Why doesn’t the USA have gun control?

[Paper Mario]

I came across many videos on school shootings and pictured what it would’ve been if I experienced a shooting at school myself. Given that it’s only the USA that regularly experiences these events, shouldn’t they care more about lives than guns?

[Original Alear]

The country is roughly split on the issue. The news I've seen suggests that the population is getting more in favor of gun control, but there are many who will argue such data as that places with gun control have more gun violence (they say they tend to be big cities). There are notable exceptions to this, in recent history at least, since NYC had strict gun control and a drop in violent crime coincide. Many, though perhaps not most, seem to believe that the people committing violent crime will get guns illegally regardless of what laws we pass, that "a good guy with a gun" is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. It does seem to be true that there seem to be some examples where this is not the case, the liberal/democratic seeming news outlets and some politicians, I think have, reported that for at least some violent school shootings, there have been flags raised for the gunners when they tried to get the guns that could have been used to stop them from getting guns. The sheer volume of guns reported in the US is another point that conservatives/republicans might use to argue that there are simply too many for enforcement to be effective.

In general, it might be reducible, to some extent, to a basic argument about whether regulation in general is effective enough to cause desired change, or  people just always find ways around it.

[Armchair General]

We kind of do, but it's ultimately the fault of whoever pulls the trigger, regardless of the issue if they're actually licensed to carry an gun. Plus, there's quite an few alternative ways of obtaining them, which hasn't exactly been reduced, yet.

[Etrurian emperor]

Because apparently they're very hard learners. 

[FlyingKitsune]

There's apparently about 393 million guns in the hands of American Civilians, so there's that. Kinda difficult to regulate the ones in circulation at this point even if a lot of people are up for it.

[Capt. Fargus]

4 hours ago, Armchair General said:

We kind of do, but it's ultimately the fault of whoever pulls the trigger, regardless of the issue if they're actually licensed to carry an gun.   

Depends on the state and whether or not they have a duty to retreat  

Some states have permitless carry but if you’re prohibited from possessing you’re prohibited from carrying. Under federal law if you’re under a ERPO, had a dishonorable discharge from the military, or been convicted of a crime that carries a 2 year sentence you wont pass a NICS check

 

4 hours ago, Armchair General said:

Plus, there's quite an few alternative ways of obtaining them, which hasn't exactly been reduced, yet.

My state outlawed F2F private sales, so sellin one here has to be done at a FFL so they can run the NICS check

[Florete]

Because AMERICA is the land of freedom, and taking away our guns would mean turning AMERICA into communism.

Note: This is not what I believe, but it is what some people unironically believe.

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, FlyingKitsune said:

There's apparently about 393 million guns in the hands of American Civilians, so there's that. Kinda difficult to regulate the ones in circulation at this point even if a lot of people are up for it.

Yeah, I think it's less gun control the yanks need and gun elimination. You can have all the laws about using guns you want, but the main problem is that the society has been inundated with the things. Making them illegal to use doesn't stop them from existing, and the people who would use them for ill aren't going to be inclined to care about how illegal it is to exchange or carry one. Reducing production to limit long term affects should probably be high on the agenda, but even then they're made of metal and last for decades. So some sort of buy back scheme would really be the only way.

Edited January 17 by Jotari

[Hrothgar777]

We have a constitutional amendment establishing a general right to gun ownership. Repealing said amendment would require a supermajority in support of such a proposal. The American public is split on the issue, meaning no such supermajority exists. There's only a consensus toward restricting this right when it comes to felons and minors, but this can be circumvented when you have a country so large that's virtually swimming in guns.

Even if individual states were allowed to ban guns, that'd mean little if some states did and some states didn't, because all a criminal would have to do is cross state lines and come back with a gun. At least half of the 50 states wouldn't, so it'd be futile for the other half or fewer to attempt such a thing. Some cities do, such as Chicago. And for reasons I've already laid out this hasn't done much if anything to keep Chicago from being one of the country's leading murder capitals.

Edited January 17 by Hrothgar777

[ping]

4 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

And for reasons I've already laid out this hasn't done much if anything to keep Chicago from being one of the country's leading murder capitals.

Just as an aside, but Chicago is "only" 14th in murders per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Because it's by far the biggest city in the upper parts of the list (the next entry with more than 2 million inhabitants is Houston, #38), it does have the highest absolute number of murders, which I assume is what people point at when they try to paint it as this uniquely murderous hellhole. But while 18 murders per 100000 people is still very high,  Baltimore and St. Louis are sitting at 55 and 66, respectively. But as long as Obama is still relevant, I'm sure this myth will keep circulating.

[Sunwoo]

Because the U.S. is fucking insane

It's the NRA.

All that sweet, sweet gun lobby money going to politicians to keep gun control from passing ever because apparently scaring the shit out of people that "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YER GUNS" makes them profit. Or something. Apparently, surveys have shown time and again that the vast majority of Americans actually want better gun control laws, and we can't get anything done because a small group of elected nitwits are beholden to the fucking gun lobby.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

There's a lot to unpack on such a general question. Since information is equally disseminated from credible sources as it is from internet memes - especially if you're not from the US. Obviously we have gun laws, they just don't go far enough to address the sheer volume and access to firearms. We are the country that literally has more guns than people, after all.

So instead here's an angle that I don't think is talked about enough. The US is the world's leading manufacturer of guns. And they wouldn't be pumping them out so much if there wasn't a market for them. Here and abroad. Not to put too fine a point on current events, but a crucial point of understanding with the US support of Isreal is that they're the ones filling up our bank accounts and creating new jobs on those munition sales. But obviously wars aren't an every day thing. In peacetime, that Industry is doing whatever it can to stay as profitable as it can with its lobbyists, the NRA, and producing Thoughts and Prayers for every mass shooting. Asking the US to stop producing guns is like asking them to stop coal mining, or drilling for oil. Yes the better alternative exists in clean energy, but those are multi-billion companies that will drag as much of the country down with them if it came to it. What people think is a moral failing of the masses is really the greed of a select few in power.

Edited January 17 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Jotari]

48 minutes ago, Sunwoo said:

Because the U.S. is fucking insane

It's the NRA.

All that sweet, sweet gun lobby money going to politicians to keep gun control from passing ever because apparently scaring the shit out of people that "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YER GUNS" makes them profit. Or something. Apparently, surveys have shown time and again that the vast majority of Americans actually want better gun control laws, and we can't get anything done because a small group of elected nitwits are beholden to the fucking gun lobby.

It's not really the NRA. It's the whole system that gives the NRA power. And if effects more aspects of society than just guns.

47 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

There's a lot to unpack on such a general question. Since information is equally disseminated from credible sources as it is from internet memes - especially if you're not from the US. Obviously we have gun laws, they just don't go far enough to address the sheer volume and access to firearms. We are the country that literally has more guns than people, after all.

So instead here's an angle that I don't think is talked about enough. The US is the world's leading manufacturer of guns. And they wouldn't be pumping them out so much if there wasn't a market for them. Here and abroad. Not to put too fine a point on current events, but a crucial point of understanding with the US support of Isreal is that they're the ones filling up our bank accounts and creating new jobs on those munition sales. But obviously wars aren't an every day thing. In peacetime, that Industry is doing whatever it can to stay as profitable as it can with its lobbyists, the NRA, and producing Thoughts and Prayers for every mass shooting. Asking the US to stop producing guns is like asking them to stop coal mining, or drilling for oil. Yes the better alternative exists in clean energy, but those are multi-billion companies that will drag as much of the country down with them if it came to it. What people think is a moral failing of the masses is really the greed of a select few in power.

Oh, yeah, basically this. Though I'll add that US interest in Israel isn't solely to sell them guns. They could do that without supporting the government (and I'm sure they do in many places around the world). The US also wants an outpost in the middle east to project power and ensure the middle east has a boogyman to fixate on. Biden has been on record (not recently, like forty years ago because the man is ancient) saying that if Israel didn't exist they would have to make and Israel in the middle east to protect their economic interests. It all goes back to the oligarchs though. The US doesn't have more overseas military bases than countries in the world for the purpose of defense. It's to protect economic interests.

[Shoblongoo]

TLDR--its culturally ingrained in the body politic of the American voter through 100s of years of law and tradition that they have a fundamental right to own and operate firearms. 

That that right is part of America's national identity + founding doctrines.

And that changing the law to adopt the gun control systems of more modernized, better governed, and less violent countries would be a violation of a fundamental right + a tyrannical misuse of government power. 

There's also massive propaganda campaigns and disinformation funded by gun manufacturers and special interest groups frequently putting out publications about how gun control laws don't actually work. Don't reduce shooting deaths or increase public safety. And make law-abiding citizens less safe, because "yada, yada, yada--when you make guns illegal than only criminals have guns."

Which has unfortunately been quite effective at influencing voter opinion on the issue. "If you elect him, he's going to take your guns away" is an attack line you will often hear candidates for public office using against their opponents in American elections.      
__

In short, for gun control to happen in Ameria, there needs to be a generational change in the way the American public thinks about the issue and the mandate we give to the lawmakers we elect to office.

I think American thinking on the issue on-the-whole has liberalized a bit in recent decades and there is more receptiveness among more people to realizing we shouldn't be the only developed nation that routinely has school shootings and armed gang warfare in the streets. The 2nd amendment says what it says--but men of the 18th century weren't right about everything in perpetuity.

The country as a whole just isn't there yet. 

  

 

Edited January 17 by Shoblongoo

[Capt. Fargus]

19 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Even if individual states were allowed to ban guns, that'd mean little if some states did and some states didn't, because all a criminal would have to do is cross state lines and come back with a gun. At least half of the 50 states wouldn't, so it'd be futile for the other half or fewer to attempt such a thing. Some cities do, such as Chicago. And for reasons I've already laid out this hasn't done much if anything to keep Chicago from being one of the country's leading murder capitals.

A criminal living in a ban state can’t go to another state and buy a gun legally. Under federal law, for a sale to be legal, the gun has to be legal in both the buyer’s and the transfering dealer’s state

Only way a bad guy can do that is to buy it from some lowlife on the street and he wont need to go out of state for that

[Shoblongoo]

30 minutes ago, Capt. Fargus said:

A criminal living in a ban state can’t go to another state and buy a gun legally. Under federal law, for a sale to be legal, the gun has to be legal in both the buyer’s and the transfering dealer’s state

Only way a bad guy can do that is to buy it from some lowlife on the street and he wont need to go out of state for that

Its a distinction without a difference tbh--the patchwork form and function of state level regulation whereby the efforts of the states that have it are fustrated by the efforts of the states that don't remains the same. 

i.e. You can for example have strict gun control laws here in New Jersey. 

And it just doesn't matter at all when you have the I-95 corridor running through the State.

And every Red State along the way that doesn't control whose running around with burst rifles and hollow tips can send a U-Haul full of w/e across the Commadore Barry.  

 

It only works if there's centralized enforcement. 
 

Edited January 17 by Shoblongoo

[Capt. Fargus]

6 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Its a distinction without a difference tbh--the patchwork form and function of state level regulation whereby the efforts of the states that have it are fustrated by the efforts of the states that don't remains the same. 

i.e. You can for example have strict gun control laws here in New Jersey. 

And it just doesn't matter at all when you have the I-95 corridor running through the State.

And every Red State along the way that doesn't control whose running around with burst rifles and hollow tips can send a U-Haul full of w/e across the Commadore Barry.  

 

It only works if there's centralized enforcement. 
 

Burst rifles are federally regulated under NFA. The only way a civilian can get one of those is if its pre-1986 and that has to go directly to the ATF. I dont want one myself because of the 5 figure price tag

The criminal option is to convert a semi-auto but gettin caught doing that can and SHOULD land you under the jail for 10 or more years

[henrymidfields]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:22 PM, Jotari said:

Yeah, I think it's less gun control the yanks need and gun elimination. You can have all the laws about using guns you want, but the main problem is that the society has been inundated with the things. Making them illegal to use doesn't stop them from existing, and the people who would use them for ill aren't going to be inclined to care about how illegal it is to exchange or carry one. Reducing production to limit long term affects should probably be high on the agenda, but even then they're made of metal and last for decades. So some sort of buy back scheme would really be the only way.

Yeah I think the horse has kind of bolted in regards to flooding the country with guns. Maybe a nationwide compulsory third party or liability insurance for gun ownership? (Like how we need compulsory third party insurance with cars.) I heard at least one county in Cali has been doing that to discourage irresponsible usage.

Edited February 17 by henrymidfields

[GamerX51]

The way to solve the gun violence problem isn't to ban guns; it's education and community support for families. A simple change to current firearms regulations requiring anyone who owns or purchases a gun to attend mandatory gun safety and training courses would go a long way towards mitigating most of the problem. If more people could carry guns safely, there would be many fewer mass shootings in this country simply because more people would be in a position to stop a potential mass shooter before they can kill anyone.

And having robust, community-lead social programs to strengthen families (after school clubs, support groups for new parents, job training programs) would eliminate one of the core causes of criminal violence - 85-90% of convicted violent felons in the U.S. come from broken and dysfunctional homes. Honestly, there's no reason to ban guns when there are much simpler and less authoritarian measures that can be taken. (And yes, banning guns IS a purely authoritarian invention, just look at how the Soviets dealt with civilian gun ownership in the USSR if you doubt me on that.)

Edited February 18 by GamerX51

[Jotari]

46 minutes ago, GamerX51 said:

The way to solve the gun violence problem isn't to ban guns; it's education and community support for families. A simple change to current firearms regulations requiring anyone who owns or purchases a gun to attend mandatory gun safety and training courses would go a long way towards mitigating most of the problem. If more people could carry guns safely, there would be many fewer mass shootings in this country simply because more people would be in a position to stop a potential mass shooter before they can kill anyone.

And having robust, community-lead social programs to strengthen families (after school clubs, support groups for new parents, job training programs) would eliminate one of the core causes of criminal violence - 85-90% of convicted violent felons in the U.S. come from broken and dysfunctional homes. Honestly, there's no reason to ban guns when there are much simpler and less authoritarian measures that can be taken. (And yes, banning guns IS a purely authoritarian invention, just look at how the Soviets dealt with civilian gun ownership in the USSR if you doubt me on that.)

Other countries don't require specific education programs to learn how not to shoot each other.

[GamerX51]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

Other countries don't require specific education programs to learn how not to shoot each other.

And other countries don't have anything like the 2nd amendment that makes gun ownership an inalienable legal right either. So what's your point?

The United States has a deeply ingrained culture of non-conformism and rebellion against authority that goes all the way back to its' founding; trying to force cultural change through weaponised legalism will always be a doomed effort in America, a fact that the temperance movement of the 1920's learned the hard way. Their attempts to force Americans to give up alcohol through legislation backfired in the most spectacular manner possible; Americans just ignored their idiotic laws and turned to criminals to provide them with hooch, creating the American Mafia in the process. The same thing will happen with Gun Control as well.

This a truth that many people on the left and the right could stand to learn; trying to force your way of thinking onto other people through the legal system will only cause resentment and increase lawlessness and criminality. Americans love their guns, for better or worse, and trying to use the force of law to take those guns away from them will only make them less likely to listen to you, not more.

Edited February 18 by GamerX51

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, GamerX51 said:

Americans love their guns, for better or worse, 

That's the precise problem. And the evidence is in display that it's for the worse.

[GamerX51]

52 minutes ago, Jotari said:

That's the precise problem. And the evidence is in display that it's for the worse.

I love how you zeroed in on one specific part of my post and ignored the rest of my argument; that's some top-notch deflection right there, but I nevertheless stand by my earlier statement that mandatory gun safety and training courses and community support programs for families is the correct solution to the problem, not gun control.

Authoritarian gun-grabbing is doomed to fail in the U.S. Full Stop. The American people will absolutely rebel against that kind of half-assed legalism; it's what we're famous for, after all. 😂

Edited February 18 by GamerX51

[Jotari]

45 minutes ago, GamerX51 said:

I love how you zeroed in on one specific part of my post and ignored the rest of my argument; that's some top-notch deflection right there, but I nevertheless stand by my earlier statement that mandatory gun safety and training courses and community support programs for families is the correct solution to the problem, not gun control.

It's definitely not going to hurt for people to know how to handle them safely. But "teaching them to use them better so they can kill all the bad guys", presumably John Wick style is doomed to just result in more people getting shot.

45 minutes ago, GamerX51 said:

Authoritarian gun-grabbing is doomed to fail in the U.S. Full Stop. The American people will absolutely rebel against that kind of half-assed legalism; it's what we're famous for, after all. 😂

Well as I said earlier in the threat I think the main thing that needs to be hit is production right from the start. Though that would take decades to have a noticably effect. No matter how you slice it though there is definitely a problem and "it's the culture" isn't a justification for it, it's the root cause of it.

[GamerX51]

40 minutes ago, Jotari said:

But "teaching them to use them better so they can kill all the bad guys", presumably John Wick style is doomed to just result in more people getting shot.

I never said I wanted people to "shoot all the bad guys". Stop putting words in my mouth. One of the first things they teach you in gun training classes (the NRA sponsored ones anyway) is that you never go out in search of the shooter; you shelter in a defensible location and only defend yourself or others if there's a direct threat of harm. No one here is advocating for vigilantism.

 

40 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well as I said earlier in the threat I think the main thing that needs to be hit is production right from the start. Though that would take decades to have a noticeable effect.

You do realize that weapons manufacturers comprise a fairly significant chunk of the American economy, right? So not only is your plan not economically feasible, it would also hollow out the economies of many smaller towns throughout middle America, which is where most gun manufacturing plants operate, given that over regulation has made it impossible for them to operate in larger cities. 

 

But this is all a moot point anyway; the 2nd amendment makes your plan impossible to implement. The Supreme Court would strike it down instantly.

Edited February 18 by GamerX51