Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.

View on HN

I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.

I'm always shocked and amazed that progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

Why compare sex and firearms? Sex: - Fundamental to life - Something every human is capable of, and that (except for Slashdot users ;), most experience in their life. - If consensual, a source of pleasure and love.

Firearms: - A tool which can be used for a varierty of purposes - Must be purchased, i.e. it is a choice. - I suppose one could compare firearms training/use to martial arts, in that it can have personal benefits, but at the same time it's original purpose and base function is to defend oneself from, or (with guns) attack and kill another person.

So why are we comparing these two things again?

I am for anyone owning a firearm being educated. I don't own a gun and enjoy knowing a bit about them. I am also for a reasonable degree of gun control, and for acknowledging the fact that the U.S. appears to be unique in terms of the frequency of mass shootings, and of taking action (increasing the availability of mental health clinics, finding ways to restrict mentally ill people from owning firearms which does not violate the second amendment, etc) to do something about this.

[Edit]

And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship.

> Why compare sex and firearms?

I feel like you've abstracted one level too far. We're not comparing sex and firearms in a concrete sense; we're comparing one type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potentially damaging effects that being untrained causes, and another type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potential damages of being untrained.

As it stands, it's no worse or less than the nauseatingly constant comparison between firearms and automobiles, when the more apt comparison (in my opinion) is comparing firearms rights vs. voting rights.

Off the top of my head... both can be used for enjoyment (I was going to say pleasure, thinking of the pleasure a shooter might feel at getting a bulls eye, but thought people might get the wrong idea), both can be used to hurt other people (I'm fairly certain more people have been hurt via sex and human relationships in general than from firearms - though obviously we are talking about emotional pain rather than physical pain, discounting the physical pain an STD can cause), both require choice (otherwise it is rape), both can kill (thinking of diseases like HIV in the case of sex), both ideally should require education, both require protection, if your SO is a screamer both might require ear protection, etc.

>In schools, on campuses, or in places of worship

Arbitrary rules. In that case, no guns allowed in grocery stores, zoos, museums, public places of gathering, anywhere where one might find humans.

You forgot about the STDs.

"And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship."

Why? It's legal in my state (KS) and there have been no shootings.

January 21, 1985

Goddard, Kansas

Armed with a rifle and a handgun, 14-year-old James Alan Kearbey, killed principal, James McGee, and wounded two teachers and a student at Goddard Junior High School.

Ok, but that was prior to CCW being allowed in schools.

> progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

Yes! This is a great point, that hadn't occurred to me before.

The current proliferation of firearms in the US makes education the responsible choice. If nothing else, you should know how to render a firearm safe.

Um, no, anti-gun laws are closer to nuetering than abstinence only education. One attempts to prevent the thing from happening the other refuses to provide actual education about something that is going to happen.

Abstinence only education is mandatory gun ownership and then refusing to provide any guidance beyond "don't shoot people".

I think the grandparent was speaking more of knowledge then possession of items. Many anti-gun progressives seem to know little to nothing about guns, be proud of their lack of knowledge, and recommend passing ignorant laws that will do nothing to reduce violence. It seems kind of appropriate to compare them - their attitude seems like "Guns are always bad, unless you're the Government, you shouldn't know anything about them or have anything to do with them, and just run away if you see one". Sounds kinda like "Sex is always bad, unless you are married..."

I think they thought they had a clever talking point that exposed hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance but failed to take into account that guns aren't dicks so the analogy falls apart immediately.

Also what about constant denunciation of military colonialism, police shootings and the militarization of law enforcement makes you think the anti-gum crowd makes an exception for the government having guns.

Oh, that's an interesting analogy. Another one I use to help sort out my feelings on this is recreational drug/alcohol use and recreational car use (probably not too long from now once they're fully automated). That is, how do we handle activities that a large fraction of society enjoys, but that nonetheless do pose risks to both themselves and others.

Who rallies for "abstinence only" for guns in the US? Asking for background checks is more like arguing for safe sex.

It's a standard "motte and bailey" argument [1]. What you're saying is the reasonable argument that anti-gun folks fall back to. But for many of them, they're always reaching for the whole enchilada. For example, although the Brady Campaign is only pushing for strong background checks at this stage, we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban.

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric...

> we know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban

You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal? Assuming that they didn't publicize that goal - how do you know it? Are you privy to their confidential discussions, was an internal whitepaper of theirs leaked?

You think you know someone's ultimate, real goal?

Yes, I always get steamed when someone tries to impute motives to some other actor. But I'm not resorting to such here. I know it because the head of the organization (a while back, when it was named NCCH) said so:

The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.

Support of this claim, and mention of other organizations that make an explicit goal of bans, here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/24/david-kopel/one-mans...

Thanks for responding and for the interesting link. Though AFAICT he seemed to be calling only for a ban on handguns (not all guns) - which, as gun control measures go, is much more rational than e.g. the assault weapon ban.

That comment sounds a bit polarized. I've never heard anyone in the US advocate banning all guns.

I generally hear two perspectives from people:

1. the view that people should be allowed to buy guns after background checks and mandatory training.

2. the view that no checks or restrictions should be put on guns at all.

I haven't heard very many other proposals.

That is, indeed, the point of the "motte and bailey" strategy. When pressed on unreasonable demands, they'll re-frame the position as something within the Overton Window, but without actually abandoning the goal.

See my nearby citation of the guy who was heading the organization that later became the Brady Campaign:

"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."

You're quoting a guy from 40 years ago (1976) and making a slippery slope argument. Here is some more information on the Brady Campaign:

"In November 2008, Brady president Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, endorsed the American Hunters and Shooters Association saying, 'I see our issues as complementary to theirs.' He said, 'The Brady Campaign is not just East Coast liberal Democrats.'"

Most people who want to see more gun control are not out to ban all guns. Many of them own guns.

So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work?

Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"?

(I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)

Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.

Absolutely, but to frame that sentiment in the analogy with sex that the GP made would be something like "we have a natural urge to have sex, therefore we must protect sex toys". (That may or may not be a valid argument with respect to sex toys, but my point is it's a different one than presented above).

Put differently, "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => self defense OK" is not the same proposition as "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => guns OK". There's an extra step in the latter, "self defense OK => guns OK" (which I was not making an explicit evaluation on). The analogy in the GP is a false equivalence.

> There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one.

I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...

Sure, to unpack the intent of my original sentence a bit more:

In some societies, such as the US, the biological need for security is met by the socially acceptable practice of gun ownership.

In other societies, it is not socially acceptable to meet that biological need with the practice of gun ownership.

Before the US had a standing navy, the majority of our naval firepower (see: cannons, mortars, etc.) was privately owned.

This was accepted and understood at the time the Constitution was penned.

I don't think he's making that argument.

Also, it's not like governments use those weapons responsibly, even though they have the "right" to own them...

> Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary...

The word you are looking for is "awesome"

I'm curious about how you think about your feelings here. What do you think makes these things seem 'awesome', to you?

When I was a kid, I definitely thought that guns were 'cool', in some sense. I thought about them, I read about them, and I desired access to them. As I grew up and came to understand that (in the general case, and certainly for hand guns and the stuff mentioned above) guns are tools designed to end human lives, it became very hard for me to see them as anything more than a tragic symbol of human littleness.

What does 'awesome' mean, to you? Does it mean that they are symbols of power? Something else?

Think about the "designed to end human lives" a little more. What's really designed to end lives is a gallows, an electric chair, gas chamber, etc. Guns are designed for combat, not just killing.

And not just any combat. The strong and numerous attackers don't really need better tools for hurting the small, lone, and weak; they can do that just fine already. Guns are for the weak to defend themselves against the strong. They let the little old lady stop multiple attackers. They let the lone rebel fight back against the oppressive government. The gun is civilization and democracy.

Insurgents repelling democracy-spreading invaders.

When I was growing up, rifles and shotguns were used to put meat on the table all winter. No, I'm not that old. Getting a deer or two for the cost of ammunition and butchering is a lot cheaper than getting a side of beef for the freezer. It's also a generations-long shared hobby and ritual that members of the family go hunting and fishing together.

That's a far cry from ending human life. It's sustaining human life and culture. Speaking of culture, how dare you judge mine so harshly from yours?

Awesome: extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear.

It's the same feeling you get when you watch explosions on MythBusters and such. Do explosions kill people? Yes. But they're pretty damn awesome when they don't.

Awesome = fun to shoot. I have a 50 BMG and multiple black rifles. The only reason I don't have full auto is they are too expensive, but I have shot them many times.

Can't reply to child comment that says automatic weapons are illegal. Kind of silly to say that on the internet - the OP could be in a country where they are not, or where the concept of "illegal" is ill-defined or irrelevant.

>> The only reason I don't have full auto is they are too expensive

...not to mention illegal

They're actually not completely illegal. You need an NFA stamp for things like full automatic rifles, machine guns, most silencers, short barreled guns, and the stamps are often very expensive. Which is why you probably don't see many full automatic AKs being used in crime.

They are not in most US states. Not federally as long as they were manufactured prior to 1987. That's what makes them expensive; limited supply.

Here is a class I took on the MP5:

https://youtu.be/Vr8G0uXf19A

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other.

People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.

I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.

> In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope.

Given that this is exactly the strategy of the opposing actors, I can see why 2nd amendment advocates take this stance.

If you look at basically any other country where there's still a debate open on this topic, you'll note that it is indeed a slippery slope. Here in Canada, the RCMP (equiv. FBI) can arbitrarily reclassify any firearm and demand that it be confiscated and destroyed (not sold). For example, the other year they reclassified the Ruger 10/22 (IIRC the most popular target shooting rifle in Canada) as a "restricted weapon", requiring an RPAL instead of a PAL.

Funny thing about the Restricted Possession and Acquisition License is that if you have one, you forfeit your chartered protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The government can literally search your home and take your things at any time for any reason without providing justification to a court or record. In fact, they often do.

Let's say the nice lady down the way purchased a 10/22 to do target shooting, and didn't get the memo from the RCMP (10+ years later). Now, she either contravenes the law (most long guns still do not require registration, just license) and lives in fear that the authorities might find that she has a 10/22; or she finds an RFSC to get her RPAL, and the RCMP decides arbitrarily that she should be allowed to have an RPAL (because they have no obligation to issue one, even if they have no reason not to), and now she has no protection against search and seizure in her home.

I might also add that firearms laws in California are basically the same as they are in Canada in many practical senses, except the classification and search and seizure stuff (which would be even more obviously unconstitutional). Most of the firearms used in crimes here in Canada are smuggled or illegally manufactured. Nonetheless, Californians kill each other far more regularly. It's almost as though the argument for gun control is thin and questionable, and the only way to prop it up is through deliberate dishonesty or accidental ignorance.

So are gun ownership rates and the types of weapons owned in California similar to that in Canada as well then? If they are, ok you might have a point, although I'm not quite sure what you think the reason for the difference in outcome in Canada and California might be.

As far as criminal access to firearms is concerned, it's close to the same. Civilian ownership is lower than California, but not to the extent you might think. Though people who are otherwise law-abiding often do purchase firearms illegally in Canada, especially if you poll the people in prison for possession.

If one has a desire to, I doubt it would take more than a few days for one to purchase a handgun illegally.

Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing.

I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.

I think you'll find that both sides in this particular debate see the other in that way. At times it seems like the pro-gun folks will take nothing less than civilian access to the nuclear launch codes, and that any restriction or hindrance of access to any weapon is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law.

It turns out the loudest (read: most visible) people on both sides of any given debate are the least likely to compromise.

We are starting from a compromise.

A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons.

I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.

When the constitution was written, repeating rifles existed. Lewis and Clark took one on their famous expedition.[0] Owning cannons was legal, and people did. During the American Civil War, wealthy men outfitted their own company of men and led them. American history has some crazy stuff in it. Private ship owners acting as privateers, for instance. My (lawyer) wife dearly wants a "letter of marque"[1] ever since she found out what they are in maritime law class.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

A curiosity that was also cutting edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

It seems to have taken to ~1850 for practical military repeating rifles.

edit: Your comment is still young, but I'll note for history that I replied with the wiki link before you had added it to your comment.

Yeah, thank you. It took me a bit to get there. My Google-fu is weak today. I need mind-linked cyber-Google . .

> but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.

Without meaning to be glib, this is exactly the reason I would not recommend a machete to my grandmother for personal defense, but I would recommend her a Ruger LCR, or a Smith & Wesson M&P.

The fact that she is physically disadvantaged against almost anyone would do her harm is a use case that the firearm solves quite nicely.

Hence the old saying "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!".

My approaching-70 year old father will be retiring to the middle of nowhere, along with his wife. What's he going to do if someone breaks in - fight them? He's an old man with COPD. Call the police? They're an hour away. But with a good dog to alert him to intruders, and a good gun he can reach for? He can protect himself against anyone, no matter how much of a physical advantage they might have.

I'm happy to be glib about it.

Undermining your grandmother's ability to defend herself is worth it if the policy that does so statistically reduces violence (or even statistically reduces the consequences of violence).

This exchange is a case study in why people who cherish their gun rights don't care one iota for the opinions of people who don't.

So what's your point?

I'm certainly not expecting any of my comments here to persuade someone who cherishes their gun rights.

But I don't believe that such people come anywhere near representing a majority, so I still see value in staking out a clear position.

Perhaps an attempt to ask you to zoom out and see some perspective. You just told someone that you're totally okay expecting someone's family to be unable to defend themselves from an attacker.

But, if you were just blasting an opinion out there rather than attempting to have a discussion - why are you here again? - fine. Can't argue with an opinion, even if it comes off as completely insensitive and tone-deaf.

It goes both ways.

People project their gun attitudes onto their grandma's that have never been attacked anyway and demand that we live in a less safe society because of it.

My mom was pretty unnerved when her house got broken into (she was there, asleep, didn't wake up, wasn't attacked). She wouldn't be any better off with a gun because she isn't prepared to use it. Effective restrictions on guns would be a 100% win for her.

So do I lack perspective? Or have I maybe come to different, reasonable conclusions and am sick of people making absurd emotional arguments about how guns make people safer?

Effective restrictions on guns would be a 100% win for her

"Effective restrictions on guns" don't exist in the same way that "effective restrictions on drugs" don't exist.

So no, your conclusion is not "reasonable". It is completely unrealistic and runs contrary to the most basic laws, not to mention the culture of the country.

I'm much more interested in realistic solutions that don't involve trampling on basic rights and removing the ability of people to defend themselves from an assailant. If you expect such discussion to be not emotionally loaded, your conclusion is unrealistic twice over.

I initiated my comments in this thread by proposing to change the basic laws (or at least, acknowledging that they are a big factor).

And it isn't that I expect such a discussion to not be emotionally loaded, I'm just going to reject assertions that only one sort of emotional loading is warranted.

I agree it will take a long time to impose effective restrictions on guns in the US, we should get started as soon as possible. I think looking at Britain and Australia make it clear enough that gun restrictions do make a difference (even if their more generous social welfare systems tend to lead to lower general levels of criminal violence to begin with).

So allow me to get meta for a moment here. Do you want to be right, or do you want to change people's minds?

Ignore the fact that we see this on two different levels and don't even agree on first principles for a moment. Let's just talk about the pure practicality and rhetoric involved.

From a purely objective standpoint, a great many people in this country believe in the 2nd amendment as written.

There is no legislative solution that doesn't involve their consent. As much as you'd like to drag them over kicking and screaming, you can't. Our legislative system has safeguards in mind to prevent minority opinions from being imposed on the rest of the country. You're talking a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, or a constitutional convention involving 2/3 of states, to amend the constitution.

Please realize this. It's important. There's your goal which even I can agree is admirable, and then there's talk of realistic ways of achieving it, which is a much more interesting conversation, and one you sadly don't seem to want to have.

So that said - why the tone-deaf posturing? Do your comments here advance your goal of reducing gun violence in any way?

Or rather, do they confirm every stereotype of anti-gun people ever cooked up?

Do you realize your earlier conversation could be run verbatim by the freakin' NRA as an example of what they fight against, generating more support for the exact opposite of what you hope to accomplish?

The NRA represents 5 to 10 million lost causes, nothing like the insurmountable constitutional blocker you propose. I agree that there are many more people that have associated their personal identity with the 2nd amendment than that, I'm not sure they constitute a majority of the country.

The way I see it, step one is getting to a place where emotional appeals about grandma needing a force equalizer are dismissed more quickly than points about statistics showing that guns overall enhance violence. So experimental comments that turn some people off? Meh.

The NRA represents a lot more people than you think, even on this board. I've never been a member but reading your comments reminds me that I ought to purchase a membership and donate today.

My grandfather, father, mother, and myself have all used a handgun in self defense before. I would posit that I am existing to type this because of personal firearm ownership. Whenever I see comments like yours I empathize and remind myself that you are good natured but that you lack the background and context to realize why someone might reasonably want or need to arm themselves. Most of my friends here in California are like that, and they have no idea how nice and safe their environment and upbringing was in the pricy coastal cities and university towns of the West Coast. Some of us are from rougher places. Having lived in many different environments with different threat levels I understand the genesis of both viewpoints, but I know which one I'd consider right.

Our criminal neighbor tried to bash my father's head in with a tire iron on the front lawn - before you counter that we wouldn't need firearms to defend ourselves with if there weren't firearms out there in the first place.

For what it's worth I've mostly lived in moderately poor communities in the Midwest. Not grindingly poor, but not on the right side of various median measures.

Somehow I haven't been in any situations where a gun seemed like it would have helped (and there aren't such stories flying around my extended family either).

Yes, but then this brings up the intent behind the 2nd amendment - to ensure an armed popular militia to defend against corruption of concentrated power. The citizens arms need to actually be effective in such circumstances.

As for 'highly dangerous concealed weapons' - you were probably more likely to encounter this on a day-to-day basis at the time of the constitution being written than even in the most heavily gunned state with low-barrier carry laws.

If you are updating constructions, this also means that the context is important; in the constitutional times people were responsible for defending themselves primarily - if that assumption can/should/has been changed, where then is that change legally codified?

Have you ever worked with machetes?

I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.

I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.

From several feet? While the sapling runs away?

I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).

No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot.

We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker.

I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.

My workplace provided "active shooter training" in which a police officer demonstrated a potential way for a group of unarmed people to disarm a person with a gun. When one of my coworkers asked "What if they have a knife?" the officer replied with something to the effect of "There's no good way to disarm them without getting your hands cut up, I'd much rather face an assailant with a gun than a knife."

Cold weapons _are_ more dangerous at near distances, than guns.

The gun has exactly one business end and you know how it is going to be used. An attacker wielding a knife can use multitude of moves, how to attack.

Shooting someone that is running away is murder not self-defense.

Yes, the context of the discussion is the malicious use of weapons.

I have no argument with that.

>I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates.

In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates.

When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side.

That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.

> common sense regulations make sense

See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners.

State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.

I think the very phrase you pointed out is a big part of the problem: "common sense regulation". This seems to be designed to slip past any rational discussion. If you can say that something is "just common sense", then you've excused yourself from needing to provide the logical foundation for your argument.

You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer.

Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say.

But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations":

I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows.

Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place.

The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm.

And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that.

Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable.

And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.

> The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information

I'm Czech ("the Texas of EU", with ~3% of population having a carry permit) and finally a gun owner after EU's decisively not common-sense latest round of gun control regulations (proving, by the way, the fear of ever-sliding next round "compromise", to be a very real one).

I have mixed feelings about such registries.

On one hand, that's what we have here, and it works reasonably well - and gun owners are mostly content with well-balanced legislation that is neither too permissive nor too restrictive.

On the other hand, the risk of such registries is not theoretical for Czechs. In 1939, when Germany invaded [what remained of] the country, one of the first things they did was to confiscate all legally owned weapons — which was only made possible by the registry, and significantly impaired armed resistance. Lesson learned, and practiced decades after the war ended: hidden illegal arms are better than legal ones.

By the way, on the subject of the rest of your comment: everybody needs a permit here and we're fine with the system. Unlike in most of the rest of the EU, you have a legal right for a conceal carry permit, provided that you meet the legal requirements that I think amount to a background check in US: no recent (or, if serious, ever) crime record, no recent relevant misdemeanor (basically DUI or getting into fights, i.e. just the kind of irresponsible person you don't want to have a gun), no relevant medical problems (basically impairing judgment or motor skills). And you have to pass an exam, akin to driver's license, that tests for your knowledge of the law and practical ability to safely handle firearms and hit a target.

You need a permit for every gun too, with paperwork involved in any sort of sale, but the permit is automatic, just bureaucracy (except for firearms with restricted sale in EU, most notably full-auto; the you need to demonstrate a need and may or may not be granted a permit).

Thanks for sketching out the proposed policies in more detail! That's a lot more productive.

Now, to tackle them in reverse order:

> as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.

There is no concrete benefit for law-abiding citizens above the system we already have in place here. Like, it's not immediately obvious that the proposed changes clearly make things better (unlike, say, requiring seatbelts in cars).

> you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable.

This fails (badly) to account for firearms that have been stolen. See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...

If you want to make the argument that "gun owners need to keep better track of their guns"...it's their property, so that should be their choice. We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).

> Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate

Again, it's unclear that there is good reason or precedent for regulating the transfer of property here.

> you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information.

One could make the same argument about requiring people to cc the NSA on every email they make to people outside the continental US: just because it's happening doesn't mean we should set legislative precedent.

> Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun.

There has been a lot of work in the last few years to try and restore that right, actually. This makes sense given the arbitrary enforcement of non-violent felonies.

It's hardly assumed that felons (given our current judicial system) have any moral obligation to be unarmed.

> You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows.

Why, exactly? What is the purpose of this?

What benefit or supposed safety do we get from having this?

And if the benefits are so great, shouldn't we just make this near-mandatory training during schooling, as we do with driving?

> We don't require people to know exactly where their car is, or to know where their bicycle is, or where their axes are (even though all of those could and are used to wound others).

Comeon that's a terrible false equivalence and I am sure you know it. I can possibly use just a blunt pencil to kill someone, but a gun makes it orders of magnitude easier (even if the intent was not to kill).

If false equivalence are acceptable, let me throw you another one. Why throw hissy fits about nations that have or are building nuclear arms capability. As a third party it is legit to feel unsafe unless you have skin in the game, unless you have demonstrated to some satisfaction that you can handle the capability responsibly. But NPTs are no way as nuanced as that, even hypothetical capability is enough to legitimize a hissy fit and worse: crippling sanctions.

I think its fair trade, if you are not willing to take liability of not being able to secure your gun, you don't get to keep it. If it gets stolen etc, its fine if you alert law enforcement within an actionable window. If something bad is done with your gun you have to convince a judge that you took all reasonable precautions.

Given the massive number of people that have been wounded in car accidents of all sorts, and in terror attacks using machetes and cars recently, I would venture that it is not, in fact, a false equivalency.

If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here."

By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing.

I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.

>If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be.

To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it.

We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.

Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?

The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.

Yes,they are, but with the NRA, politicians are scared to pass any restrictions on gun limitations, effectively stopping it before it starts. With the ACLU, politicians are quick to erode our other rights and only compromise after a long fight leaving us with fewer rights. Over time, our rights are fewer and fewer. I always ask myself what would a WWI vet think of our current state of rights?

I think the ACLU does a great job, but they aren't as effective as the NRA.

But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership".

So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?

Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO.

edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.

Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly.

The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about.

The NRA is strange and uncomfortable to a lot of people, I think. I share your complaint, but they have strong stances on so many different issues that I've met people who object to them for half a dozen different reasons.

2nd Amendment issues are that warped and conflicted.

When this country was founded, there were no police. Our adversarial justice system was you deciding you were wronged, going and swearing out a warrant in front of a magistrate, and then executing said warrant with the aid of whatever bruisers you could muster. Generally clubs would be preferable to pistols, and there was no chance of using a musket. Also, while there was not an explicit prohibition on maintaining a standing army, the time limit on military appropriations was intended to limit military spending to war-time.

To some degree this changed in 1812, when the far-more-numerous American militia failed to contest the burning of the nation's capital. To some degree it changed in 1847 when Samuel Colt became a successful revolver manufacturer. But to whatever degree this nation has changed its ideas about firearms, these have not been reflected in law, and we've been papering over the situation for the last century at least.

Where the NRA fits into this is to demand protection and expansion of the individual right to bear arms without any consideration whatsoever of the original context of the second amendment. I don't necessarily object to their viewpoint, but their myopia on the subject does make it rather difficult to discuss. Generally I think the way this goes is, ["Founder's intentions", "individual right to bear arms", "standing army"] : pick any two.

To me they were one of the first examples I picked up on of how bad the Republican vs. Democrat divide is getting in America. They'll use principles to argue a certain stance, but then tear those exact principles to pieces when used to argue a different stance. If it's an issue I haven't looked at before and I don't know who proposed it, I would have no way of knowing where party loyalists would fall on an issue because it all seems so inconsistent compared to the values they claim to believe in.

May be relevant - from the ACLU website:

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions."

https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of with individual versus collective rights. The final sentence is a nice acknowledgement of the collective right, but as far as I can tell the (national) ACLU has never taken a rights-expanding stance on a specific gun issue. (Some state orgs may have.)

In practice, they don't advocate for Second Amendment protection. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I think it would destroy their effectiveness elsewhere without achieving much, but their acknowledgement of the right hasn't involved them actually getting involved with legal cases so far.

Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.

> It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.

This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.

That is not an answer to the plain and direct question that was asked.

I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for.

In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark.

Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't.

As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.

It's sad that wanting background checks is seen as anti-gun.

The Conservatives think that HRC was going to their house and take all their guns. That wasn't her position at all.

I agree that everyone should familiarize themselves with guns but for practical self defense purposes a shotgun and a rifle are not that different. A shotgun only spreads about 8inches at a self defense range ( 10m or so ).

If the range is longer than that it's more a skirmish that Self Defense.

.22LR is the most common caliber in homicides. I'd rather have a 9mm, but the best gun is the one you can access when you need it.

I personally don't see it as anti-gun, but I do see it as anti-civil liberties. It is for the same reasons I oppose voter ID, or any other hoops at discouraging the opportunity to exercise the right to vote that I oppose universal background checks.

As background checks discourage the opportunity to exercise a civil right, I believe it should be viewed with the same degree of judicial scrutiny that voting should be.

An imposition of fees or taxes on the right disenfranchises the poor, just as a poll tax does. An imposition of mandatory registration or waiting periods is an imposition of delayed exercise of the right, and I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. had the right of it when he proclaimed that "A right delayed is a right denied". The imposition of any sort of vetting or background checking process seems to me to be a violation of the presumption of innocence, which in turn diminishes the effectiveness of the first and fourth amendments, and seems ripe for opening the door towards warrantless searches, stop and frisk, etc.

I personally could give two shits about guns, but because I'm a fan of the rights we're afforded as American citizens, I respect the second amendment. Failing to do so diminishes all of the other rights, as they're all subject to high-water mark interpretations of judicial scrutiny, and the lower the bar goes for bypassing scrutiny on one right, the bar is lowered for all our rights.

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day.

Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own.

I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not make myself an expert as to how much. Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything.

Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting.

I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle, and there are very strict storage safety and handling laws in place. Maybe a lot of people think we are too restrictive, but as a counterpoint, we do have extremely low levels of gun violence.

Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. In addition to this, they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low.

If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.

>I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything.

This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs acquire firearms here in the US is through "straw purchases", where they have someone with a clean record go purchase a gun for them.

This works fairly well for them, but has its limits: if guns you've purchased later turn up in crimes, you're likely to face pointed questions. You can't do this too often without putting yourself at serious risk.

But straw purchases of ammunition are almost impossible to track. If the buyer is asked to account for their ammunition, they can simply claim to have shot it all already.

Meanwhile, it adds great expense to ammunition (My local stores mark up their ammo nearly 100% already, and it will become worse next January once it's illegal for me to order ammunition online). And because criminals actually use very little ammunition, this cost falls almost entirely on legitimate target shooters and hunters, who are the ones shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year.

I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to make any secure conclusions about the provenance of a gun that was used in a crime. As far as I know, it is not legal to keep a registry of serial numbers and who they were originally sold to. Moreover, in most states, you can sell firearms privately, without any background checks or paperwork at all. I have only purchased one of my firearms in an actual gun shop - the half dozen others are inherited, or purchased from friends, family, or randos on Craigslist or Uncle Henry's. Good luck tracking back the chain of custody on some of those...

I see your point. One could also argue that ammo isn't very dangerous without a gun to fire it from, although one could be cobbled together from scrap pieces of metal.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting.

I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above.

Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our homes for self-defense.

Source: Repelled a home invasion robbery attempt at 16 - it took 15 minutes for sheriff's department to arrive after 911 call as they were coming into our home.

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time.

In the UK, the situation is a bit different:

Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller

The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part.

Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotguns, I'm not going to resist. Insurance will give me back all my stuff.

In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else. For (large segments of) the US population there isn't that trust. They don't like the idea of a government having all the power, there is a fundamental lack of trust there (please don't take that as criticism, I'm beginning to come round to that point of view!). It's the independent frontier mentality. Maybe due to difference in age of country? I don't know.

Another thing I would like to bring up is the fact that in the United States the Police have no legal obligation to protect you from danger or harm[0] so the only reliable option is to defend yourself in the most efficient method available.

That particular precedent isn't just a one-time thing, it has been used in a variety of cases[1] since the ruling came down.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] - http://www.barneslawllp.com/police-not-required-protect/

> I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time.

I think this marks some confusion over exactly what constitutes 'rural'. The UK certainly has rural settings in terms of town size, small access roads, culture, etc. But having spent time in both, the UK just doesn't have anything like the US in terms of distance.

Salmon, Idaho is several hours from... anything, really. You could go from Inverness to Glasgow in about the time it takes to get to an actual city. It's down in a canyon, so there's no FM radio, much less cell phone service. The police force is eight people, with a guarantee that at least one will be on duty 24 hours a day.

If that one officer gets a call about an issue, he might well have a 20 minute drive - speeding, on empty roads - to the farm where there's a problem. And Salmon is the county seat. There are much smaller towns and farm communities out there. This isn't a problem you can realistically solve with better policing or more money, because things legitimately are that far apart.

---

Someone in my extended family spends winters snowed in - some years there's simply no access in or out of a 'town of 50 people for ~4 months straight. He keeps a rifle handy to shoot coyotes that come for his livestock. Are we really going to go with "he should wait for a police response, or insurance compensation"?

A friend of mine, with an exceedingly liberal family, grew up with a high-powered rifle at home, the sort of thing people regularly try to ban. For fear that in his town of six people, there was no other way to deal with a bear or moose that got aggressive.

A friend of a friend is disabled and chronically unemployed in the rural midwest. Hunted meat makes up a nontrivial percentage of his diet, because ammo is cheaper than food. This being America, saying "take away his gun but give him lifelong welfare" isn't going to work, and he'd hate you for it anyway - he's proud that he feeds himself just fine.

I'm not trying to be snarky here. In very rural America, this is the situation for a lot of people. These are people who don't live near any gun crime, but own and use guns for everyday purposes. It has more in common with northern Canada than any place in England or western Europe.

This is a concept that seems often overlooked. In rural parts of the country (US) a gun is simply another dangerous tool that gets a specific job done. Much like a beam saw.

I would say those situations fall under "practical purposes", and are not based in unreasonably fear, like a lot of other gun purchases.

And there is a hell of a lot of difference between living in the (very) rural countryside, and living in a city.

I fully admit that my perspective is influenced by living in small country with relatively short distances between towns and cities (hell, it's even impossible to get more than 50km from the sea, anywhere in the entire country). But I honestly still think my reasoning stands up.

Yeah - any time someone presents an absolute in a debate about gun control, they've probably gone very wrong. America is just too damn big for any one narrative to be universal, and I say that in full awareness that it applies to my example also; the bulk of gun ownership isn't about that story.

My objection, then, is that I have approximately zero faith in the people making these rules to recognize that. If a gun law is written, it will with near-perfect reliability be written by people who know little or nothing about guns, designed for comfortably suburban settings, and passed out of fear of urban violence.

So... I don't know that we disagree so much. I can support more gun regulation in theory, but almost always oppose it in practice because the things that get written are high-impact on practical use, yet totally ineffective at their goals.

How's it an issue with response time? 10-20 minutes for a _country_ residence is an amazing response time.

Police don't have personal teleporters and there isn't an infinite number of them. Want a 5 minute response in the country? Pay 90% tax that goes to the police departments. I'd still be amazed if you'd get it down to under 10 minutes consistently.

> The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part.

Many Americans will argue that the 2A and personal weapons mean that home invasions are less likely to occur in the first place because of increased risk to the criminal (getting your head shot off).

Not necessarily saying they're right, but there is another side to gun control.

> Many Americans will argue that the 2A and personal weapons mean that home invasions are less likely to occur in the first place because of increased risk to the criminal (getting your head shot off).

Another argument is that the wide availability of guns, combined with the harsh penalties faced by criminals, create an environment where criminals become needlessly aggressive and ruthless, because "well, I'm going away for 20 anyway, might as well go all the way".

being burgled in the middle of the night or when they don't expect you to be home is certainly one scenario. But some people break into your house to hurt you. There is no magic insurance policy that can un-rape my wife. So if some mother fucker comes in my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to confront him, but you can bet your ass he's going to get a face full of lead the moment he heads up my stairs.

As far as the "age of the country"... I'm calling BS. Unless your country was formed within the last generation, the matter is irrelevant how long people have been living in a certain territory. And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence. I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.

> And if you want to get technical, the US Constitution is the oldest, surviving charter of government in existence.

No, even if that was relevant, if you want to get technical that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is older, whether you date from writing or adoption.

> I resent the fact that Europeans have the gall to suggest that we're the immature ones when it comes to government.

We are, and those of us who are quick to resent it being pointed out do nothing to diminish the truth of that. We're old enough that the (second, actually) system set up when we founded the country is dated, and young enough that we still imagine that our founders' innovations are somehow the end of history so we don't even consider dealing with it. The latter is immaturity and arrogance.

Or, you know, it could be that different people want different things?

Did not know this about the US Constitution - that is good stuff!

Ref: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bo...

Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.

The odds are for your average moron, not for me (I am very smart). So they are not convincing. This is similar issue as with motorcycle statistics.

You’re also arguing to the wrong side of the brain. In face of danger, I will never ever choose to remain helpless. It goes against every single instinct a man has.

> (I am very smart)

Citation needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Citation needed from a primary source.

Don't worry he won't find it. Publications pertaining to firearms from a public health and safety standpoint are my bread and butter: I am unaware of any single piece of literature out there that makes this claim.

In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession.

Sources:

[1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s...

[2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...

Accidents and domestic violence can be attributed to ~6% of gun deaths. Looking at just the former, there are at least 500 fatal accidents/year.[1] These are just clear accidents - there are also accidents which are prosecuted, and convicted as homicides - and accidents which are categorized as homicides, but are not prosecuted.

The number of justifiable gun homicides (Self-defense) is closer to ~250/year. [2]

So, your gun is indeed twice as likely to kill someone in an accident, then a bad guy in self-defense. (Never mind that not all of those justifiable homicides prevented violence against your physical person. Killing a burglar who wanted your stereo is lumped in the same category as killing someone who wanted to murder you.)

I don't have much of a horse in the legislature of gun control, but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

[2] http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

> but for most people, planning on using their gun for self-defense is a bit like becoming an alcoholic to reduce your risk of heart disease.

This is a ridiculous conclusion. Sorry, you can't just take numbers from one study, and divide by another to approximate relative risk or odds ratio. That isn't how public health statistics and policy works.

Could you go to https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 and deep link the section you are referencing?

It's a long report and sounds like an interesting finding.

No problem. See below link to proper page, section: "Impact of Having a Firearm at Home"

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#40

I don't see where it shows there is an obvious overall protective effect from firearm possession.

Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities. doesn't exactly sound conclusive.

Except where it says:

"However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004)."

And the sentence before that is Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners.

I suppose the problem is that I read In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession. and expected evidence showing that the benefits were greater than the risks, rather than a simple citation of research claiming there is a benefit.

Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.

That sounds like it might be a derivative of the oft-quoted statistic that gun owners in the US are more likely to be harmed by their own gun than to use it successfully in self-defense. The problem with that statistic is that it includes suicides as instances self-harm. Of course they are, but that is clearly a deceptive use of the statistic because after suicide cases are removed, it shows that gun owners are much more likely to use their own guns in self-defense rather than be harmed by them. One might be able to make the case that suicides should be included if those gun owners considering suicide would give it up if they had no gun rather than simply choose another method, but that has not been established.

Amen. It's not worth arguing with them. They use "age of a country" to talk down to Americans, but Americans broke off of them to start our own country.

They'll never understand true freedom, and considering their land is under siege its not surprise the level of doublethink they have to do to still agree with their backwards way of life.

You know, we had them all- the rebellions, the true freedom (usually lived out in one big feast after some other people have been robbed and murdered). And we have them around, all those high hopes, and faile dreams, castle on this rock, castle on that rock, robber barons who decided they where worthy to take arms. Peasants, who where decided for to bear arms when it was time for slaugther (war).

I detest every fearsome second a cop has to live in America, every time he walks up to a car or a flats door. To be honest, in such a country, i can very well understand somebody who wants to return home in the evening- and thus shoots first.

> They'll never understand true freedom

That's cute, as if you've ever had actual freedom in the US.

You are absolutely right here. It's a lot to do with the 'frontier mentality' of the American west (self-reliance, self-protection, etc).

Short of that, it does also have a lot to do with visibility / response times: If i were able to see the sheriffs dept. cruising our backroads more frequently - I would feel much more assured of my safety, and probably be less concerned with keeping weapons for personal defense.

> In my opinion I think comes down to a fundamental difference in attitudes. We're happy to let our government run things, we trust them with guns rather than anyone else.

That explains a lot about the current situation in your country, honestly.

The experience of "country living" in Denmark may be different than yours...

Agreed - I admit I was speaking from a very 'US-centric' mindset.

Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime?

If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes.

The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.

You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone.

> Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything.

Gun control has historically not stopped violent crime. I'll give it to you, it restricts ACCIDENTAL shootings committed by guns. But the other side of that story is that criminals still have guns, and will still kill you with them. Baby, meet bathwater.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting.

Again you're not a country kid. I'm from the west and my CCW is one of my most important possessions and a statement that I can and will defend the lives of my family and myself.

> I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle

How do you defend yourself during a robbery? Home invasion? These things aren't uniquely American. Wackos are everywhere.

> Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US.

Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. Criminals don't need background checks - why do I?

> they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low.

They have a culture around mandatory service in the armed forces. Their people are conditioned to see guns and aren't afraid of them - similar to pre-1970 America. It used to be that "only bad guys hid their guns" and now I have to own a CCW to defend myself because snowflakes might get offended.

> as in most EU countries

Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Stats show that despite having the most amount of guns, the US does not have the most amount of homicides (by firearm) per capita. Most EU (and Canada!) are doing quite well by comparison against the US.

> > as in most EU countries > Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

Actually, they are. According to Wikipedia[0] the US has over 10.54 gun related deaths/100K while the UK has 0.23. That's a 45x difference.

Of course I picked the UK, because it's the second best European country (the best is Romania). My own, the Netherlands is doing much worse at 0.58 deaths/100K.

But even the worst western Europe country, Finland, is doing 3 times better than the US at 3.25 deaths/100K.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens.

I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state.

And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.

> It took 11 months

Maybe it should take 11 months to register to vote?

> I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns

That's awesome for you, truly! The government is notoriously bad at making subjective decisions for the population at large, however, which is why staunch regulation is met with such resistance.

> home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse

I need to defend my home: I am not physically capable, nor should I be required to take the risk of engaging a violent, felonious aggressor or his posse with my bare hands.

I can't afford to live in a great area, so burglaries are quite common. Do I have less of a right to defend myself because I am poor?

Simply put: the Second Amendment grants me the right to keep and bear a firearm, as affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't need any excuse or rationalization: jurists much smarter than I have done that for society at large.

I happen to like guns and shooting. It's a good point to understand the appeal of guns and also "the other side."

But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever guns come up in a general forum. Often they rightly end up complaining about safety of other gun owners in posts in more topic specific forums. But somehow, when it comes to a general audience, those issues get omitted.

Taking the class would give you a distinctly wrong impression about the responsibility of all gun owners. As does the suggestion to take the class.

Sorry, not to single you out specifically, it really is a good suggestion. But the net rhetorical effect of people making points like this is (and I think it's intentional) to skew the framing of the issue. Yes, you may be responsible, but with the exception of some people who would never heed your advice, people who want more regulation of firearms aren't worried about you. Guns don't kill people, some people with guns kill people.

But it gets to the heart of the matter of why responsible people who are pro gun rights feel like progressives aren't willing to consider productive compromises that address the real fundamental problems. Banning "assault weapons" would be largely ineffective. Requiring people to demonstrate basic safety as determined by an apolitical third party (National Guard in their state?) before being licensed would probably dramatically cut down on gun accidents and nobody would have to be afraid that their right to self-protection is being taken away from them.

I mean, isn't all this debate kind of moot drama in 2017?

If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.

Oh but if we make guns illegal--well there already are too many unregistered that it would empower criminal interests, both economically from a black market, and from having relatively more firepower.

Ah but you just want to "save lives?" Well if you want to save people's lives isn't it easier to ignore all this bullshit and do something like go supply clean drinking water to an undeveloped part of the world?

> If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.

You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal.

> Ah but you just want to "save lives?"

I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.

So the argument is any country with citizens that have not left thetefore does not have a unconstitutional or criminal government?

And how are you not aware of any unconstitutionality or illegality?

>I already have a brita filter.

Oh of course, it's all about self interest.

I second this, if only for personal safety. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unexpectedly responsible for a firearm, you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you. If you happen to find a handgun, or take one away from a child, knowledge is a virtue.

Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear.

It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.

I think your analogy oversteps -- it's really more akin to teaching people how to use a fire extinguisher, even though they're unlikely to ever encounter a fire.

According to the ATF[1], there are more firearms in America than people. The idea that you might live your whole life and never see one is far from a given, though rurality vs. urbanality almost certainly affects this, as well as the carry laws in the area you live. The statement is almost certainly more true in somewhere like California than it is in Alaska, but in my experience, definitely doesn't hold true for "America" on the whole.

I was going to use CPR as an example. How many people have been trained in CPR vs. those who have actually used it?

That said, the strength of my recommendation is not very strong, but if you're asking, "Why should I take a pistol class?", general safety is a good reason.

> you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you

Note that if you try to do it in this order, you will fail with some firearms because the safety locks the slide.

All of those things.

And, point it at the ground, OK?

I'm a strong second amendment supporter but I will probably never own a gun. I know accidents happen, and an accident with a gun scares the shit out of me. I have kids, and the risk is too great.

You don't have a pool do you?

Once the kid learns to swim you're done.But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.

Because people who know how to swim don't drown? Like, ever?

> But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.

How is basic/safe operation, safe handling procedures (call an adult!) not effective teaching?

I've known many casesof guns accidentally firing when being cleaned and causing deaths. Usually a child or a spouse.

You hear accidents happening to people with thousands of hours handling weapons. No mistakes on their part, just the gun going off. I can't risk the biscuit.

Modern factory firearms quite simply do not go off accidentally. With extremely rare ecxeptions, "cleaning accidents" are either failed suicide attempts or extremely negligent mishandling.

Look up the four main rules of firearm safety. Adherence to these rules will all but eliminate the risk of a dangerous malfunction (extremely rare) or fumble (less rare) during firearm operation and cleaning.

> With extremely rare ecxeptions, "cleaning accidents" are either failed suicide attempts or extremely negligent mishandling.

Nope, they happen. I'll leave it to you to search for them. For me, there are people who need guns, and people who must not have them. They're killing machines and serve no other purpose (unlike the knife which has utility).

Not to be dismissive, but it's very clear you don't know what you're talking about here. Fundamentally, to put oneself in a situation where an accidental discharge (operator-caused or not) poses a health risk, you've already violated several fundamental rules of gun safety. So these things fall very squarely into the realm of "negligent mishandling". I can think of very few scenarios where I would attribute a "cleaning accident" to the gun, as opposed to an ignorant operator.

As for the rest of your comment, that line of reasoning has been addressed thousands of times, so I won't bother being thousands plus one. My firearm usage doesn't involve killing anything, so this should be a big glaring hint that there's an error in your reasoning.

I suggest the same of people who are rabidly against drugs; set aside a day of your weekend to take some LSD. If you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.

(a die hard anti gun brit)

As a Scout we were taught to shoot various things (rifle's, bow and arrow etc). I dont see what it does anything to help introduce sane gun laws?

I think the idea is people who use guns will love them and think how great they are. I'm a Brit and we have next to no gun ownership culture here, but I was in the TA for 4 years and got extensive firearms experience. I don't want a gun ownership culture anywhere near me or my family. I just don't see how it could ever be worth the human and social cost.

How many people did you kill?

Agree here, but I'd also be in favor of some method of requiring gun owners to undergo this kind of course as well. While accidents are a small fraction of total gun deaths [1], they seem especially preventable by creating a well-regulated militia[2] and ensuring that armed citizens are required to at least be trained in the proper storage of their weapons.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that the "militia" in the second amendment consists of potentially all citizens, but IANAL and SCOTUS seems to disagree, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

10 USC 311 states that the militia of the United States is composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45, among others.[0]

[0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCOD...

Out of interest, do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff? The reason I ask is that my son was taught to shoot, gun maintenance etc. at his high school in the UK and we're usually regarded as "anti-gun" as a country!

Anecdotal but related: My grandfather shot competitively and as a hobby for most of his life (mostly skeet, occasional trap and pistols). Until the 90's he also taught gun safety and competitive marksmanship at a (comparatively very wealthy) area high school. He was dropped from that role as a knee-jerk reaction to the Columbine shooting, as it was deemed "too dangerous" to allow guns, even well controlled and in professional hands and for the purpose of teaching safety and responsibility, on the school property.

I don't know how this played out in the rest of the US, but I have a feeling that there aren't many (if any schools) that allow guns on their campuses, even if for the sake of education.

I grew up in a small town in central California. High School in the early 80's - lots of kids from ag/ranching backgrounds would park their trucks in the school parking lot with a rifle or shotgun hanging in a rack in the back window. I don't recall anyone being particularly bothered by that practice or any problems relating to it.

Same town, different era: My 12 year old nephew received a poor grade and "this is terrible!" written on his essay by his teacher because "What I did last weekend" recapped target shooting with his dad and grandpa at the range.

I live in an area where nordic skiing is super popular and the local high school has a shooting range for biathlon. (in Washington State)

http://methowvalleynordic.com/biathlon-home/

edit: added link

> do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff

It was pretty common in the 50s, and up to the civil rights era in the 60s, but after that, the answer is very much no. Currently, possession of a firearm on school grounds is a felony for almost everyone.

> Currently, possession of a firearm on school grounds is a felony for almost everyone.

Depends on the state of course, but it isn't a federal GFZA violation if you are state-legal and have a state-issued permit to carry.

That would be a very firm "no". Guns are verboten in the education system, at least where I grew up and went to school. Even talking about guns was a huge "no". Of course, this was only 20 minutes from Sandy Hook, so perhaps not an unreasonable reaction. But still, the fear culture around guns is making it harder and harder to have reasonable discourse about them.

In most areas of the US, no. There is a resurgence of shotgun sports (sporting clays, trap, etc.) as school sports in rural areas, but not really anything specific to safety.

I suppose that if you are in JROTC (junior reserve officers training corps), maybe so.

Yes, it was in the context of the Combined Cadet Force. I just remember a double take when my son talked about the school having an armory!

They have ex-military personnel teaching this as an optional component (you were expected to do CCF or Duke of Edinburgh Awards) - but it is kind of odd to have school kids dressing up in military camo outfits to go into school one day a week.

Once, when visiting the states, i had the opportunity to take such a course and it did change my opinion (very anti before course). I got a buzz out of it and am thoroughly glad i did it. That being said, the reality is that it ultimately relies on the owner being of sound mind at all times, which is not guaranteed. So whilst i agree that it really is a good thing to do and would even recommend it, i'm glad i live in a society where 99.9% of the time I don't need to worry about getting shot because the other person is having a bad day.

Are there any organizations you would recommend for such a class?

I know lots of people aren't going to like this answer, but the NRA probably has the information you're looking for.

There's a search page to help you find a course near you (by zip code)[0]. If you scroll down to the bottom of the table, there's the "NRA Home Firearm Safety Course" which goes over basic handling procedures for various types of firearm. It also goes over some topics more specific to storing firearms in the home, but is mostly a general safety course as far as I understand.

[0]: http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx

I have to respectfully disagree with microcolonel in the context of trying to educate more politically progressive people about firearms.

I cannot recommend the NRA as many people (former members, including myself) feel they have gone from being an advocate for the 2nd Amendment in the United States to being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and it tends to come up with their instructors, classes, and other students and would probably put most progressives off.

I would do research to see if your state offers any sort of Hunter Education programs instead as they tend to focus less on the politics (IMO) are more comprehensive multi-week classes. Plus some of these classes are available for no charge or help the state with preserving vs having to pay for the NRA courses.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/ might be a good place to start.

Should be a prerequisite to owning a gun, after all we allow people to drive a car only after they have passed a test, why not also with guns.

Funny enough, you've accidentally made the moderate pro-gun argument.

We only allow people to drive a car on public land after they get a license.

They can own a car and use it on private land as much as they want without a license.

That's how most gun owners agree it should be for guns. If you want to own and shoot your gun on private land, more power to you. If you want to carry a gun on public land, you get the appropriate license (hunting or carry permit). Same as with cars.

Hmmmm, you're right and I have been completely overlooking that aspect, can't argue with that.

   I have nowt against people owning a gun in America, more case of making sure they and others are safe when they use it and with that, protecting  their lives.  Which I'm sure is part of the constitution and if not, then it sure does add something needed perhaps.   After all it can have amendments, just need to see the prohibition of alcohol to see how that can work.

So thank you for destroying my analogy, I learned something there and that I appreciate. After all a good point has no flaws.

Because the constitution.

The American constitution is not a single source of truth. The same goes for arguing that morality is based on the law.

The men who wrote the bill of rights were not infallible.

Sure, it's entirely possible to argue that from a technical or legal standpoint, it wouldn't be possible to require a firearms handling test.

But as far as principle goes, I don't think that the constitution is a valid reasoning.

Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets.

Because that is how that particular constitution is worded.

So still doable, and would not impact the gun fans about owning guns, many of which would of already done lessons.

Just protects people from those, accidents with guns, as we do with cars by insisting they own pass a test.

> Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets.

Courts are built on the shoulders of reasonable individuals (judges).

The law, especially as it relates to something as complicated as the Constitution, isn't a computer system with blind "gotchas" and logical loopholes.

There is no reasonable person that would, after jurisprudence established in Heller and McDonald, argue that firearms and their ammunition are exclusive of one another for purposes of legislation (and rights infringement).

Anyone from the tech or startup community who is willing to be in Las Vegas area for 2-4 days and is reasonable sane/not a criminal/etc, I'd be happy to help to a class at Front Sight for free (you'd need to pay for ammo, about $100-200, and rent a car/accomodations/etc)

What exactly do you think this will help with? It's not hard to understand why people use/buy guns. People are just terrible at evaluating risk; not much to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com