Guns

[Joey D]

Mental healthcare? An important consideration. But delivering the appropriate healthcare to troubled individuals is a a very difficult task. What level of pre-emptive intervention is justifiable? When you look at the history of mass shootings, it's pretty clear that many of the shooters would not have been easily identified or prevented from acting out. Care for those with mental health issues is not just a a problem in the US - it's a common problem everywhere. Where there is not easy access to guns, people rarely are able to act out by killing a lot of people. Even suicides are much less likely to be successful if people don't have easy access to guns.

Just having it available and removing the stigma of seeking mental healthcare would help, there doesn't even need to be active intervention. Unfortunately, a lot of it is generational. I never told my parents that I was seeing a psychologist because inevitably my dad would've told me that I have no reason to be depressed and that I just need to toughen up and be happy. I know it comes from how he was raised and I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

Also, as I said, we need to look at how we deliver mental healthcare. Pills aren't the sole answer, but rather a part of the solution. So many physicians just prescribe anti-depressants without anything else it doesn't really address the problem, only masks it. Pills also only work if/when you take them. It's not uncommon for someone who's acted out violently to have quit taking their medication for whatever reason.

The drug war? Sure - it's been a big problem. You could certainly argue that the drug war itself has increased rather than decreased gang & gun violence. The worst effects of that drug war have been felt in countries like Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador & Guatemala - countries that have much, much higher homicide rates than the US. Drugs & the gang violence that goes along with it is a problem in most countries. There's a lot of drug & gang violence in Canada & a significant number of related homicides. Same in the UK & other other European countries, but the homicide rate is lower because even participants in the illegal drug trade & gang members are much less likely to have easy access to guns ... & killing people without a gun requires more effort & intentionality.

This seems to point to access to guns not being the issue. If countries in Central and South America have such a high homicide rate but reduced access to guns, it seems to point that criminals will kill by whatever means necessary. Also, I'm guessing a large portion of guns in those countries are illegally obtained, so even restricting access to legal guns really won't do much, if anything. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Central and South America though.

Personal responsibility? Of course. But it's pretty clear that people aren't always very responsible when it comes to guns (or anything else). Kids with homicidal impulses seem to be able to get hold of guns with alarming ease. Saying gun owning parents should be responsible is easy ... but how do you actually make them responsible? Holding them responsible after the fact doesn't change the outcome.

You do what the prosecutor in Michigan is doing, you hit the parents with stiff charges when something happens. It doesn't change the current outcome, but it does set the precedent that if you will be charged if you're not responsible. It will make some people think twice about how they store their firearms and how they're accessed.

Rooting out illegal guns? OK. How do you do that? See how the NRA & gun owners respond to an increased attempt by the authorities to ferret out illegal guns.

Making ghost guns illegal would certainly help, or at the very least regulate jigs/unfinished receivers in the same way as other guns. I don't know how ghost guns continue to be legal, but for some reason they are and they skirt the laws. Another thing that could be done would be to address the large number of illegally made firearms coming into the country from places like the Philippines. If you're interested, National Geographic had an episode of Underworld Inc about it. You can see part of it here (YouTube, ~2mins).

Moving the needle in the right direction is what gun control advocates in the US have been trying to do for decades without a whole lot of success. Assault weapons bans, bump stocks, limited magazines, extended background checks, closing gun show loop holes - every possible measure aimed at reducing the gun violence rate has met vigorous opposition by the powerful gun rights lobby. It's a complicated problem with no easy solutions, but pretending that the homicide statistics don't show anything that particularly relates to the levels of gun ownership in the US is delusional.

Here's the thing, a majority of gun owners in the US support common-sense gun control. I'm a gun owner and I support common-sense gun control. The assault weapons ban, bump stock ban, and limited magazines aren't common-sense to me since all that's doing is prevent a responsible person from owning something they want. Granted I see no reason for an assault weapon, but banning them really doesn't do much since those who want them are going to find the means to get them anyway. Extended background checks and the gun show loophole are two things that should be looked at though and have changes implemented. I've said before that it's far too easy to buy a gun in the US and that there should be more to it than there is and an extended background check would certainly help. Concealed carry permits need to be looked at stronger too and have those with them be required to submit to frequent background checks and recertification that shows they know how to operate a gun.

I get that it's difficult to enact gun control legislation in the US, and you're right, much of that comes from the NRA and other lobbies. I loathe lobbies and particularly hate the NRA, but until we make lobbying illegal nothing is going to happen there. And lobbying will never be made illegal since the people who'd need to vote for it benefit from the lobbying, to begin with. The government is also bound by the Constitution and that citizens can legally own firearms so unless you change that, it'll continue to be tough. And the likelihood of the Constitution changing is somewhere between slim to none.

The US probably needs to stop glorifying gun culture too and put more effort into education. Do I like guns? Sure, but I'm not going to pose for a Xmas card holding mine since that's cringy as hell. People need to understand that a gun is a tool and when used incorrectly can hurt/kill you or someone else. This starts with education. How you do this, I'm not sure, but someone smarter than me can probably figure it out.

 

[Brett]

Just having it available and removing the stigma of seeking mental healthcare would help, there doesn't even need to be active intervention. Unfortunately, a lot of it is generational. I never told my parents that I was seeing a psychologist because inevitably my dad would've told me that I have no reason to be depressed and that I just need to toughen up and be happy. I know it comes from how he was raised and I think a lot of people are in the same boat.

This attitude drives me crazy. Just because you were raised in a crappy manner or did something that is more easily done now does not mean you need to perpetuate how hard you had it. It is such an unempathetic response and so incredibly unhelpful. It also shows you learned little to nothing from your experience.

Acknowledging someone's challenges does not take away from your life experiences or means things should not have been better for you growing up. Instead, acknowledging those challenges that all of us are facing--those challenges can manifest in many different ways--is the appropriate response that shows you are listening to the person. Life is hard. We are all going through it in different ways and we all need to do a better job of supporting one another.

 

[Danoff]

People need to understand that a gun is a tool and when used incorrectly can hurt/kill you or someone else.

Women, statistically, seem to know this. It's men that need to be taught it. Especially, especially, when you're talking about mass shooting - which is almost entirely a male phenomenon. When women do kill people with guns (which is a small portion of all gun homicide), they tend to kill someone they know. Men make up the vast majority of the homicides where the victim is not known by the perpetrator. If we could eliminate only the mass shootings by men, we'd basically eliminate mass shootings.

There are so many problems with guns in the US. Access to guns, as you say, is way too easy. And stand your ground laws have been shown to be really problematic. The war on drugs is absolutely huge for gun crime and illegal guns. But I think almost more than anything else, we have a huge portion of the population the celebrates violence against others and vigilantism as a way of life and a patriotic and honorable thing. Just look at how quickly people jumped on Kyle Rittenhouse. The outcome in that case was what some people actually wanted. We have a huge portion of the population that outright celebrates extra-judicial killing. The court system let that horrible Rosenbaum walk after time served, should have just killed him [/s]

I was driving behind a truck the other day that had a vanity plate that said "NO QTR". The truck had the obligatory don't tread on me snake decal as well as the blue line flag. I think it might have had an upside-down flag as well. Any symbolism that resonated with not just war, but an inhumane war against his fellow countrymen seemed to be absolutely fit to put on his truck. This is where we are culturally - your enemies deserve not just to die, but to die horribly. Once someone flips the switch that society in general is their enemy, they're ready to shoot up or blow up a grocery store because it's pre-baked that their enemies deserve to die horribly.

@Biggles, you want to blame gun culture. Fine, as long as gun culture means embracing violence against others, I'm 100% with you and have been the whole time.

 

[Biggles]

There are so many problems with guns in the US. Access to guns, as you say, is way too easy.

@Biggles, you want to blame gun culture. Fine, as long as gun culture means embracing violence against others, I'm 100% with you and have been the whole time.

"Access to guns is way too easy". There you go - that's the crux of the problem. I don't agree that the US is particularly violent in general. As the chart you posted shows it is probably somewhat more violent than Canada, Australia & the UK not including gun deaths. I've lived in three of those countries & each has it's own particular forms of violence, but it is when you include gun deaths that the US really stands apart. The reason for that is primarily because access to guns is way too easy.

In any other civilized country the obvious solution would be to drastically cut down on the ready availability of guns. In the US the ready availability of guns is "constitutionally protected" first creating & then exacerbating the problem. Beyond that, people in the United States have made a fetish out of gun ownership investing it with all kinds of absurd virtues. You only have to look at the "Christmas greetings" of the Massie family to see the clearest demonstration of that.

In reality, the gun problem is multi-faceted & complex. Gang shootings, drug shootings, school shootings, other mass shootings, domestic violence shootings, accidental shootings, shootings by police, shootings of police, suicides - each has its own set of circumstances, but in every case the fact that access to guns is way too easy makes gun violence more likely. It's true that the solutions proposed by gun control advocates are sometimes overly simplistic or naive ... but in comparison the arguments put forward by the gun lobby are mostly disingenuous, patently false, or just plain ****ing stupid. They are oddly reminiscent of the arguments put forward by anti-vacc/covid deniers - full of misstated statistics, misrepresentation & flat out lies.

 

[TexRex]

****ing stupid

Angery.

 

[Danoff]

In reality, the gun problem is multi-faceted & complex. Gang shootings, drug shootings, school shootings, other mass shootings, domestic violence shootings, accidental shootings, shootings by police, shootings of police, suicides - each has its own set of circumstances, but in every case the fact that access to guns is way too easy makes gun violence more likely.

It's almost like the US is super violent huh... like guns are tools used by violent people (and others).

How exactly do women seem to not be seduced by easy guns into becoming violent?

 

[Joey D]

It's true that the solutions proposed by gun control advocates are sometimes overly simplistic or naive ... but in comparison the arguments put forward by the gun lobby are mostly disingenuous, patently false, or just plain ****ing stupid.

The problem is where do you draw the line? Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right in the US so you need to be careful when drawing the line as to what is and what is not allowed in terms of gun control. Extended background checks do not change access to firearms, but rather reduces the likelihood that someone who shouldn't have access to guns gets one. Rooting out things like ghost guns and other illegal guns would do the same thing since those are illegal to begin with.

However, when someone starts saying guns like an AR-15 should be illegal but a .223 hunting rifle shouldn't be, that becomes an issue since they're essentially the same thing. An AR-15 is just a hunting rifle wearing tacticool clothes. That's the big issue with gun control advocates. So many of them focus on things that shouldn't matter and seemingly don't advocate as strongly for things that do. There are ways to enact gun control legislation without trampling on the Second Amendment, but it seems to get lost in a sea of nuances from gun control advocates.

Much of this goes back to education though. The average person doesn't know much about an AR-15 and I bet if you ask 10 random people what "AR" stood for they'd say "Assault Rifle" instead of "ArmaLite Rifle". All they see is a gun that looks similar to what they see soldiers using and make the false connection that the two are the same. I mean I can't fault them too much since the media pushes that narrative, but if you're truly for gun control, you should be aware of what it all entails.

 

[Sage Ages]

Wouldn't mind if there was a bit more public awareness about firearms and what we're working with. No use running into these discussions blind and seeing misinformation everywhere.

 

[Biggles]

It's almost like the US is super violent huh... like guns are tools used by violent people (and others).

How exactly do women seem to not be seduced by easy guns into becoming violent?

I don't agree that the US is "super violent". I offer this assessment of the relative violence of different countries. Not saying I agree with it, but FWIW:

Britain the most violent country in Europe and even worse than South Africa and U.S.

The figures from EC and UN reports come on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I lived in the US for a couple of years & have cumulatively spent several more years traveling in the US. I've never been threatened with violence with or without a gun, nor have I felt that I needed a gun for self-protection.

Of course, it really depends where you are & what company you keep. That's true of other countries too. Statistically the US is somewhat more violent - at least when it comes to homicides - than any other developed country. It is a lot more violent when you include homicides. However, it is still much less violent than truly violent countries, like El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Jamaica. The average middle class white American doesn't expect to be killed by a gun or in any other way. Much of the violence is perpetrated in inner city neighbourhoods that have problems with drugs & gang crime - perpetrated by criminals.

However ... there are other causes of gun deaths in the US: domestic disputes, gun suicides, gun accidents & the continuing rash of "mass shootings" - school shootings & other inexplicable mass shootings. I would say these homicides are directly linked to the easy access to guns & their ownership by a wide range of people who aren't "criminals". The damage done to the fabric of society by these shootings - particularly mass shootings - is far greater than simply the numbers of deaths.

In my mind the problem stems back to the existence of the Second Amendment. Regardless of what exactly the Second Amendment was intended to protect, the rationale for it at the end of the 1700's was was not hard to explain. It was a time when there was little in the away of organized law enforcement, no standing army to protect the country from foreign adversaries & many people lived in a frontier kind of relationship with the land, wild animals & the indigenous population. Those circumstances no longer apply: the US has a massive military force to defend the country, there is law enforcement available at the federal, state & local level & few people live in a frontier kind of relationship with the land.

One of the arguments often put forward by gun advocates is that ownership of guns protects all the other rights enshrined in the US Constitution. Here's a typical example:

The 2nd Amendment Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible​

The 2nd Amendment Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible

Disarmament is the necessary precursor to tyranny.

www.forbes.com

The argument is a mish mash of semi digested thoughts & misrepresentations. In my view, what makes the "other rights" possible is respect for the law & a stable, uncorrupted political system. The problem with guns is that the people mostly likely to use them, are people who shouldn't.

We are currently watching the American political system start to unravel. The assault on the Capitol on Jan 6th was largely an unarmed insurrection. Next time that may not be true. I am reading of plans by the US military to prepare for possible worse violence in 2024. The fact that millions of Trump supporters are armed to the teeth is not what will protect the US from the "tyranny of the government". It's more likely to lead to a collapse of civil society.

The United States Could Be in the Early Days of a Domestic Insurgency

Trump and his allies have incited an insurrection but the movement may outlast his administration.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Danoff]

I don't agree that the US is "super violent". I offer this assessment of the relative violence of different countries. Not saying I agree with it, but FWIW:

Britain the most violent country in Europe and even worse than South Africa and U.S.

The figures from EC and UN reports come on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Your article from 2009: "Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. "

No. Although widely stated, that is not the case.

The UK has stricter definitions: things that in USA would not be counted as "violent crime" are counted in the UK statistics.
There are lots of those, hence the apparent (misleadingly so) crime rate.

Once you correct for that and compare like with like UK has significantly less violent crime.


While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US.
Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely.
More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US.
However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class.

In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK.
You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK.

And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. [1]

Or



In 2010, the US murder rate appears to be 300% higher than the UK’s.

In the UK, the robbery rate was 15% higher than the US.

Given the FBI’s anachronistic definition of rape [females only], it is hard to compare, but the rate for females was about 8% higher in the US. [2]

This is all down to the way the statistics are reported, so you have to look at the sub-totals and to compare like with like.


For example, the UK offences count sexual assualt; that is not counted by US statistics as violent crime unless it is actual rape and only of a female.
Since under US statistics raping a man does not count as a violent crime it makes you realise the numbers do not tell the whole story.

The British count mugging even if there is no violence: the American statistics only consider that "violent crime" if there is injury.


The British definition includes a variety of “crimes against the person,” such as “causing public fear, alarm, distress,” that would not be counted under the FBI’s narrower definition of “aggravated assault,” which excludes simple assault, [3]

The definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain … the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of only four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.” [2]

Some discussion here

[1] Dispelling The Myth

[2] Is Britain More Violent Than the United States?

[3] Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?

I lived in the US for a couple of years & have cumulatively spent several more years traveling in the US. I've never been threatened with violence with or without a gun, nor have I felt that I needed a gun for self-protection.

Of course, it really depends where you are & what company you keep. That's true of other countries too. Statistically the US is somewhat more violent - at least when it comes to homicides - than any other developed country. It is a lot more violent when you include homicides. However, it is still much less violent than truly violent countries, like El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Jamaica. The average middle class white American doesn't expect to be killed by a gun or in any other way. Much of the violence is perpetrated in inner city neighbourhoods that have problems with drugs & gang crime - perpetrated by criminals.

You misunderstood me. I don't mean that the US is lawless, and I don't meant to imply that the US is more violent than Afghanistan. It's plainly not. As I said, the US is more violent than the countries it is often compared to. We do have rule of law in the US, so despite the fact that we have a generally violent culture, you don't need to fear for your safety at most times in most places in the US.

I don't think you're really understanding the point I'm making about a violent culture. I'm speaking of the general psychological approach to solving problems, or interacting with people. I'm talking about whether we practice, or even respect empathy. There is a pervasive rambo/wild west mentality. I'm not saying that's true in every area. You won't find that mentality in west hollywood, for example, but there is a big group in the US that praises vigilante justice/injustice, killing your enemies, and solving your problems with weapons. That mentality slides right into organized crime, and it's so pervasive that it's present in some of our elected representatives. And they're not hiding it. Trump himself praises violence against Americans, and he is well liked for it.

However ... there are other causes of gun deaths in the US: domestic disputes, gun suicides, gun accidents & the continuing rash of "mass shootings" - school shootings & other inexplicable mass shootings.

Domestic disputes may be justified gun deaths. Suicides should be legal, and guns are not the worst way to commit suicide. Obviously mass and school shootings are indicative of a problem of dehumanization.

I would say these homicides are directly linked to the easy access to guns & their ownership by a wide range of people who aren't "criminals".

The fact that school shooters often don't have a criminal history is kinda my point. I will say, as I said before, that the presence of guns makes violent people more efficient and effective at committing violence.

The damage done to the fabric of society by these shootings - particularly mass shootings - is far greater than simply the numbers of deaths.

In my mind the problem stems back to the existence of the Second Amendment. Regardless of what exactly the Second Amendment was intended to protect, the rationale for it at the end of the 1700's was was not hard to explain. It was a time when there was little in the away of organized law enforcement, no standing army to protect the country from foreign adversaries & many people lived in a frontier kind of relationship with the land, wild animals & the indigenous population. Those circumstances no longer apply: the US has a massive military force to defend the country, there is law enforcement available at the federal, state & local level & few people live in a frontier kind of relationship with the land.

One of the arguments often put forward by gun advocates is that ownership of guns protects all the other rights enshrined in the US Constitution. Here's a typical example:

I don't subscribe to the notion that guns keep our government in check.

The argument is a mish mash of semi digested thoughts & misrepresentations. In my view, what makes the "other rights" possible is respect for the law & a stable, uncorrupted political system. The problem with guns is that the people mostly likely to use them, are people who shouldn't.

We are currently watching the American political system start to unravel. The assault on the Capitol on Jan 6th was largely an unarmed insurrection. Next time that may not be true. I am reading of plans by the US military to prepare for possible worse violence in 2024. The fact that millions of Trump supporters are armed to the teeth is not what will protect the US from the "tyranny of the government". It's more likely to lead to a collapse of civil society.

I don't subscribe to the notion that guns keep our government in check. An armed insurrection will not go well for the insurrectionists. On January 6th, most of the rioters were not shot, but that's down primarily to the fact that they were almost entirely not armed with guns. Many of them were armed, of course. I note that you say "largely an unarmed insurrection" and I guess it's true that most of them did not pick up weapons, but quite a few of them did. Including using things like fire extinguishers, shields, flag poles, and hockey sticks. If they had brought guns, they would have been fired upon. A gun fight would likely have been less effective, and probably have resulted in a standoff.

 

[Biggles]

I don't subscribe to the notion that guns keep our government in check.

It doesn't matter what YOU think, tens of millions of American gun owners clearly DO subscribe to that notion. Has it not become apparent to you over the last few years that your vision of the US doesn't really line up with what most American's believe? Aside from the Trump shenanigans, the Covid pandemic clearly demonstrates that. What large chunks of the American population believe directly impacts your life. The influence of rational thinking in these issues is entirely secondary to emotion & "belief systems".

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't matter what YOU think, tens of millions of American gun owners clearly DO subscribe to that notion.

For the point I was making, what others think is not particularly relevant. I'm simply stating that I won't be arguing someone else's position, a position that I don't agree with.

 

[R3V]

Curious to dig more into what this community feels about certain topics.

Any hard line pro 2A members here? Right now you need multiple tax stamps and an lifetime to bypass utterly nonsensical restrictions. Would you accept legislation that takes the F out of the ATF and instead just require a renewable all-gun license? A license that works in a similar way to driving. You take a gun safety course, get a mental health check by two shrinks*, get your license and off you go to buy a suppressed full auto .50 BMG with a 10 inch barrel and a drum magazine loaded with AP tracers.

*ideally this is formalized with guidelines by the federal government and a ceiling on the cost of obtaining such report is made. A nominal fee of say $50 to each shrink to sign you off.

Looking at the last 3 pages, there seems to be some consensus from anti-gun folks that America's problem is its violent tendecy and not necessarily (or at all) the guns themselves. That's a lot more reasonable than what I typically hear and see, even from politicians. No further concessions needed, although I'd like to know how you feel about what I said above. It seems only the Czech Republic and Switzerland have some sort of gun freedom in Europe. Other countries like Italy and Germany make it incredibly hard and impose restrctions on the number of guns you may own, a 1 year membership at a sports shooting club etc.

What's the idea behind restrictions on guns rather than the person(s) allowed to own them?

Finally, the US Customs needs to do a better job rooting out illegal guns

What's an illegal gun and how can you possibly root one out? Make it extra illegal..?

AFAIK there is no such thing. There's illegal position of a firearm by an individual, but I'm not aware of any small arms having a blanket ban in the US. SBR's, select fire triggers, etc, can be obtained by the right people with the right paperwork.

The problem is where do you draw the line?

The line should be drawn at the people buying the guns, not the guns themselves. One of the few things I love about the US is that there's still some freedom with firearms. I hope it at least stays that way.

 

[Joey D]

What's an illegal gun and how can you possibly root one out? Make it extra illegal..?

AFAIK there is no such thing. There's illegal position of a firearm by an individual, but I'm not aware of any small arms having a blanket ban in the US. SBR's, select fire triggers, etc, can be obtained by the right people with the right paperwork.

They're called ghost guns and one of the biggest areas of manufacturing is in the Philippines, specifically Danao, where they are called Paltiks. These guns are essentially counterfeit weapons that look and work like the authentic weapon, but bear no markings or serial numbers on them. Sometimes they might have a fake serial number on them too, depending on who made them. The cartels in Central and South America are a part of this as well.

You can root them out by having US customs do a better job of targeting shipments and making it more difficult to bring the weapons into the US.

There's also a huge trade in illegal gun accessories as well. In fact, the US ICE has confiscated about 43,000 silencers from China in the past couple of years:

Federal operation nabs nearly 43,000 illegal gun silencers shipped from China

Operation Silent Night has led to the arrest of felons and domestic extremists who were found with illegal silencers, officials say.

www.nbcnews.com

The line should be drawn at the people buying the guns, not the guns themselves. One of the few things I love about the US is that there's still some freedom with firearms. I hope it at least stays that way.

I don't disagree, guns themselves aren't the issue but rather the people who use them to commit crimes. The problem is that where you draw the line is going to be difficult. How do you determine who should and shouldn't have access to a gun without infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[R3V]

They're called ghost guns and one of the biggest areas of manufacturing is in the Philippines, specifically Danao, where they are called Paltiks. These guns are essentially counterfeit weapons that look and work like the authentic weapon, but bear no markings or serial numbers on them. Sometimes they might have a fake serial number on them too, depending on who made them. The cartels in Central and South America are a part of this as well.

Is it a felony to carry a non serialized gun if it's legal to carry a seriaized one? If so, I was not aware of this. I'm talking before the ATF's recent 80% ban.

It seems ridiculous, still. If you got approved for an SOT and can own "assault rifles", what would be the problem with an unserialized gun? Falling into the hands of criminals who will buy a serialized gun from the black market and remove it later anyway?

I don't disagree, guns themselves aren't the issue but rather the people who use them to commit crimes. The problem is that where you draw the line is going to be difficult. How do you determine who should and shouldn't have access to a gun without infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

That was my question earlier to 2A Americans. Is it a fair deal if gun restrictions are removed and replaced with people restrictions such as gun safety training and a mental health check? No one really wants the 2nd amendment to apply to psychopaths and troubled individuals, right? There's already an age limit.

 

[Joey D]

Is it a felony to carry a non serialized gun if it's legal to carry a seriaized one? If so, I was not aware of this. I'm talking before the ATF's recent 80% ban.

Yes.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

It seems ridiculous, still. If you got approved for an SOT and can own "assault rifles", what would be the problem with an unserialized gun? Falling into the hands of criminals who will buy a serialized gun from the black market and remove it later anyway?

The problem with an unserialized gun? For starters, it can't be tracked in the event of it being used in a crime. It also can't be identified if stolen either and could very well have the owner be charged with a crime they didn't actually commit.

The thing with ghost guns is that they are typically used in criminal activity. Not all gun crimes are done with ghost guns and not all ghost guns are used in a crime, but a large number of them are. Remove those guns from the equation and you've now made it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to be able to get one.

That was my question earlier to 2A Americans. Is it a fair deal if gun restrictions are removed and replaced with people restrictions such as gun safety training and a mental health check? No one really wants the 2nd amendment to apply to psychopaths and troubled individuals, right? There's already an age limit.

That would be difficult to enforce, especially the mental health check. Also, where do you draw the line with mental health? Can someone with controlled depression get a gun? Or how about controlled schizophrenia? What if someone who passes a mental health check and buys a gun develops a mental health condition later on? You can see where it would get tricky and people would have to self-disclose their mental illness too since the government can't get that information without a warrant.

I agree with training for a carry permit, but that too would be difficult to enforce, especially since some states have it in their Constitution that residents are legally able to carry.

I'm not sure what you do with regards to guns while not violating the Constitution in the process.

 

[R3V]

Yes.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

The problem with an unserialized gun? For starters, it can't be tracked in the event of it being used in a crime. It also can't be identified if stolen either and could very well have the owner be charged with a crime they didn't actually commit.

The thing with ghost guns is that they are typically used in criminal activity. Not all gun crimes are done with ghost guns and not all ghost guns are used in a crime, but a large number of them are. Remove those guns from the equation and you've now made it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to be able to get one.

That would be difficult to enforce, especially the mental health check. Also, where do you draw the line with mental health? Can someone with controlled depression get a gun? Or how about controlled schizophrenia? What if someone who passes a mental health check and buys a gun develops a mental health condition later on? You can see where it would get tricky and people would have to self-disclose their mental illness too since the government can't get that information without a warrant.

I agree with training for a carry permit, but that too would be difficult to enforce, especially since some states have it in their Constitution that residents are legally able to carry.

I'm not sure what you do with regards to guns while not violating the Constitution in the process.

The thing with ghost guns, wouldn't private sales at gun shows between strangers also make it hard to track? Are you also against sales without an FFL?

The mental health line does seem arbitrary but I'm sure a consensus can be reached. Also the "gun license" would be renewable, just like a driver's license. Mental checks can be retaken. I don't see it as necessarily difficult, as a lot of states require a permit for concealead carry. Just one more stamp for the permit can't be that hard.

The constitution doesn't mean there shouldn't be any limitation. Even the first amendment and forth have some. I think if 2A Americans don't agree to a compromise and Democrats somehow get elected again, more gun rights will slip away.

 

[Tornado]

House panel calls emergency meeting to advance gun violence prevention bills

You know I figured they were actually going to try to propose something that had a chance at passing when McConnell talked (platitudes, granted) about wanting to reach across the aisle following what happened last week rather than just making a gotcha for Republicans during midterms, but:

make it a federal offense to import, sell, make or possess high-capacity magazines, with some exceptions

Alas, it seems like that's not something that Democrats actually desire at this juncture.

 

[Imari]

How do you determine who should and shouldn't have access to a gun without infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

I think there's probably a fair question about whether the 2nd Amendment is actually achieving it's intended purpose or whether it's just getting in the way of a bunch of other things that might be more valuable to a society.

Given that it's by nature something that was tacked onto the founding documents, it's a shame there's not more interest into potentially revising it to something that would better address the idea of the people retaining a certain amount of personal military capability whilst keeping strong controls on their ability to use that capability in unsanctioned ways. If that's even something that citizens in 2022 still think is fundamentally important.

 

[GBO Possum]

I think there's probably a fair question about whether the 2nd Amendment is actually achieving it's (sic) intended purpose ……

And there’s the problem. There’s total disagreement about “intended purpose”. Is that bit about “well regulated militia” simply preamble, or is it operative?

Archive link

Who really knows whether the 2nd amendment was intended to enable well regulated militias comprised of regular citizens to carry muskets, or whether they meant that anybody, even children with mental health issues, should be allowed to own and carry semi-automatic weapons capable of delivering projectiles at three times the speed of sound at a devastating rate?

Here’s an opinion…

 

[Danoff]

And there’s the problem. There’s total disagreement about “intended purpose”. Is that bit about “well regulated militia” simply preamble, or is it operative?

Archive link

Who really knows whether the 2nd amendment was intended to enable well regulated militias comprised of regular citizens to carry muskets, or whether they meant that anybody, even children with mental health issues, should be allowed to own and carry semi-automatic weapons capable of delivering projectiles at three times the speed of sound at a devastating rate?

Here’s an opinion…

View attachment 1156324

No, in DC vs. Heller the supreme court absolutely nailed that line of reasoning shut. Yes, there were bad arguments by justices to the contrary, but they were wholly unpersuasive. The reading of that amendment does not make sense, and historically it is absurd, if you take it to mean that it was a right of a militia.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Danoff]

Some people in this thread, like @Danoff for example, go on and on about licensing and vetting and screening to make sure that people who can responsibly handle guns are the only ones who can legally own them.

What does it say that even our police, the people who are explicitly trained and vetted to be responsible to have even greater rights, often turn out to be people who abuse those rights and in plenty of examples end up murdering innocent people? What does that say about our ability to intelligently license and screen for gun ownership?

 

[UKMikey]

Some people in this thread, like @Danoff for example, go on and on about licensing and vetting and screening to make sure that people who can responsibly handle guns are the only ones who can legally own them.

What does it say that even our police, the people who are explicitly trained and vetted to be responsible to have even greater rights, often turn out to be people who abuse those rights and in plenty of examples end up murdering innocent people? What does that say about our ability to intelligently license and screen for gun ownership?

It says something about your ability but appears to justify the intent behind it. I think that guy you mentioned had a point.

 

[Biggles]

At this point it appears that there is nothing that could happen in the US - no gun murder incident of any kind or frequency - that would make much difference in the gun debate. It's all just baked-in.

 

[Danoff]

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust' film shooting

The Santa Fe District Attorney's Office has announced charges in the 2021 fatal shooting on the New Mexico set of Alec Baldwin's film "Rust."

abcnews.go.com

From everything I know about this story (which is a passing understanding), this charge seems like a mistake.

 

[Michael88]

Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust' film shooting

The Santa Fe District Attorney's Office has announced charges in the 2021 fatal shooting on the New Mexico set of Alec Baldwin's film "Rust."

abcnews.go.com

From everything I know about this story (which is a passing understanding), this charge seems like a mistake.

He clearly lied though about the gun going off without him pulling the trigger. With this type of gun its absolutely impossible unless the gun is severely broken (The hammer recesses for the sear are completely sheared off), which it wasn't.

I've been shooting guns for 15 years and I own and shoot revolvers myself, his story is laughable to anyone who knows even a little bit about guns -

So why does he lie?

 

[Danoff]

So why does he lie?

I've been shooting guns for 30 years and also own revolvers. He's not necessarily lying.

How the Gun Alec Baldwin Used in Set Shooting Could Have Accidentally Fired

"I let go of the hammer and the gun goes off. I never pulled the trigger," Baldwin said in an interview with ABC.

www.newsweek.com

Regardless, with the hammer back (which he was instructed to do) it can be surprising how little effort it takes to pull the trigger. Baldwin may have pulled the trigger and not even been aware of it given how sensitive a trigger pull can be.

 

[Michael88]

I've been shooting guns for 30 years and also own revolvers. He's not necessarily lying.

How the Gun Alec Baldwin Used in Set Shooting Could Have Accidentally Fired

"I let go of the hammer and the gun goes off. I never pulled the trigger," Baldwin said in an interview with ABC.

www.newsweek.com

Regardless, with the hammer back (which he was instructed to do) it can be surprising how little effort it takes to pull the trigger. Baldwin may have pulled the trigger and not even been aware of it given how sensitive a trigger pull can be.

I don't think that's the case because he was ''practicing'' with the gun and handling it a lot to make sure he looked convincing.
The trigger pull of a stock Single Action Army isn't even so light, I shot a friends SAA and while trigger travel was minimal it was still heavier than I expected making the theory of accidentally pressing it without noticing implausible to me.

I imagine he had the trigger depressed the whole time and when he cocked the hammer it did not engage the sear and he simply let the hammer fly.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think that's the case because he was ''practicing'' with the gun and handling it a lot to make sure he looked convincing.

You don't think what's the case? Nothing I mentioned (or that was included in the article) would not apply to a situation where someone was practicing.

The trigger pull of a stock Single Action Army isn't even so light, I shot a friends SAA and while trigger travel was minimal it was still heavier than I expected making the theory of accidentally pressing it without noticing implausible to me.

This kinda presumes Baldwin's level of familiarity with the heaviness of trigger pulls. I don't know what he's used to, so it's hard for me to gauge whether he'd assume that the trigger should take more effort to pull than it did.

I imagine he had the trigger depressed the whole time and when he cocked the hammer it did not engage the sear and he simply let the hammer fly.

It's possible, and it's possible that he's not recalling the situation accurately (that's still not a lie). But even if that were the case, hell even if he lied about the trigger pull, I don't see how it's his responsibility to have detailed knowledge of every firearm (and presumably other munitions) he's required to handle on set and how to inspect each one for potential dangers. The gun was announced as safe when it was given to him by someone who is presumably more fit to make that determination than he is.