Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

My issue with his argument, and all that make it based that guns are not the problem but poverty/capitalism/GQP/mental health etc etc. is that at no point is the US doing anything to avail those issues either, so we reach an impasse, except we can discern more answers from looking externally:

Australia, Canada and UK have not abolished any of these, with varying degrees of efficacy on assisting health, the rest (supplementing GQP with our conservative nuggets), and the firearm legislations we have implemented and continued to implement have lead to almost non-existent mass shootings, suicides and homicides dropped as well, but did not eradicate them of course, so we can draw on a cursory glance that health and guns have a variable effect POTENTIALLY. Since the US has issues with underfunding, and having even more funding pulled from health access.

https://www.vox.com/23142734/uvalde-...olence-control
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...land-uk-canada
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-...al-comparisons

Another issue is that if someone wants to claim that guns were EASIER to get their hands on, but less mass-shootings happened, my counterpoint is what was gun ownership levels? They may have been easier to get your hands on, but did people actually bother to do it? However, that point is moot; because at the moment, nothing is being done at all, outside of tarts and pears. If you are only attempting to obfuscate against a multi-pronged approach to prevent, or at least majorly reduce the numbers of mass shootings, and to a lesser extent, homicides and suicides, you are indirectly complicit, and see, at least in the short term, these deaths are just a price to be paid.

I've never argued for a single-pronged approach, other than condemning others when they try and focus the issue entirely on, say, mental health. While mental health may have a minor component, there's no real indication that any lack of health care could potentially explain the bulk of the discrepancy between nations on firearms homicide. By all means, I support a universal healthcare approach, but I also support marijuana legalization and I don't think that's a major contributor to firearms homicide, either.

It's not that mental health shouldn't be addressed. It's that mental health isn't an explanation for this problem, and insisting that addressing mental health is "enough" for this problem (which, again, is the prevalence of firearms homicide) is not a justifiable argument. It's only used to deflect away from gun control as an option.

[Mayhem]

No, need to. Guns are harder now than ever to get. "High capacity" magazines have been commonplace since the 1930's. Full automatic rifles were available in the 1940's through to the 1960's. And those rifles, like the M1 Carbine were commonplace, caliber .30 carbine, and 30 rd magazines were available.

Points that are not arguable:

1) The US has always had a preponderance of firearms.
2) Semi-auto firearms with high capacity magazines have been available for the better part of a century. See the M1911 or M1 Carbine.
3) Firearms are harder to get now than any point in the past.
4) There is a growing number of mass shootings on soft targets.

Points no one argued against, well done.

So, what has changed more recently? And what is causing them?

Why do you think something has changed? You have a century worth of gun violence data you want to share with the rest of the class?

Can we agree that the guns are not causing these incidents?

lol no

[cubby]

The Supreme Court on Thursday eased restrictions on carrying firearms in public, continuing a trend by the court in recent years of weakening gun restrictions.

This closes the loop on any practical discussions of increasing gun laws, etc. Even if we found the political will, the GQP has sealed our fate vis a vis a decades-long 6-3 conservative court.

The list of rights we're about to lose in the next 10-20 years will be astounding.

[tehdang]

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled that may-issue states that forbid a carry gun license “just” for self defense are unconstitutional. You don’t have to demonstrate to the State that you have a particular, or special, reason to carry a gun in order to obtain a license to do so.

It doesn’t go against a great number of gun laws, including waiting periods and training and background checks and selective denials for cause. Most gripers already needed to advocate for a Congressional or Article V constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment in order to achieve their ends. And many good-faith arguers already do, claiming the second amendment is old and only appropriate for past effectiveness of firearms.

The general regulation of the licensing and purchase of guns still applies. Using regulation as a means of stopping the issuance of carry licenses for ordinary law-abiding citizens are gone. Prohibiting the purchase for use in the home was already gone in Heller & McDonald. Altogether, this was a good decision and long overdue.

[PickleballAce]

Hmm...I guess the bootlickers that think only cops should have the discretion to grant you rights are kinda mad today.

[Svifnymr]

Out of curiosity, do we have much in the way of information on how many folks owned these types of weapons before mass shootings were a regular thing, vs. now?

Not especially. The browning hipower is from 1935 and is one of the first in the staggered magazine for handguns. It's predated by many other semiautomatics that were single stack. There may be local registration efforts (the NY law being discussed today is from 1913 or something), but total sales would have been wholly unregulated and untracked.
Tommy guns got a rep during prohibition, but that fell off after the crackdowns on organized crime. The National Firearms Act of 1934 registered machineguns, but AutoOrdnance has been in continious production of semi-automatic versions for like 100 years.

Gun Control Act of 1968 would be when regulation of firearms sales between states became a thing, leading to actual auditing of manufacturers. The 1986 law would be when they began releasing actual sales data though. You could do a search for ATF Firearm Production Data, might be able to find totals sorted by manufacturer, by pistol/rifle, by caliber (223 is classed with 22 for this data), but you'd have to learn who made stuff for specific information.

I've actually been interested to find out about this, since the, "These kinds of weapons aren't new!" line of discussion seems based on the notion that because similar weapons have been available for a long time that we've seen similar levels of ownership of those weapons. But I honestly don't quite know where to even start looking for that kind of data.

The main expansion of AR15 (technically M4) popularity was during the Assault Weapons Ban era. The quality of the manufacturing increased during this time, and more manufacturers began competing with the big names (Armalite, Bushmaster, Colt). So that'd be in the late 90's, early 00's. Once the ban ended and the options expanded (mostly in stocks, banning adjustable stocks was one of the odder things), more companies with higher quality components opened up. Competition became focused on 3gun, shotgun/rifle/pistol.

So, you could start with the ATF data, compiling rifles from the key companies over the years since 86, probably.

[TwistedSkull]

Wow it is really going down hill for the US... One thing after another.

This is just a dumb ruling.

[fwc577]

More guns out in the wild means more people are killed by guns.

This isn't rocket science people

They're so quick to blame the "broken" family unit.
They're so quick to blame violence in TV and Movies and Video Games.
They're so quick to blame the use of marijuana.

Anything but guns.

But the one common denominator at every shooting?

A gun.

[Paranoid Android]

In 1789, the Second Amendment was written.

In 1847, the bullet was invented.

Thus, the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.

This may seem pedantic but carries much credit. Ruling that a handgun with multi-capacity, semi-auto would be known to the writers is worth noting. That again the interpretation is not someone carrying around even a single shot flintlock.

The oh btw conveniently for the strict constitutionalist is well, the writers of this document have been for around 200 years. Sorta hard to ask them. My point here and above is society, technology and people change. It's stupid to worship a document over 200 years old.

[tehdang]

You want your speech protected? Ok, you better be using typesetting or hand-writing your letters. Framer's could've only conceived of that. Searches and seizures? Framer's couldn't imagine modern surveillance and testing, you're not protected. And so on. The musket argument is foolhardy.

If the 2A meant anything, it protects guns in common use. If you look at polling on the second amendment, the American people heavily disfavor amending the constitution to get rid of its protections (Not that I am opposed to anyone seeking to convince their fellow citizens that guns are too deadly for continued ownership and carrying, thus the second amendment has to go. That's how things work in a democracy). It's been historically useful in setting a bright red line on where the State can't go in terms of disarmament. The latest Court opinion painstakingly goes over that exact history! There will be an armed population, and legislators better show specific evidence on how and why an individual forfeits their right to be armed ... just as they must for imprisoning you and searching your house.

[Endus]

You want your speech protected? Ok, you better be using typesetting or hand-writing your letters. Framer's could've only conceived of that. Searches and seizures? Framer's couldn't imagine modern surveillance and testing, you're not protected. And so on. The musket argument is foolhardy.

If the 2A meant anything, it protects guns in common use. If you look at polling on the second amendment, the American people heavily disfavor amending the constitution to get rid of its protections (Not that I am opposed to anyone seeking to convince their fellow citizens that guns are too deadly for continued ownership and carrying, thus the second amendment has to go. That's how things work in a democracy). It's been historically useful in setting a bright red line on where the State can't go in terms of disarmament. The latest Court opinion painstakingly goes over that exact history! There will be an armed population, and legislators better show specific evidence on how and why an individual forfeits their right to be armed ... just as they must for imprisoning you and searching your house.

The 2nd Amendment was drafted for two reasons, and only two reasons;

1> So the federal government didn't need to maintain a standing army (the States would maintain "well-regulated militias"), and
2> To put down future slave rebellions as violently as possible.

That's it. #1's off the table, obviously, since there's a massive standing army. That leaves #2.

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

[Elegiac]

If the 2A meant anything, it protects guns in common use.

Funny how that wasn't deemed to be the case until 2008.

Which is precisely why this latest ruling is a bunch of horseshit. "Strict constructionists" are just legal positivists that know their positions aren't defensible so they use 'tradition' or 'original intent' to deflect from having to justify their decisions on the merits.

[Paranoid Android]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted for two reasons, and only two reasons;

1> So the federal government didn't need to maintain a standing army (the States would maintain "well-regulated militias"), and
2> To put down future slave rebellions as violently as possible.

That's it. #1's off the table, obviously, since there's a massive standing army. That leaves #2.

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

Thank you !!

Once more a law or Amendment created 200 years ago when, well times were different.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how that wasn't deemed to be the case until 2008.

Which is precisely why this latest ruling is a bunch of horseshit. "Strict constructionists" are just legal positivists that know their positions aren't defensible so they use 'tradition' or 'original intent' to deflect from having to justify their decisions on the merits.

Also the originalist interpret the Constitution whenever it benefits them.

[Elegiac]

Also the originalist interpret the Constitution whenever it benefits them.

Precisely.

Like, if we're going to be entirely honest the concept of judicial review isn't enumerated either... Yet the 'strict constructionists' are perfectly fine using judicial review to strike down legislation they find offensive.

[Endus]

Also the originalist interpret the Constitution whenever it benefits them.

This can't be said enough. "Originalism" is ahistorical. It is fundamentally a tool by which modern applications are justified through selective and willful interpretation. It's like theologians trying to figure out what Jesus would have thought about the Internet. They're making that up and they know it, but at least (generally) have the common decency to acknowledge it's entirely speculative and a creative endeavour, rather than a deductive one.

[Moadar]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted for two reasons, and only two reasons;

1> So the federal government didn't need to maintain a standing army (the States would maintain "well-regulated militias"), and
2> To put down future slave rebellions as violently as possible.

That's it. #1's off the table, obviously, since there's a massive standing army. That leaves #2.

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

People using guns in self defense isn't a problem. The gun death number doesn't tell the whole story since the one usually touted includes justified civilian and police shootings as well as suicides.

I'd also like to see your proof that the 2nd was drafted for just those two specific reasons .

[LedZeppelin]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted for two reasons, and only two reasons;

1> So the federal government didn't need to maintain a standing army (the States would maintain "well-regulated militias"), and
2> To put down future slave rebellions as violently as possible.

That's it. #1's off the table, obviously, since there's a massive standing army. That leaves #2.

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

And people call Americans uneducated LMAO

[Endus]

People using guns in self defense isn't a problem. The gun death number doesn't tell the whole story since the one usually touted includes justified civilian and police shootings as well as suicides.

I'd also like to see your proof that the 2nd was drafted for just those two specific reasons .

The first should be obvious; it makes no mention of personal ownership, it solely speaks to militias.

As for the second bit, have at it;
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/10021...-2nd-amendment
https://www.mironline.ca/thank-slave...ond-amendment/
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/...armed-militia/
https://law.rwu.edu/news/news-archiv...-2nd-amendment

This isn't something I came up with, or something. Nor is it a particularly new concept.

[LedZeppelin]

All this "I need it for self defense" malarkey is both ahistorical and is exactly the mentality that has led to the USA leading the developed world in gun deaths, and it isn't remotely a close race. It isn't an argument for the 2nd Amendment, it's the explanation why the 2nd Amendment is killing Americans.

Vermont Constitution 1777, 10 years before the Constitution, an obviously northern state. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Hardly "ahistorical"

- - - Updated - - -

The first should be obvious; it makes no mention of personal ownership, it solely speaks to militias.

As for the second bit, have at it;
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/10021...-2nd-amendment
https://www.mironline.ca/thank-slave...ond-amendment/
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/...armed-militia/
https://law.rwu.edu/news/news-archiv...-2nd-amendment

This isn't something I came up with, or something. Nor is it a particularly new concept.

https://www.independent.org/publicat...e.asp?id=13815

feel free to leave with your revisionist hot takes LMAO

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.org/publicat...e.asp?id=13815

feel free to leave with your revisionist hot takes LMAO

A libertarian think tank ain't exactly the best source, lol.