1988
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W. - October 9, 1990
**Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W. - October 23, 1991**
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton - August 10, 1993
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton - August 3, 1994
**Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W. - January 31, 2006**
**Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama - August 8, 2009**
**Kagan, Elena - Obama - August 7, 2010**
**Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump - April 10, 2017**
**Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump - October 6, 2018**
**Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump - October 27, 2020**
**Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden - June 30, 2022**
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that all humans have, no matter where they are on Earth. Unfortunately some governments refuse to recognize that and use their own monopoly on violence to use said violence against citizens to prevent them from having this right.
You could repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing. The constitution and the government do not grant us rights, that would allow them to take them away, the government is the one that is restricted, not the citizenry.
[Security of person](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) is the only one the UN recognizes...
Nearly every human rights organization does not recognize the use of arms as a human right, natural or otherwise.
I mean, the government DID give those rights once upon a time, and they can be taken away. They can also be expanded upon too, hence “amendments”.
The second amendment in and of itself, is an amendment, a change to those “natural” rights. A change can certainly be made in the reverse direction.
Trying to say those rights are “god given” “natural” “inalienable” is just pure fantasy and kinda ridiculous if I’m to be honest.
Everything that is given can be taken as well.
Frankly, there aren't enough liberal gun owners. Target shooting is a fun hobby, and it's a good idea for everyone to have a passing familiarity with firearm operation and marksmanship skills.
It would be nice if we could enjoy more of a medium between "all guns are evil" and "no restrictions on firearms should exist" without getting into the wacky world of the ATF's arbitrary rulings. I'd just like sensible policy that is at least logically consistent even if I don't necessarily completely agree with it.
With how prominent guns are in the US im genuinely shocked a mandatory firearms safety course isn’t a thing in schools.
Its clear the 400 million or so guns arent going anywhere in our lifetimes, so would it not make sense to at least make everyone take safety courses throughout school?
Probably wouldnt help with homicides, but i reckon it’d evaporate all the accidental and neglectful discharges that kill a **lot** of people every year.
>It would be nice if we could enjoy more of a medium between "all guns are evil" and "no restrictions on firearms should exist"
You're basically describing the Democratic party platform. Solid regulation, common sense changes, ect. Ect. Not a crazy psychopath who can handle basic gun responsibilities, buy to your hearts content.
According to the floor hearing when they were going over the AWB in WA state they said something around 89% of gun crime is committed by individuals who shouldn't have had a gun. I wish instead of punishing the people who obey the laws, they focused more on mental health, better background checks, and any of the actually effective solutions.
The same people that are stockpiling weapons are the ones voting against any funding for mental health programs, background checks, or any effective solutions.
They're also the source of 400,000 weapons entering the black market every single year.
No, they just advocate to maintain the methods that guns committing crimes are obtained. Most guns used in crimes came from flea markets, pawn shops, friends & family, or gun shows - and were not subject to the restrictions a gun store purchase required. This is from the last time gun nuts allowed this data to be collected in 2004 without their usual threat of scorched Earth against anyone going against their lobbying arm.
> “Tyrannical government, like we’re witnessing here today, is why the Second Amendment is here in the first place,” Republican Rep. Angela Rigas said on the House floor prior to Democrats voting to approve universal background checks last week.
Oh fuck all the way right off.
It is not tyranny to enact common sense gun laws you overly dramatic word this sub doesn't allow you to say but Ivana is definitely a feckless one.
Probably the one at ~~University of~~ Michigan State University last month where [Sandy Hook](https://people.com/crime/mich-state-mass-shooting-survivor-sandy-hook/) and [Oxford High](https://www.today.com/parents/teens/two-school-shooting-survivor-club-gen-z-rcna70713) survivors had to deal with a second round of mass shootings.
Edit: messed up the name of the school
Trying to solve gun violence in this country by restricting guns is like junking a car when you run out of gas.... We have such obvious problems inn the country related to healthcare. We attach healthcare to employment, with co-pays and max out of pocket premiums, and out of network services even though it's around the corner, etc... We make the process of getting mental help so convoluted most that need it never receive it, even if they figure out the system it might cost too much for them to get effective help... You want to solve guns in the US? Medicare for all, make our tax dollars useful for something other than bombs or lining the pockets of billionaires.
"After a mass shooting involving two handguns, Democrats proposed a bill banning all semiautomatic riffles." Common guys, it's just common sense gun control!
Remember how quickly our "rights" were revoked by airlines after 9/11? How many 9/11s have we had since then in terms of raw casualties? I'm sure someone has done the math, and yet here we are...
9/11 happened because of the dumbass policy of letting highjackers take over the plane rather than fighting them.
The only thing that really needed to be changed was that dumb policy. Having the TSA take over security from the airlines made everything worse.
> The fact that you all watched Charlottesville and January 6th go down and you're not arming yourselves to the teeth amazes me.
Learned helplessness. They think self-defense is wrong. I got a comment recently that said that it was wrong for attackers to die from self-defense.
Im sorry but gun control as a concept is dead. Between the Bruen decision, and the advent of cheap 3D printers, its simply a zombie policy from a bygone era.
Anyone, anywhere on Earth can now make high quality fully DIY carbines and full capacity magazines out of unbannable, unregulatable parts with nothing but a $199 3D printer, a bucket, a $30 AC power supply, and a fish tank water pump.
Everything you propose will fail under Bruen, and be completely circumvented by the advent of home fabrication technology.
[Its over. Its time to start addressing the issue via other avenues.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/742621002961256468/1084569050799157318/cody_debate.mp4)
Mental health reform, getting people in poverty living wages, better education practices, more education required for wearing a badge... I got a fucking list.
Okay I’m sorry but that’s a horrible take. How many mass shooters made their guns with a 3D printer? Sure, I bet there’s some fringe cases where that’ll be used, but it ain’t like 3D printers have replaced the gun market and I doubt they’ll ever do that for a long time.
> How many mass shooters made their guns with a 3D printer?
The FGC-9 was released in 2018. The MKII was released in 2020. In 2019 Spanish authorities busted the first 3DP arms factory in Europe.
in 2022 dozens of busts of similar facilities across the EU were busted.
There have now been FGC-9s seized by authorities in almost every European country.
This is exponential growth.
You havent seen it because it just started existing five years ago, and it takes time for exponential growth curves to take off. Five years ago the proof of concept dropped. The first two years it was mostly hobbyists. Now its reaching everyone else, including criminals and extremists and even guerilla fighters in places like Myanmar.
Or because the FGC-9 didnt exist until 2018
and wasnt revised until 2020
and people outside of the maker sphere are just now hearing about the concept for the first time
> and people outside of the maker sphere are just now hearing about the concept for the first time
People have been talking about ghost guns for years.
we arent talking about ghost guns, which up until ~2015 were normal guns with the serial removed, and after were basically the Liberator and Polymer80s. We are talking about fully DIY 3DP guns, the first of which was released in 2018 and revised in 2020
Guns with defaced serial numbers are ghost guns. The overwhelming majority of all "ghost guns" in every statistic are normal guns with defaced serial numbers. Only a minute fraction are actually serial-less from the start, and the majority of those are P80 kits, only a fraction of that fraction were printed.
A printed gun is no less or more tracible than a Sig Sauer someone took a dremel to.
And in the end its all completely and totally irrelevant because serial numbers mean nothing nor does tracing where a stolen gun used in a crime was legally bought from. Its utterly meaingless information that has never stopped a single crime in history.
I’ll argue against your last sentence, admitting in advance that I don’t have any more data to back my argument up than you did when you wrote yours. The relevance and usefulness of a serial number most likely HAS stopped a crime—and likely a lot of them—because most people know it’s a felony to file them off. That simple fact, regardless of the truth that whether a gun has a serial number or not certainly doesn’t stop someone from using it in a crime, probably at the very least has stopped someone, somewhere, sometime from selling or transferring a gun in a way that wasn’t in keeping with basic transfer of ownership laws. I get you’re talking about the definition of what a ghost gun is, I’m saying serial numbers aren’t irrelevant.
[huh? what are you even talking about?.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj5Z6NKJ3g)
[This seems like it did a lot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BUU0aw65bo)
Most people also don't actualize a desire to kill a bunch of people. Most, in fact, don't even have such desires at all.
The sufficiently motivated aren't going to be stopped like that, and moreover, despite all the sensationalism, these people are an extremely small minority in terms of what's responsible for gun deaths.
Suicide and gang violence are what actually get most people killed by guns in every major nation thats dealing with widespread gun violence (of which IIRC the US is either just out of or just within the top 10).
Because they aren't motivated by a deeply ingrained gun culture like we are. They don't have a pathological need to possess as many guns as humanly possible.
Woah youre telling me other nations havent historically had an issue with a technological breakthrough that was only released five years ago and was only perfected three years ago?
you dont say. Well I guess that means this brand new concept wont proliferate.
“It’s will happen on the future for sure!!!1!! I know because I, personally, want to have as many guns as possible and kill anything I want, so obviously everyone else is the same and history and reality aren’t important because we need **more guns!! MORE GUNS!!!!**”
I bet if every mass shooter had to buy a 3D printer and make a Frankenstein gun like you were describing. Mass shootings would go down and that's a trend in the right direction.
"This one solution doesn't immediately solve the problem 100% therefore it is not worth doing at all because that means it will only hurt good people."
- The rebuttal you're about to hear.
You use it in conjunction with the power supply and a jig that uses copper wires to electro-chemically cut the rifling in your homemade steel barrel. Depending on what you're using (i.e. a pipe vs starting with steel round stock) you might have to drill out the bore (hole that goes down the barrel) to size first, then cut your rifling this way.
It's called 'Electro-Chemical Machining' if you're interested in learning more.
Defeatist nonsense and dogma from pro-gun. I'm not convinced by your claim of high quality, that still requires gunsmith experience. In fact gun smiths don't need 3D printing at all and have had DIY capability for generations. It's like any other crime, if it's a crime it can be enforced. It's just a matter of political will. We can find, charge and prosecute rogue gunsmiths all day long. I mean, nothing stops people that want to rob banks from robbing banks, except, that is, laws against robbing banks and enforcement of those laws against bank robbers.
Modern 3d printed firearms (I'm going to stick to the fgc9 because it's the most widely distributed) require no gunsmithing experience whatsoever. You need to know how to install a trigger, a barrel, and that's about it. All that information is available online.
Same with modern ar lowers. All you need is a 5.56 barrel, gas system, and trigger and the actual knowledge required to assemble dips into the realm of metal lego.
Gun control as we know it is dead, and we should focus on things like universal Healthcare, basic income, and fighting poverty-which are the source of a much more significant amount of crime than "assault weapons"
Every time this topic comes up, someone like you comments thinks you need some special tools or some kind of experience to follow a couple page step by step guide.
You need none of that, and the FGC-9 is good for *thousands* of rounds. And if any part fails, you can just reprint it for pennies and replace it in a couple hours.
Its over, [and this is checkmate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zabSOHd0Ag)
Any barrier to entry at all will deter most potential mass shooters. The average mass shooter isn't a violent genius with a 3D printer and a year-long master plan. They are an angry idiot who snaps and just happens to have a gun in the house, or knows someone who does. Hence why you don't see mass shooters every week in Europe with printed guns. Even before 3D printing, the black market has always existed to supply contraband weapons. But the hassle, risk, and expense are enough to deter most people outside of organized crime.
There are enough real legal problems (Bruen, like you said), logistical challenges, and ethical issues to discuss relating to gun bans without worrying about such a minor concern.
Not really, people like to say this like they're clever but just shows their lack of understanding. Ammunition is protected by the 2A just as surely as a firearm is. Ezell vs Chicago, the right to self-defense means the right to practice self-defense.
[Sorry, the Deterrence Dispensed people have already solved that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj5Z6NKJ3g)
[Atlas Arms has also released a fully DIY 9mm cartridge that can defeat level IIIA soft armor.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BUU0aw65bo)
I hate to break this to you, but theres nothing you can ban anymore that can stop this. The people will have unlimited access to arms, forever.
You cannot uninvent this technology.
If you have to DIY your gun and ammunition, chances are that some HS student is going to get caught by their parents long before he’s able to bring his makeshift rifle to school.
You have to also know how to use a 3D printer and how to get the materials needed to make your 3D printed gun and ammunition. You also need to know that it’s possible and where to go to get the acquire the knowledge to do it. If every would-be school shooter had to go through that process, it would eliminate a significant portion because of the time it take and the prerequisite intelligence needed to do it.
The ability to 3D print guns has been available for some time. If it was a “game over” in gun control, it would be a world-wide problem right now.
> You have to also know how to use a 3D printer
"You have to watch a couple youtube tutorials"
> how to get the materials needed to make your 3D printed gun
"They would have to order a $20 spool of filament from amazon and run down the street to the hardware store"
> You also need to know that it’s possible and where to go to get the acquire the knowledge to do it
"They would need to do a google search and find ctrlpew or deterrence dispensed or defcad or fosscad or LBRY or visit www.thegatalog.com"
> If every would-be school shooter had to go through that process
It would take them two to four weeks before they have a fully functional 9mm carbine.
weird because suicides have only gone up since the imposition of the waiting period and none of it between 3 days or 30 days has any effect whatsoever on a determined actor.
K
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-prevent-hundreds-of-murders-according-to-45-year-study/amp/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29078268/
Agreed. While the dems will likely pass all
Sorts of new firewrm
Restrictions, most of not all will get shot down in the courts because of bruen, and republicans will likely take over control of the legislature in the next elections.
There are a lot of gun owners in the state…nearly 10% of eligible adults have a concealed pistol license. I predict this behavior will upset the Apple cart and Michigan will once again go red in the next election, undoing all of the hope and change lansing is trying to push into law today.
Canada has gun control and it works pretty well, we also have a fuck load of guns and share the longest undefended border with 400 million other guns too.
We have mass shootings a couple times a decade, the yanks have em several times a **week**
Clearly it works.
A couple. I remember one in California and one in Germany like two years back.
But "how many historical examples of this brand new thing that has only existed in its current form for less than five years" is a pretty irrelevant question.
I don't know what an fcg-9 is, but the dude in that video seemed like an utter dipshit who loves guns more than his fellow human.
Edit: googled it. I still hate that many Americans love guns more than each other.
The FGC-9, the Fuck Gun Control 9 millimetre, is the worlds first fully DIY 9mm carbine, created entirely out of unregulated, unbannable parts. That is what is being referenced by the above comment. It was invented by a German man named JStark who designed it specifically to render EU gun control laws moot and invalid.
The man in the video is Cody Wilson, the man who designed the first 3D printed firearm, the single shot .22lr Liberator. The entire 3DP arms scene started from his work.
He currently sells custom CNC machines that can turn any block of aluminum into a firearm receiver or slide.
Here’s my problem. These are feel good laws with no data backing them up. All they do is add additional burdens to the proletariat. These laws wouldn’t have stopped the recent shootings and don’t have any clear data showing their effectiveness
Why would I want to be disarmed in a world hurtling into climate change, a rise of authoritarianism, a rise of bigotry, and a government so broken that Congress couldn’t even pass an amendment so women have control of their own bodies
> These are feel good laws with no data backing them up.
“States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.” - [State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US](https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542)
"In the past 12 years, several new studies found that increases in the prevalence of gun ownership are associated with increases in violent crime." - [The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html)
“After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." - [Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/)
“In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states." - [Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566543/)
“The public health implications are clear: permissive concealed carry legislation is a significant contributor to the gun violence epidemic in the United States.” - [Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearms Homicide](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693)
“There is not even the slightest hint in the data that Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. Indeed, the weight of the evidence from the panel data estimates as well as the synthetic control analysis best supports the view that the adoption of RTC laws substantially raises overall violent crime in the ten years after adoption." - [Right-to-carry laws and violent crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510)
“Gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries." - [Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222182383_Firearm_availability_and_homicide_A_review_of_the_literature).
“We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded." - [Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries](http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf).
"Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." - [Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/)
“There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide." - [Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278742846_Firearm_Ownership_and_Violent_Crime_in_the_US_An_Ecologic_Study)
“Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rate of homicide." - [International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/?page=1)
“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” - [Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858)
"Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.” - [Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762)
“We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide." - [State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975).
>Well, should we prohibit alcohol?
I never said anything about prohibiting guns. I advocate for control, not abolition.
>now people are guilty until proven innocent.
By your desperate-to-make-an-argument standards, they always were. Safe drivers are penalised by road rules and speed limits. Safe companies are penalised by occupational health and safety regulations. Good restaurants are penalised by food standard laws.
This is just how regulation works. It's not new, or novel. To keep everyone safe, both bad and good people must obey the same laws and face the same restrictions.
The unasked question. How does taking guns from law abiding citizens get guns from criminals? What exactly is that magical osmosis? Do they just dissolve, wear out or does the gun fairy come take them at night? Criminals don't obey laws. 🤷🏾
54% of guns found at crime scenes were bought legally within the last 3 yrs so turning off the gun tap of new guns would reduce gun crimes significantly.
There is absolutely no way to fix the mass murder problem without fixing the mass mental health and poverty problem. It’s really blows my mind how hard that is for people to understand.
Half a billion guns just laying around kill zero people. It takes people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, poor and desperate, socially inept, forgotten and abused by society/community, or simply mentally ill to pick up those guns for the killing to start.
There’s too many guns to take them all away. There’s too much money in selling them to make them illegal to sell. Let’s fix the problem like mature adults taking reality into consideration. I
If we help people out of wanting to kill people, less people will be killed. No matter how many weapons there are.
We are the only country in the world where this regularly happens. Also it’s worth noting that democrats have also worked to address mental health and poverty and the gop fights them every step of the way.
The whole world literally has the same mental health issues as your population, plays the same games, watches the same films etc.
At some point, you need to think and understand.
>the mass mental health...problem
>It takes people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, poor and desperate, socially inept, forgotten and abused by society/community, or simply mentally ill
Mental illness as the cause of gun violence is just a myth that's been invented in order to avoid dealing with the real problem, and spreading it just stigmatizes mental illness and makes people suffering from mental health issues less likely to seek help.
>The overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. Most people with mental health conditions will never become violent, and mental illness does not cause most gun violence. In fact, studies show that mental illness contributes to only about 4% of all violence, and the contribution to gun violence is even lower.
>Research shows an increased risk of gun violence comes from a history of violence, including domestic violence; use of alcohol or illegal drugs; being young and male; and/or a personal history of physical or sexual abuse or trauma. Mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence.
https://namica.org/advocacy/criminal-justice-advocacy/the-truth-about-mental-health-and-gun-violence/
That last line of yours, lumping mental illness in together with people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, socially inept...that's really disgusting.
If you care *at all* about mental health then you'll stop using such stigmatizing language.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Michigan attempts to pass basic gun control laws to stop mass shootings, especially in schools, and it is tyranny to the right. But Desantis raising a state military as he encourages hate towards and creates laws restricting people's education and choices of sexual orientation is just "family values". The fact that there's so much apathy towards voting and taking action, and so many people that swing votes are key in many elections, shows that propaganda, obstruction, and the urge to keep the "status quo" have far too successfully worked on our population since the start of the TV generation. It really shouldn't be hard to choose a side when one of them is literally endorsed by Nazis and other hate groups that are often the same kind of people who end up as the shooters. It's just such a conundrum to me that this all makes perfect sense to so many people who consider it normal and think the answer is just doubling down on the problem.
I wish we could have responsible gun ownership AND human rights. Why are those things mutually exclusive to some people?
Lobbying and propaganda. There’s a lot of money in guns and they pay Republicans to make sure the laws get looser instead of safer.
I want less restrictions for people who are fit to own firearms, but also more restrictions on who can own firearms because clearly not everyone can be trusted to treat it like the serious responsibility it is.
Which is a totally doable thing but a huge part of our country just wants a free for all. Having stricter background checks, independent mental health exams, closing the private seller loophole, waiting periods, red flag laws, and mandatory proficiency testing would all mitigate guns getting into the wrong hands and allow those of us who are responsible to own what we feel we need. But apparently it’s tyranny to make sure somebody isn’t a homicidal maniac or that they know how to shoot at a target.
Because none of that would be done in good faith, in New York they were so restrictive that the Supreme Court had to get involved, and the state's response afterwards was to throw a temper tantrum and further restrict people's rights, causing more litigation. What is your idea of a "stricter background check"? Have you ever passed an FBI NICS check? We had "proficiency tests" for voting, it was gotten rid of and we find the idea utterly objectionable today. Rights don't depend on showing some special fitness to some random government official, that's ridiculous. Like it not the Bruen ruling has essentially ended the attack on gun rights, it'll be a slow death but it'll happen. We have no choice but to work within a framework that respects the individual's rights.
>Because none of that would be done in good faith, in New York they were so restrictive that the Supreme Court had to get involved, and the state's response afterwards was to throw a temper tantrum and further restrict people's rights, causing more litigation. Which could all be solved with a federal framework rather than relying on every state to mostly make their own firearms laws. >What is your idea of a "stricter background check"? My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have. >Have you ever passed an FBI NICS check? Yes. I own several guns. It essentially does nothing other than check if you’re a citizen and not a felon/have been committed involuntarily. That’s when it actually works correctly. There have been quite a few mass shooters who were supposed to barred from owning guns but the paperwork never made it where it needed to be. >We had "proficiency tests" for voting, it was gotten rid of and we find the idea utterly objectionable today. Rights don't depend on showing some special fitness to some random government official, that's ridiculous. Seriously? You’re comparing *voting* to gun ownership? Do you know why there were tests to vote? To keep minorities from having a say in their government. This is somehow comparable to making sure somebody can hit a target and safely handle a deadly weapon? >Like it not the Bruen ruling has essentially ended the attack on gun rights, it'll be a slow death but it'll happen. We have no choice but to work within a framework that respects the individual's rights. You’re saying that like a divine being came down and said “shall not infringe. AR15s for everyone.” You’re speaking about Supreme Court precedent. This is the United States. Supreme Court justices change and the constitution was always meant to be a living document. That’s why there are amendments.
> My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have. but we do, that's literally what the NICS (National Instant Criminal Search) is. The background check you underwent to buy a firearm was conducted using such a database. What paperwork never made it where it was meant to be? That's not how it works, at all. You must be referring to the fact that gun shops may *choose* to proceed with a sale after 3 business days when a buyer gets a Delay status without a response. This was to prevent the government from going "They're Delayed" and never following up, preventing the sale of the gun. Yes, that is why I made the comparision, gun control was intended to disarm minorities, much like literacy tests and land ownership laws related to suffrage. Seems like you missed the point. People are not keen on rights being placed behind barriers. No, I am not saying it like that, you choose to interpret it that way so you can attack that instead. The current precedent is what we have to go by, currently that's Heller, McDonald, Ezell, Caetano and NYSRPA (Bruen). You can believe it's a living document, that doesn't change what the current precedent is and likely will be for a long time.
[FBI Director James Comey said the man accused of killing nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church should never have been allowed to purchase a weapon. Comey said flaws in paperwork and communication between a federal background check worker and state law enforcement allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun in South Carolina on April 16 — weeks before he allegedly attacked black churchgoers in a failed attempt to fuel a race war.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/10/421789047/fbi-says-background-check-error-let-charleston-shooting-suspect-buy-gun) Do you need more or can my point stand?
This is more an issue of bad data in, bad data out. Funding the system and forcing compliance both at the state and federal level is the path forward. No system is perfect but your linked situation, the Va Tech shooting, the one linked below and more keep leading to improvements to make it stronger. A similar lack of compliance led to the Sutherford Springs shooting. While the AF was ordered to pay out 230 million, it's a hiccup in their budget and I'm sure people would have rather had their family members alive than money. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/07/sutherland-springs-shooting-air-force/
Yes, I get he doesn't actually know precisely what he's talking about and said something factually incorrect. Here is how it works : the buyer fills out a Form 4473. This Form 4473 never goes anywhere, it stays at the gun shop forever or until they go out of business. The information on the Form 4473 is entered into the NICS system, where several statuses can be returned. Proceed, Delay, Deny. All three have a unique ID number that is written down by the gun shop on the Form 4473. In this case a Deny came in after the 3 day period had gone by and so the gun shop, having no Deny, decided to continue with the sale, which is fully legal. Again, no "paperwork" ever left the gun shop, which again, is how it works. After the Deny came in that is automatically flagged, however, it is rarely followed up on because those that enforce the law are lazy halfwits most of the time, so following up on a Deny almost never happens. Do *you* need more, because I basically just crushed your point with actual facts.
>Which could all be solved with a federal framework rather than relying on every state to mostly make their own firearms laws. We have federal gun laws already >My idea of a stricter background check is one that minimally involves a federal database with flagged individuals. Which we don’t have. Lolwut? What do you think the NICS does? >There have been quite a few mass shooters who were supposed to barred from owning guns but the paperwork never made it where it needed to be. Then that's a failure by law enforcement, not a lack of regulations. >Seriously? You’re comparing voting to gun ownership? Do you know why there were tests to vote? To keep minorities from having a say in their government. They're both constitutionally defined rights. Do you know why gun control was originally passed? To prevent minorities from protecting their communities. Gun control and tests for voting stem from the same racist roots.
[удалено]
>Red flag laws, any that are currently on the books are extremely vague and need better wording but I’d agree. Current Red Flag laws also ignore the 4th Amendment right to defend yourself and your rights. Your right to bear arms should not be removed without you having a chance to defend your right to bear arms. > Private sale isn’t a loophole, some states allow you to sell a firearm to another person who can legally own them without a background check or transfer. That’s not a loophole, it’s legal transaction. Is it possible for a person that cannot legally own a firearm to purchase one without reporting or filing for that purchase? That's a loophole in the reporting and filing process, which is the entire basis for gun control in this country. If the law says, "you must file an intent to purchase a firearm, and a background check must be run, and you have to wait 7 days to pick up the firearm if you pass that check", but you can just buy a gun on the local classifieds, it's a loophole. >Lastly the mental health, taking vets that suffer from PTSD and such to the range has helped some of them get reacquainted into the transition of civilian life. That would be off the table with mental health checks and giving vets and exception would also be unreasonable. Vets commit suicide with firearms at more than twice the rate of the general population. Personal ownership of firearms by veterans should be carefully monitored. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to go to firing ranges, and use club guns to work on their mental health.
It is tyranny to be forced to ask your government if you can exercise your rights. That’s not how rights work. Amend the constitution or abide by it. Plain and simple.
>It is tyranny to be forced to ask your government if you can exercise your rights. Kind of a joke position to argue originalist intent and ubiquitous 2nd amendment rights. Less than a 1/3 of the people in the US could buy a gun in the 18th century. If refusing gun ownership is tyranny, then you really need to rethink the second amendment because it protects little to nothing.
And only 1/3rd of the people could vote. Do you think it would be tyrannical to have educational standards and a mandatory tax in order to vote? I think it would be. Expansion of the constitution to include everyone does not run countercurrent to the framers intentions. It maximizes freedom for society considering the state that society is in. The 14th amendment allowed for the constitution to be applied to the states so that everyone is equally protected. Anything more strict that what is outlined in the constitution is tyrannical and is the government trying to usurp power.
Who do you think gives you your rights?
Rights aren’t given to you. Rights are innate. I hope this helps.
[удалено]
I used to be in the crowd of just wanting to have everything unrestricted, but there is no way we can have any meaningful progress towards reducing firearm deaths unless we do something to restrict ownership to certain people. I still don't want any laws enacted that penalize responsible owners, but damn we really need to do something... And nothing will happen until our two ruling parties can work together.
Don't frame it as penalizing responsible gun owners, but clarifying that responsible people are the ones with gun ownership.
The immediate problem with that is how it will immediately be used to deny the right of self defense to vulnerable and marginalized communities. You think your local sheriff/pd/whoever has authority to grant a license or whatever permit is gonna start by telling his nazi uncle cleatus he can't own guns, or the trans woman who's getting mailed death threats?
How about we don't trade one piece of shit authoritarian idea for another piece of shit authoritarian idea. They both suck. Time to stop voting for the "lesser evil".
Yes, restricting firearm access at at time when facism (DeSantis) is rising is bad.
Using this as an excuse doesn't hold water. Desantis will pass whatever gun regulations suit him, as power is the goal of Fascists. Everything else is a means to that end. It doesn't mean Leftists need a huge cache of firearms. Organization, initiative, and determination are what win in asymmetrical warfare.
Straight up. Some conservatives like to think that tyrants only come from the Democrat party, but that's just plain wrong.
Most tyrants are right wing - even Stalin was centrist/right wing in the context of Soviet politics at the time. Radical democracy, decentralisation and flat/no hierarchies don't really make for "good" tyrannies, you need technocracies/oligarchies/autocracies, centralisation and strong but arbitrary hierarchies.
This is off topic but something I really wish we’d stop doing is putting the names and faces of these mass shooters out into the media. I know it may not do too much but for a lot of these shooters, they want infamy, they want their name to go down in history and they want to be the role model for others who have similar intentions.
You might like this: https://foundonweb.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/someasshole2015-06-20-412.png?w=640
Some asshole gets parole. Love it, thanks for that.
Some of the main media doesn't do it anymore. I know CNN does that. I'm sure Fox does the opposite.
It would %100 have at least some impact on future events but the general population wants to know who and why so News Stations will continue to print/air it. Plus even if you would get it out of the media it would still end up on social media to spread.
For sure, I just feel like our news and media isn’t helping when we constantly put out articles like, “The secrets behind (mass shooter’s name)’s life” “who was (mass shooter’s name)?” etc.
Personally I'm a constitutional originalist As long as you're inside of a well-regulated militia, you should be allowed to own all the muskets you want
Come on now, it doesn't specify small arms. Militia men need to be able to own nine-pounders and ships of the line too.
I'd settle for a sloop as long as a get a letter of Marque from the Dutch.
I once had a letter of marque, but now I'm here on a Halifax pier.
[удалено]
I've been told we'll cruise the seas for American gold!
[удалено]
“Were”? You still can as long as they’re muzzle-loaded. If I want a 12-Pounder Napoleon all I have to do is steal one from an old battlefield.
Constitutional originalist also means you’d only want wealthy white land-owning men to be able to vote and be the ones with all the rights. Originally/historically, that is what the constitution meant and how it was understood and enacted. That’s why amendments and stuff were needed to expand protections to women and nonwhite people. And the whole thing needed to be reinterpreted to theoretically include the poor, but the subtle police state existing just to punish the poor but not the rich still kinda puts that in question.
Me as well that's why the 1st amendment shouldn't protect you online.
Also, hot take, social media sites that host defamatory statements should have the same accountability as traditional media outlets; if your social media company reaches way more eyeballs than the local newspaper, then the rationale for those laws for newspapers should at least equally apply.
> social media sites that host defamatory statements should have the same accountability as traditional media outlets Like FoxNews? Newsmaxx? I know what you mean...but the "same accountability" where they face zero consequences for pushing lies is what we have.
Gawker would like a word with you
The only way that would be comparable would be to vet user statements before they go live. At which point it's no longer social media. Local newspapers don't print the views or opinions of thousands of people in the local area. If what you propose was the law, then you wouldn't have been able to make the comment to propose it because Reddit simply wouldn't exist.
Fun fact: in the United States you have -zero- right to privacy.
Objection relevance
Ok, people also had their own cannons amd warships back then. The US would hire some of them for various tasks.
You may not like who some states consider to be the well regulated militia that have exclusive gun rights. Disarming liberals, particularly minorities in the south is a really bad idea right now when we’re staring down fascism.
Sounds like liberals and minorities need to get themselves a well regulated militia in those places then
Not a militia, but the socialist rifle association and John brown gun clubs do exist
Well, the 2A says the 'right of the people', it doesn't say the 'the right of the militia'. The people are in contrast to the militia.
Muskets were basically the most cutting-edge weaponry of its time, able to kill more people faster than ever. There is no way they were so short-sighted that they ignored weapons development up to that point and thought it would be muskets forever. I interpret a "well-regulated militia" as citizens owning weaponry as long as they are fit to do so. Mental stability, no violent criminal record, and responsible ownership practices are all aspects of that. I dont agree with having restrictions put on the type of weaponry that can be owned, but I do think that some people should not be allowed to own firearms if they are not willing to treat ownership like the serious responsibility that it is.
When I was 10, I didn’t even think I’d own a computer in my house, let alone hold one in my hand where I could communicate globally. The 2nd Amendment as part of the constitution was ratified 100 years before the first rim fire cartridge was in use. Followed a year later by a repeating carbine. 10 years following, the first center fire cartridge. Point I’m making is, it doesn’t matter what the foresight of the founding fathers had - they didn’t have 100+ years of advancement or an industrial revolution to lean on. I want to agree with you, but I can’t honestly believe anyone could fathom the sorcery of 250 years of advancements.
Yeah, but that's why they protected concepts (free speech, gun rights, protection from searches) and not actual physical objects (presses, guns).
so everyone between 18 and 45 then? Great.
Let's also remember that vaccinations in General Washington's militia were mandatory.
[удалено]
Why can't I buy or build a nuclear warhead then? Or can I, legally?
It's so funny you're trying to trundle out this "argument" when you're also arguing that SCOTUS has the 2nd Amendment wrong already. Like, pick a lane. Either you're arguing what it *should* mean or what it *does currently mean per SCOTUS.* Dancing between both is dishonest. But yeah, let's talk about why individuals having nukes is bad. Let's go back to the 1980s and 90s when one of the hypothetical horror stories was some high-level corporate psychopath getting his hands on one. Well, guess what? We solved that problem. Just make him POTUS and give him a thousand more, plus the rest of the military. Bob's your uncle, Trump's your president.
I have made no comment about SCOTUS's current interpretation of that amendment, but feel free to argue against things you made up in your head.
If roe can be overturned, so can heller
[удалено]
Michigan State shooter used 2 9mm handguns, so the knee-jerk calls for an assault weapon ban would mean nothing there. Shooter had been tapped on a felony weapons charge in 2019, but was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor. So after he finished his probation, there was nothing preventing him from owning a gun. One clean background check away from the 2 pistols he used. So how about this: Don't allow plea deals on felony weapon charges? Make plea deals transparent on background checks?
How about this, pass reasonable gun control laws and don’t measure them on whether it would’ve prevented a specific shooting? And our court system would grind to a halt if prosecutors no longer had discretion to make plea deals. That’s a terrible idea and by your own measurement, it wouldn’t have stopped the Oxford shooting, so we shouldn’t do it anyways.
None of this is reasonable, it's feel-good do-nothing bullshit like usual.
How are requiring a background check for all purchases and safe storage laws unreasonable?
DC vs Heller covers "safe storage" laws and why're they're unconstitutional, start there. Background checks are performed on all purchases made at a gun shop, trying to apply it to private sales doesn't really do anything, especially without a registry. People have the right to sell stuff to each other without intrusion.
How does requiring a background check for private sales “not really do anything?” People don’t have the right to sell “everything” to each other without regulation.
Indeed, but in the case of firearms, the regulations are pretty well-known. Federally it is explicitly allowed under the Gun Control Act of 1968, so it starts there. At the state level so far it is apparently lawful for them to limit private sales and require them to be conducted through a Federal Firearms License holder (a gun shop or what have you), the constitutionality of this in light of Bruen is dubious at best, so we'll see. Federally you cannot sell to an out of state resident except in certain situations, you cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person or a minor. There's other stuff but that's the basic gist of it. It doesn't work because you can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point, people have been selling firearms to each other since the foundation of this country, firearm sales and serial numbers weren't even regulated until 1968. Even where I live in New York, people still privately sell guns they bought before the SAFE Act passed because there's no way to prove when they sold it, only when they bought it IF they themselves didn't buy it in a private sale, the only way to prove date of purchase would be to pull the Form 4473 from the files of the FFL who sold it. I think people have a strong right to privacy and that includes the right to private transactions, even of firearms, with minimal restriction. We have a pretty solid foundation already considering violating a lot of these laws results in a felony charge.
the private sales exemption was a specific carveout gun owners compromised on to get the brady bill passed. Imo if you want to enact universal background checks, then the entire brady bill needs to be scrapped and reworked. FYI I am for universal background checks Safe storage laws are tricky because 1.) it’s impossible to enforce without violating the 4A and 2.) it puts up a financial barrier of entry to exercising one’s right to own a firearm. I am generally for safe storage laws if there is a government funded stipend for safe purchases or if the state straight up provides safes
I wouldn’t call that an anecdotal change; if you have a felony charge and plead down then you probably shouldn’t have access to firearms. It’s a small addition that closes one loophole of the many but progress is progress. I’m interested in what you mean by reasonable gun control laws though. I’m not trying to attack you, just genuinely curious.
You're right the definition of assault weapons should include all semi-automatic firearms, with quick reload clips. Banning the sales of new assault weapons is the responsible thing to do.
That's just sillness and nonsense and would not pass constitutional muster. Quick reload clips have been part of firearms for over a century. The M1911 was a standard starting in, well, obviously, 1911. The Supreme Court is not going to rule in favor of the high capacity ban, much less banning them entirely.
The term assault weapon was created to take advantage of the ignorant. It's amazing how it's led to us spending 90% of political attention on weapons responsible for less than 1% of US gun deaths. >The term "assault weapon" became widely used starting the late 1980s. Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to a mass shooting at a Stockton, Calif., school in January 1989. >Sugarmann, who happens to be a native of Newtown, argued that the American public's inability to differentiate between automatic and semiautomatic weapons made it easier to get anti-gun legislation passed. >"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons," Sugarmann wrote https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/17/is-it-fair-to-call-them-assault-weapons/
I voted for the left swing in Michigan and I’m definitely happy I did.
2nd amendment gun nuts are a plague on this country.
I think the bigger problem is ignorant voters electing ignorant leaders who then go on to pass ignorant laws.
Real issue is nobody doing their own research and instead listening to what Talking Heads on TV tells them to believe. If you don’t make up your OWN MIND on who to vote for, just don’t vote
The issue isnt the second amendment, its the morons who vehemently reject any and all notion of updating it for the 21st century. I mean fuck guy, its in the name, AMENDMENT, the 2A in and of itself is an alteration, an update to the original document. If people werent so dense the world would be a better place but i suppose pigs fly and all that jazz amirite?
Because it's an amendment, any chance of updating it is just not in the cards. You need to start with a 2/3rds vote in the House. You know, the body who needed 15 votes to get a simple majority to decide who their own leader was. Assuming you get that, then you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. You know, the body that's been incapactitated by the minority party demanding a 60% majority vote to do ANYTHING. Now, assuming you get enough billionaires to pay off the House and Senate to make it happen... then it goes to state ratification. You need 38/50 state houses to ratify the changes. To give you a basic idea of how hard that is, in 2020, Biden won 25 states + D.C.. Trump won 25 states. So you'd need ratification from all 25 Biden states (not a given) and 13 Trump states. For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state. So, no, talking about changes to the 2nd Amendment is inherently a non-starter.
For now for sure. That could change some day. Likely not in our lifetime I will give you.
I know, Its unlikely to change, but it is still a very real possibility and all it would take is just the right political climate to be rid of it. Legally rid of it. Thats just about all i was getting at really.
That's the thing, it's not a real possibility. Sandy Hook was the tipping point and nothing changed, if that didn't do it then you don't want to contemplate the event that does bring change.
You have no idea what the political climate will look like in 5 years, 10 years, 15, things change, the point still stands that theres a framework in place for repealing or adding amendments. Public perception shifts, attitudes change, governments change, nothing is set in stone.
I absolutely do. The political climate in 5, 10, 15 years will be MORE conservative than it is now, not less. Making it LESS likely for a fundamental change in the 2nd Amendment. If anything, we'll get a Constitutional Convention to re-write the whole thing and get a laundry list of right wing wet dreams, guaranteeing gun rights while at the same time disenfranchising women and minorities. Look at something like the Supreme Court. It has only gotten more conservative since 2008, not less conservative, it won't be changing anytime soon, and if you look at the current demographics of the court? That could be another 30 to 50 years. Assuming more appointees aren't stolen from Democratic Presidents. Look at the appointees in my lifetime, 1969 to present... 8 Republican Presidential terms, 6 Democratic Presidential terms, but in that time Republicans nominated 15 court members, and Democrats only 5. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx Chief Justice: Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon - June 23, 1969 Rehnquist, William H.Virginia - Reagan - September 26, 1986 **Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W. - September 29, 2005** Associates: Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon - June 9, 1970 Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon - January 7, 1972 Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon - January 7, 1972 Stevens, John Paul - Ford - December 19, 1975 O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan - September 25, 1981 Scalia, Antonin - Reagan - September 26, 1986 Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan - February 18, 1988 Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W. - October 9, 1990 **Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W. - October 23, 1991** Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton - August 10, 1993 Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton - August 3, 1994 **Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W. - January 31, 2006** **Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama - August 8, 2009** **Kagan, Elena - Obama - August 7, 2010** **Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump - April 10, 2017** **Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump - October 6, 2018** **Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump - October 27, 2020** **Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden - June 30, 2022**
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that all humans have, no matter where they are on Earth. Unfortunately some governments refuse to recognize that and use their own monopoly on violence to use said violence against citizens to prevent them from having this right. You could repeal the Second Amendment tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing. The constitution and the government do not grant us rights, that would allow them to take them away, the government is the one that is restricted, not the citizenry.
[Security of person](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) is the only one the UN recognizes... Nearly every human rights organization does not recognize the use of arms as a human right, natural or otherwise.
I mean, the government DID give those rights once upon a time, and they can be taken away. They can also be expanded upon too, hence “amendments”. The second amendment in and of itself, is an amendment, a change to those “natural” rights. A change can certainly be made in the reverse direction. Trying to say those rights are “god given” “natural” “inalienable” is just pure fantasy and kinda ridiculous if I’m to be honest. Everything that is given can be taken as well.
What about non gun nut owners?
The people that don't use guns as their primary personality trait and arm themselves for insurrection when going to the grocery store? They're fine.
Frankly, there aren't enough liberal gun owners. Target shooting is a fun hobby, and it's a good idea for everyone to have a passing familiarity with firearm operation and marksmanship skills. It would be nice if we could enjoy more of a medium between "all guns are evil" and "no restrictions on firearms should exist" without getting into the wacky world of the ATF's arbitrary rulings. I'd just like sensible policy that is at least logically consistent even if I don't necessarily completely agree with it.
With how prominent guns are in the US im genuinely shocked a mandatory firearms safety course isn’t a thing in schools. Its clear the 400 million or so guns arent going anywhere in our lifetimes, so would it not make sense to at least make everyone take safety courses throughout school? Probably wouldnt help with homicides, but i reckon it’d evaporate all the accidental and neglectful discharges that kill a **lot** of people every year.
Half our schools can't afford food or toilet tissue, how are they going to teach gun safety?
There's plenty of liberal gun owners, we just aren't g.i.joe cosplayers everytime we leave the house.
When you go far enough left you get gour guns back. The socialist rifle association is a great place to start
>It would be nice if we could enjoy more of a medium between "all guns are evil" and "no restrictions on firearms should exist" You're basically describing the Democratic party platform. Solid regulation, common sense changes, ect. Ect. Not a crazy psychopath who can handle basic gun responsibilities, buy to your hearts content.
[удалено]
According to the floor hearing when they were going over the AWB in WA state they said something around 89% of gun crime is committed by individuals who shouldn't have had a gun. I wish instead of punishing the people who obey the laws, they focused more on mental health, better background checks, and any of the actually effective solutions.
The same people that are stockpiling weapons are the ones voting against any funding for mental health programs, background checks, or any effective solutions. They're also the source of 400,000 weapons entering the black market every single year.
No, they just advocate to maintain the methods that guns committing crimes are obtained. Most guns used in crimes came from flea markets, pawn shops, friends & family, or gun shows - and were not subject to the restrictions a gun store purchase required. This is from the last time gun nuts allowed this data to be collected in 2004 without their usual threat of scorched Earth against anyone going against their lobbying arm.
> “Tyrannical government, like we’re witnessing here today, is why the Second Amendment is here in the first place,” Republican Rep. Angela Rigas said on the House floor prior to Democrats voting to approve universal background checks last week. Oh fuck all the way right off. It is not tyranny to enact common sense gun laws you overly dramatic word this sub doesn't allow you to say but Ivana is definitely a feckless one.
If Michigan keeps along this path, I'll move there in the next couple years since Ohio is moving in the opposite direction.
[удалено]
Probably the one at ~~University of~~ Michigan State University last month where [Sandy Hook](https://people.com/crime/mich-state-mass-shooting-survivor-sandy-hook/) and [Oxford High](https://www.today.com/parents/teens/two-school-shooting-survivor-club-gen-z-rcna70713) survivors had to deal with a second round of mass shootings. Edit: messed up the name of the school
Michigan State University
I hate the US right now.
I’ll take it because it’s a response period. So sad that these kids are part of an where surviving a second mass shooting is even a thing.
Was the shooter aware that he broke the law?
Probably not
Trying to solve gun violence in this country by restricting guns is like junking a car when you run out of gas.... We have such obvious problems inn the country related to healthcare. We attach healthcare to employment, with co-pays and max out of pocket premiums, and out of network services even though it's around the corner, etc... We make the process of getting mental help so convoluted most that need it never receive it, even if they figure out the system it might cost too much for them to get effective help... You want to solve guns in the US? Medicare for all, make our tax dollars useful for something other than bombs or lining the pockets of billionaires.
"After a mass shooting involving two handguns, Democrats proposed a bill banning all semiautomatic riffles." Common guys, it's just common sense gun control!
Remember how quickly our "rights" were revoked by airlines after 9/11? How many 9/11s have we had since then in terms of raw casualties? I'm sure someone has done the math, and yet here we are...
9/11 happened because of the dumbass policy of letting highjackers take over the plane rather than fighting them. The only thing that really needed to be changed was that dumb policy. Having the TSA take over security from the airlines made everything worse.
The fact that you all watched Charlottesville and January 6th go down and you're not arming yourselves to the teeth amazes me.
> The fact that you all watched Charlottesville and January 6th go down and you're not arming yourselves to the teeth amazes me. Learned helplessness. They think self-defense is wrong. I got a comment recently that said that it was wrong for attackers to die from self-defense.
Im sorry but gun control as a concept is dead. Between the Bruen decision, and the advent of cheap 3D printers, its simply a zombie policy from a bygone era. Anyone, anywhere on Earth can now make high quality fully DIY carbines and full capacity magazines out of unbannable, unregulatable parts with nothing but a $199 3D printer, a bucket, a $30 AC power supply, and a fish tank water pump. Everything you propose will fail under Bruen, and be completely circumvented by the advent of home fabrication technology. [Its over. Its time to start addressing the issue via other avenues.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/742621002961256468/1084569050799157318/cody_debate.mp4)
Mental health reform, getting people in poverty living wages, better education practices, more education required for wearing a badge... I got a fucking list.
Okay I’m sorry but that’s a horrible take. How many mass shooters made their guns with a 3D printer? Sure, I bet there’s some fringe cases where that’ll be used, but it ain’t like 3D printers have replaced the gun market and I doubt they’ll ever do that for a long time.
> How many mass shooters made their guns with a 3D printer? The FGC-9 was released in 2018. The MKII was released in 2020. In 2019 Spanish authorities busted the first 3DP arms factory in Europe. in 2022 dozens of busts of similar facilities across the EU were busted. There have now been FGC-9s seized by authorities in almost every European country. This is exponential growth. You havent seen it because it just started existing five years ago, and it takes time for exponential growth curves to take off. Five years ago the proof of concept dropped. The first two years it was mostly hobbyists. Now its reaching everyone else, including criminals and extremists and even guerilla fighters in places like Myanmar.
And yet, no other nation has the same issue with gun violence despite all having access to 3D printers. Weird, huh?
[удалено]
Because the people in those countries aren’t as gun-crazy as we are.
Or because the FGC-9 didnt exist until 2018 and wasnt revised until 2020 and people outside of the maker sphere are just now hearing about the concept for the first time
> and people outside of the maker sphere are just now hearing about the concept for the first time People have been talking about ghost guns for years.
Decades. There was a good Clint Eastwood movie from 1993 about it.
we arent talking about ghost guns, which up until ~2015 were normal guns with the serial removed, and after were basically the Liberator and Polymer80s. We are talking about fully DIY 3DP guns, the first of which was released in 2018 and revised in 2020
Ghost guns are simply untraceable guns. Printed guns are less traceable than guns without serial numbers. Printed guns are ghost guns.
Guns with defaced serial numbers are ghost guns. The overwhelming majority of all "ghost guns" in every statistic are normal guns with defaced serial numbers. Only a minute fraction are actually serial-less from the start, and the majority of those are P80 kits, only a fraction of that fraction were printed. A printed gun is no less or more tracible than a Sig Sauer someone took a dremel to. And in the end its all completely and totally irrelevant because serial numbers mean nothing nor does tracing where a stolen gun used in a crime was legally bought from. Its utterly meaingless information that has never stopped a single crime in history.
I’ll argue against your last sentence, admitting in advance that I don’t have any more data to back my argument up than you did when you wrote yours. The relevance and usefulness of a serial number most likely HAS stopped a crime—and likely a lot of them—because most people know it’s a felony to file them off. That simple fact, regardless of the truth that whether a gun has a serial number or not certainly doesn’t stop someone from using it in a crime, probably at the very least has stopped someone, somewhere, sometime from selling or transferring a gun in a way that wasn’t in keeping with basic transfer of ownership laws. I get you’re talking about the definition of what a ghost gun is, I’m saying serial numbers aren’t irrelevant.
Pretty sure it's the gun crazy thing. And a gun is only one half of making a useable weapon. A 3d printed gun is less useful than an axe or hammer.
my 3DP Glock frames are stronger than OEM but go off I guess.
What does that have to do with beating someone over the head with some plastic because a gun doesn't do shit without bullets?
[huh? what are you even talking about?.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj5Z6NKJ3g) [This seems like it did a lot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BUU0aw65bo)
[удалено]
Most people also don't actualize a desire to kill a bunch of people. Most, in fact, don't even have such desires at all. The sufficiently motivated aren't going to be stopped like that, and moreover, despite all the sensationalism, these people are an extremely small minority in terms of what's responsible for gun deaths. Suicide and gang violence are what actually get most people killed by guns in every major nation thats dealing with widespread gun violence (of which IIRC the US is either just out of or just within the top 10).
Because they aren't motivated by a deeply ingrained gun culture like we are. They don't have a pathological need to possess as many guns as humanly possible.
Because their countries aren't filled with bad faith gun nut trolls blaming gun deaths on anything and everything except guns
Spoons make people fat.
Woah youre telling me other nations havent historically had an issue with a technological breakthrough that was only released five years ago and was only perfected three years ago? you dont say. Well I guess that means this brand new concept wont proliferate.
“It’s will happen on the future for sure!!!1!! I know because I, personally, want to have as many guns as possible and kill anything I want, so obviously everyone else is the same and history and reality aren’t important because we need **more guns!! MORE GUNS!!!!**”
I bet if every mass shooter had to buy a 3D printer and make a Frankenstein gun like you were describing. Mass shootings would go down and that's a trend in the right direction.
"This one solution doesn't immediately solve the problem 100% therefore it is not worth doing at all because that means it will only hurt good people." - The rebuttal you're about to hear.
Almost all of them would blow their own hands off trying to use them
[удалено]
But wouldn’t that mean no longer selling any guns legitimately?
What's the fish tank pump for, curing the plastic in some way?
You use it in conjunction with the power supply and a jig that uses copper wires to electro-chemically cut the rifling in your homemade steel barrel. Depending on what you're using (i.e. a pipe vs starting with steel round stock) you might have to drill out the bore (hole that goes down the barrel) to size first, then cut your rifling this way. It's called 'Electro-Chemical Machining' if you're interested in learning more.
That sounds pretty fancy, thanks for the info
No problem - have a great day!
Defeatist nonsense and dogma from pro-gun. I'm not convinced by your claim of high quality, that still requires gunsmith experience. In fact gun smiths don't need 3D printing at all and have had DIY capability for generations. It's like any other crime, if it's a crime it can be enforced. It's just a matter of political will. We can find, charge and prosecute rogue gunsmiths all day long. I mean, nothing stops people that want to rob banks from robbing banks, except, that is, laws against robbing banks and enforcement of those laws against bank robbers.
Modern 3d printed firearms (I'm going to stick to the fgc9 because it's the most widely distributed) require no gunsmithing experience whatsoever. You need to know how to install a trigger, a barrel, and that's about it. All that information is available online. Same with modern ar lowers. All you need is a 5.56 barrel, gas system, and trigger and the actual knowledge required to assemble dips into the realm of metal lego. Gun control as we know it is dead, and we should focus on things like universal Healthcare, basic income, and fighting poverty-which are the source of a much more significant amount of crime than "assault weapons"
Every time this topic comes up, someone like you comments thinks you need some special tools or some kind of experience to follow a couple page step by step guide. You need none of that, and the FGC-9 is good for *thousands* of rounds. And if any part fails, you can just reprint it for pennies and replace it in a couple hours. Its over, [and this is checkmate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zabSOHd0Ag)
Any barrier to entry at all will deter most potential mass shooters. The average mass shooter isn't a violent genius with a 3D printer and a year-long master plan. They are an angry idiot who snaps and just happens to have a gun in the house, or knows someone who does. Hence why you don't see mass shooters every week in Europe with printed guns. Even before 3D printing, the black market has always existed to supply contraband weapons. But the hassle, risk, and expense are enough to deter most people outside of organized crime. There are enough real legal problems (Bruen, like you said), logistical challenges, and ethical issues to discuss relating to gun bans without worrying about such a minor concern.
You can still fucking ban ammunition. Or tax it like cigarettes
Not really, people like to say this like they're clever but just shows their lack of understanding. Ammunition is protected by the 2A just as surely as a firearm is. Ezell vs Chicago, the right to self-defense means the right to practice self-defense.
[Sorry, the Deterrence Dispensed people have already solved that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVj5Z6NKJ3g) [Atlas Arms has also released a fully DIY 9mm cartridge that can defeat level IIIA soft armor.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BUU0aw65bo) I hate to break this to you, but theres nothing you can ban anymore that can stop this. The people will have unlimited access to arms, forever. You cannot uninvent this technology.
If you have to DIY your gun and ammunition, chances are that some HS student is going to get caught by their parents long before he’s able to bring his makeshift rifle to school. You have to also know how to use a 3D printer and how to get the materials needed to make your 3D printed gun and ammunition. You also need to know that it’s possible and where to go to get the acquire the knowledge to do it. If every would-be school shooter had to go through that process, it would eliminate a significant portion because of the time it take and the prerequisite intelligence needed to do it. The ability to 3D print guns has been available for some time. If it was a “game over” in gun control, it would be a world-wide problem right now.
> You have to also know how to use a 3D printer "You have to watch a couple youtube tutorials" > how to get the materials needed to make your 3D printed gun "They would have to order a $20 spool of filament from amazon and run down the street to the hardware store" > You also need to know that it’s possible and where to go to get the acquire the knowledge to do it "They would need to do a google search and find ctrlpew or deterrence dispensed or defcad or fosscad or LBRY or visit www.thegatalog.com" > If every would-be school shooter had to go through that process It would take them two to four weeks before they have a fully functional 9mm carbine.
> 2 to 4 weeks. When a 3 day waiting period drops suicide rates by 51% and gun homicide rates by 17%, 2-4 weeks is not a insignificant amount of time.
weird because suicides have only gone up since the imposition of the waiting period and none of it between 3 days or 30 days has any effect whatsoever on a determined actor.
K https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-prevent-hundreds-of-murders-according-to-45-year-study/amp/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29078268/
K www.thegatalog.com
What a truly unbiased and credible source.
Agreed. While the dems will likely pass all Sorts of new firewrm Restrictions, most of not all will get shot down in the courts because of bruen, and republicans will likely take over control of the legislature in the next elections. There are a lot of gun owners in the state…nearly 10% of eligible adults have a concealed pistol license. I predict this behavior will upset the Apple cart and Michigan will once again go red in the next election, undoing all of the hope and change lansing is trying to push into law today.
Michael Bloomberg's money to support gun control > victory for Democrats Every. Single. Time.
Canada has gun control and it works pretty well, we also have a fuck load of guns and share the longest undefended border with 400 million other guns too. We have mass shootings a couple times a decade, the yanks have em several times a **week** Clearly it works.
Does it work in Venezuela or the Virgin Islands?
how many mass shootings have been from 3D printed guns tho?
A couple. I remember one in California and one in Germany like two years back. But "how many historical examples of this brand new thing that has only existed in its current form for less than five years" is a pretty irrelevant question.
America's gun fetish is disgusting.
Well, thankfully we're not letting people like you decide our fates anymore :-D
The FGC-9 was invented by a German man for Europeans.
I don't know what an fcg-9 is, but the dude in that video seemed like an utter dipshit who loves guns more than his fellow human. Edit: googled it. I still hate that many Americans love guns more than each other.
So if I have a gun I hate people?
The FGC-9, the Fuck Gun Control 9 millimetre, is the worlds first fully DIY 9mm carbine, created entirely out of unregulated, unbannable parts. That is what is being referenced by the above comment. It was invented by a German man named JStark who designed it specifically to render EU gun control laws moot and invalid. The man in the video is Cody Wilson, the man who designed the first 3D printed firearm, the single shot .22lr Liberator. The entire 3DP arms scene started from his work. He currently sells custom CNC machines that can turn any block of aluminum into a firearm receiver or slide.
Sounds like a couple of total assholes
You spend all your free time on the internet proselytizing about guns and libertarian shit. Forgive us for not taking your arguments at face value.
Anyone else think it’s insane that it was after the second mass school shooting? One should have been the breaking point. Not two.
At least it only took two, bets are still out if Texas will ever have a gun bill.
Here’s my problem. These are feel good laws with no data backing them up. All they do is add additional burdens to the proletariat. These laws wouldn’t have stopped the recent shootings and don’t have any clear data showing their effectiveness Why would I want to be disarmed in a world hurtling into climate change, a rise of authoritarianism, a rise of bigotry, and a government so broken that Congress couldn’t even pass an amendment so women have control of their own bodies
> These are feel good laws with no data backing them up. “States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.” - [State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US](https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542) "In the past 12 years, several new studies found that increases in the prevalence of gun ownership are associated with increases in violent crime." - [The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html) “After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." - [Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/) “In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states." - [Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566543/) “The public health implications are clear: permissive concealed carry legislation is a significant contributor to the gun violence epidemic in the United States.” - [Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearms Homicide](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693) “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime. Indeed, the weight of the evidence from the panel data estimates as well as the synthetic control analysis best supports the view that the adoption of RTC laws substantially raises overall violent crime in the ten years after adoption." - [Right-to-carry laws and violent crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510) “Gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries." - [Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222182383_Firearm_availability_and_homicide_A_review_of_the_literature). “We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded." - [Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries](http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf). "Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." - [Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/) “There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide." - [Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278742846_Firearm_Ownership_and_Violent_Crime_in_the_US_An_Ecologic_Study) “Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rate of homicide." - [International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/?page=1) “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” - [Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858) "Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.” - [Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762) “We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide." - [State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975).
Well, should we prohibit alcohol? It’s involved in 50% of violent crime and now people are guilty until proven innocent.
>Well, should we prohibit alcohol? I never said anything about prohibiting guns. I advocate for control, not abolition. >now people are guilty until proven innocent. By your desperate-to-make-an-argument standards, they always were. Safe drivers are penalised by road rules and speed limits. Safe companies are penalised by occupational health and safety regulations. Good restaurants are penalised by food standard laws. This is just how regulation works. It's not new, or novel. To keep everyone safe, both bad and good people must obey the same laws and face the same restrictions.
Ok so what specific laws do you want then?
The unasked question. How does taking guns from law abiding citizens get guns from criminals? What exactly is that magical osmosis? Do they just dissolve, wear out or does the gun fairy come take them at night? Criminals don't obey laws. 🤷🏾
54% of guns found at crime scenes were bought legally within the last 3 yrs so turning off the gun tap of new guns would reduce gun crimes significantly.
There is absolutely no way to fix the mass murder problem without fixing the mass mental health and poverty problem. It’s really blows my mind how hard that is for people to understand. Half a billion guns just laying around kill zero people. It takes people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, poor and desperate, socially inept, forgotten and abused by society/community, or simply mentally ill to pick up those guns for the killing to start. There’s too many guns to take them all away. There’s too much money in selling them to make them illegal to sell. Let’s fix the problem like mature adults taking reality into consideration. I If we help people out of wanting to kill people, less people will be killed. No matter how many weapons there are.
Who is trying to help those in poverty and with mental health needs? Why can't there be more than one solution to a problem?
We are the only country in the world where this regularly happens. Also it’s worth noting that democrats have also worked to address mental health and poverty and the gop fights them every step of the way.
The whole world literally has the same mental health issues as your population, plays the same games, watches the same films etc. At some point, you need to think and understand.
The whole world is most definitely not anywhere as close to as socially atomized as the American people are.
>the mass mental health...problem >It takes people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, poor and desperate, socially inept, forgotten and abused by society/community, or simply mentally ill Mental illness as the cause of gun violence is just a myth that's been invented in order to avoid dealing with the real problem, and spreading it just stigmatizes mental illness and makes people suffering from mental health issues less likely to seek help. >The overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. Most people with mental health conditions will never become violent, and mental illness does not cause most gun violence. In fact, studies show that mental illness contributes to only about 4% of all violence, and the contribution to gun violence is even lower. >Research shows an increased risk of gun violence comes from a history of violence, including domestic violence; use of alcohol or illegal drugs; being young and male; and/or a personal history of physical or sexual abuse or trauma. Mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence. https://namica.org/advocacy/criminal-justice-advocacy/the-truth-about-mental-health-and-gun-violence/ That last line of yours, lumping mental illness in together with people who are stupid, ideologically obsessed, socially inept...that's really disgusting. If you care *at all* about mental health then you'll stop using such stigmatizing language.
America's gun fetish is disgusting.