Why doesn’t the USA have gun control?

[Armchair General]

12 hours ago, GamerX51 said:

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. 

Yeah, "stopping the problem before it happens" is usually an good idea; but there's hardly anything stopping anyone from jury-rigging their own firearms to circumvent stuff like this. Plus, some people are just predisposed to just harm others for an variety of reasons.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

You won't get any push back from people on the left for increasing access to social programs, but it's not a suitable answer to the specific issue of gun murders. Some mass shooters come from stable homes. Some mass shooters were accepting help from therapy. Many mass shooters have a record of domestic violence and were visited previously by the police who lack the authority to confiscate their weapons. But what they do have in common is easy access to guns. Legally purchased from a neighboring state with looser laws, owned by a family member, or acquired from a gun show without the usual paperwork and waiting period. I've taken a gun safety course myself, and it's not exactly life changing. Not a word was spent on appropriate storage of firearms, for instance

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, GamerX51 said:

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.

You said

7 hours ago, GamerX51 said:

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.

Is that not advocacy for shooting the bad guys?

7 hours ago, GamerX51 said:

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.

I don't put the economy above human lives.

[Tryhard]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:05 PM, 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. 😂

Despite being fundamentally anti-gun, this is a statement I don't disagree with. Pragmatically, there is no current feasible path. There is too many guns in circulation.

But -

On 2/18/2024 at 12:52 PM, GamerX51 said:

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?

I am not sure why Americans act like the views of men who lived several centuries ago is inherently important, or necessary. To the point where every aspect of law needs to be compared to attempt to interpret what long-dead men "would" have thought of current modern laws.

They are called amendments for a reason. Directing you to the 13th amendment. You may think certain laws like alcohol prohibition was stupid (and I would agree), but that doesn't mean there hasn't been necessary precedent laws set since the US constitution was originally written, or that amendments written in 1787 have the same significance or purpose that they do today.

If public opinion swayed enough against it (which I obviously don't think will happen, at least not in the near future), there is nothing inherently sacred about the second amendment that actually makes it an "inalienable right".

On 2/18/2024 at 7:55 PM, Zapp Branniglenn said:

You won't get any push back from people on the left for increasing access to social programs, but it's not a suitable answer to the specific issue of gun murders. Some mass shooters come from stable homes. Some mass shooters were accepting help from therapy. Many mass shooters have a record of domestic violence and were visited previously by the police who lack the authority to confiscate their weapons. But what they do have in common is easy access to guns. Legally purchased from a neighboring state with looser laws, owned by a family member, or acquired from a gun show without the usual paperwork and waiting period. I've taken a gun safety course myself, and it's not exactly life changing. Not a word was spent on appropriate storage of firearms, for instance

It's been my experience that most socialists in the US are generally fine with gun ownership and the second amendment because they view it as a necessary defence. Hence the prevalence of groups like the John Brown Gun Club. US liberals are far more likely to go strictly anti-gun than US socialists. 

Of course, at least outside of the US in other first world countries, the prevalent opinion is anti-gun from both socialists and liberals.

Edited February 20 by Tryhard

[Etrurian emperor]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:52 PM, GamerX51 said:

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

I've heard that argument before. That such peculiarities within the US stem from them having been founded during a rebellion against unjust government. I never found it satisfactory though because such mindset don't exist in other such countries which often had to endure far worse. The French had a period where the government went on a mass beheading spree of civilians over any imagined suspicion. The Dutch had a period of being ruled by a regime who burned people at the stake for believing in the same god in a slightly different way, and the Germans of course have the Nazi's. And not to mention the countries that had to fight off colonialism. On the whole I just don't think the British were ever bad enough to justify this weird fear of governments. 

Which isn't to say I believe the argument doesn't exist. Americans keep making it so of course it does. But rather than find it a valid reason I mostly think it makes the US comes as immature.  

[Zapp Branniglenn]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I've heard that argument before. That such peculiarities within the US stem from them having been founded during a rebellion against unjust government. I never found it satisfactory though because such mindset don't exist in other such countries which often had to endure far worse. The French had a period where the government went on a mass beheading spree of civilians over any imagined suspicion. The Dutch had a period of being ruled by a regime who burned people at the stake for believing in the same god in a slightly different way, and the Germans of course have the Nazi's. And not to mention the countries that had to fight off colonialism. On the whole I just don't think the British were ever bad enough to justify this weird fear of governments. 

Which isn't to say I believe the argument doesn't exist. Americans keep making it so of course it does. But rather than find it a valid reason I mostly think it makes the US comes as immature.  

"Immature" is an apt description, though probably not in the specific way you meant it. The US is newer than western Europe. It's earliest history isn't a collection of myths and stories that we agree probably happened - minus the obvious embellishments and supernatural elements. It's evidence wasn't lost to centuries of book burning by the church and imperial authorities. Everything was written down since its inception. What was happening. What people thought of it. Flush with (surviving!) primary sources. White Americans in the 1700s were almost all literate, so you got a wide variety of accounts. I think that's a crucial difference. The founding fathers are very dead, but their words are still here. Still in its native language with no need for translation. That makes it feel just as real today as it was then. Meanwhile, imagine an Englishman that wants to read the Magna Carta. Or a German studying Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Hope they know Latin. A scholar relying on translations would get laughed out of the field. Or at least that's what my German professor implied when we asked why he understood Latin.

Of course all of this only answers how the founding fathers are understood in the modern day. It doesn't answer how necessary it is to understand them. That's a deeply philosophical question. If you've ever in your life claimed it's silly to worry what those men thought, while also at some other point saying something like "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" then you'll agree it's not a Yes to All or No to All Question

Edited February 21 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Jotari]

44 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

"Immature" is an apt description, though probably not in the specific way you meant it. The US is newer than western Europe. It's earliest history isn't a collection of myths and stories that we agree probably happened - minus the obvious embellishments and supernatural elements. It's evidence wasn't lost to centuries of book burning by the church and imperial authorities. Everything was written down since its inception. What was happening. What people thought of it. Flush with (surviving!) primary sources. White Americans in the 1700s were almost all literate, so you got a wide variety of accounts. I think that's a crucial difference. The founding fathers are very dead, but their words are still here. Still in its native language with no need for translation. That makes it feel just as real today as it was then. Meanwhile, imagine an Englishman that wants to read the Magna Carta. Or a German studying Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Hope they know Latin. A scholar relying on translations would get laughed out of the field. Or at least that's what my German professor implied when we asked why he understood Latin.

Of course all of this only answers how the founding fathers are understood in the modern day. It doesn't answer how necessary it is to understand them. That's a deeply philosophical question. If you've ever in your life claimed it's silly to worry what those men thought, while also at some other point saying something like "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" then you'll agree it's not a Yes to All or No to All Question

That's not unique to the US though. I think literally every independent country on the American continent except Canada achieved their independence via some form of violent revolution in the past 300 years. And, well, the rest of the continent does sadly have its fair share of gun crime, but (and I may very well be wrong) I don't think that's because of any national sense of entitlement to guns and more just rampant gangs and drug crime. I don't think, say, school shootings happen on mass in Brazil or Argentina. Or if they do they're definitely not as highly reported on as American events (but that one exactly be anything new, America's share of world news and discourse is very much disproportionate).

Edited February 21 by Jotari

[Armchair General]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

. And, well, the rest of the continent does sadly have its fair share of gun crime, but (and I may very well be wrong) I don't think that's because of any national sense of entitlement to guns and more just rampant gangs and drug crime

For America, at least, the open gang warfare is kind of dying out, but the drugs are still here. As for our neighbors to the south, I heard that the Mexican cartels actually went to war against each other an while back, needless to say it certainly didn't end well for some of their leadership. But I really don't know what the situation is like in South America aside from the fact that there's an prison that's basically an overcrowded apartment complex.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's not unique to the US though. I think literally every independent country on the American continent except Canada achieved their independence via some form of violent revolution in the past 300 years. And, well, the rest of the continent does sadly have its fair share of gun crime, but (and I may very well be wrong) I don't think that's because of any national sense of entitlement to guns and more just rampant gangs and drug crime. I don't think, say, school shootings happen on mass in Brazil or Argentina. Or if they do they're definitely not as highly reported on as American events (but that one exactly be anything new, America's share of world news and discourse is very much disproportionate).

Latin America is kind of notorious for gun related crime. I don't want to stereotype, but it says enough that you could say the word "cartel" and everybody's mind goes to that one part of the world. Like how ten years ago you could say Somali, and our brains would have autofilled "Pirates". Gun violence may not be the largest reason they emigrate to the US, but it's certainly a cited reason (they're probably aware that we have the same problem lol). In that exchange, we were talking about why US has such a specific cultural reverence for its Revolutionary History compared to (his examples in) Western Europe. I wanted to compare to those places, rather than the world at large.

Mexico and Central America are interesting, however so lets gab about that. The key point of contrast I'd point out is Regime change. The United States Government has ruled concurrently since its inception. No Monarchy abdicating responsibilities to a legislature in that time. No (successful) Civil Wars. The world to the south of us however has been in near constant flux of radically different regimes and revolutionary movements. And we should know, because we caused a lot of them throughout the 20th century. La Cia had eyes everywhere in the Cold War. Some people living in these countries were alive to witness the previous government, so it's not as impressive how long they've lasted thus far.

Mexico we went to actual, Congress-sanctioned War with. That was three whole Mexican Governments ago, during that interim period between their First and Second Republics. A Mexican student of history will brush up on every iteration of Mexico. But their main focus is no doubt going to be on the one they have today, and the events that led to it. How it addressed the demands of La Revolución. I don't know what their main takeaways would be. But they'd probably have some nuanced things to say about guns, considering Mexico is one of extremely few nations that has its own 2nd Amendment in its constitution. And I understand it has been amended several times unlike ours. Just glancing at the data I linked above, their gun death rates are worse than the US, proportionately. Could their constitutional right to weapons have contributed to that?

[Jotari]

25 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Latin America is kind of notorious for gun related crime. I don't want to stereotype, but it says enough that you could say the word "cartel" and everybody's mind goes to that one part of the world. Like how ten years ago you could say Somali, and our brains would have autofilled "Pirates". Gun violence may not be the largest reason they emigrate to the US, but it's certainly a cited reason (they're probably aware that we have the same problem lol). In that exchange, we were talking about why US has such a specific cultural reverence for its Revolutionary History compared to (his examples in) Western Europe. I wanted to compare to those places, rather than the world at large.

Mexico and Central America are interesting, however so lets gab about that. The key point of contrast I'd point out is Regime change. The United States Government has ruled concurrently since its inception. No Monarchy abdicating responsibilities to a legislature in that time. No (successful) Civil Wars. The world to the south of us however has been in near constant flux of radically different regimes and revolutionary movements. And we should know, because we caused a lot of them throughout the 20th century. La Cia had eyes everywhere in the Cold War. Some people living in these countries were alive to witness the previous government, so it's not as impressive how long they've lasted thus far.

Mexico we went to actual, Congress-sanctioned War with. That was three whole Mexican Governments ago, during that interim period between their First and Second Republics. A Mexican student of history will brush up on every iteration of Mexico. But their main focus is no doubt going to be on the one they have today, and the events that led to it. How it addressed the demands of La Revolución. I don't know what their main takeaways would be. But they'd probably have some nuanced things to say about guns, considering Mexico is one of extremely few nations that has its own 2nd Amendment in its constitution. And I understand it has been amended several times unlike ours. Just glancing at the data I linked above, their gun death rates are worse than the US, proportionately. Could their constitutional right to weapons have contributed to that?

Oh I know Latin America has gun crime. That's what I meant by sadly it's fair share. I just question whether it's become of government stability and organized crime, or if there is also a sense of entitlement to guns. We compare the USA to Europe a lot, and that's not for no reason given the mostly similar economy, but if the conversation is to focus on the founding of the nation as a "new" country, then it makes a lot more sense to group it with the other countries in the same continent that were founded in similar ways and analyze what commonalities and differences it results in in regards to such views on sovereignty (if that's the right word, my brain says no but my gut says yes?) and the importance of the foundational myth...or something. Words fail me. American countries are American countries, and are probably more useful being compared to each other than Europe in some instances. I think that's what I meant to say.

[Hrothgar777]

10 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I am not sure why Americans act like the views of men who lived several centuries ago is inherently important, or necessary. To the point where every aspect of law needs to be compared to attempt to interpret what long-dead men "would" have thought of current modern laws.

Most successful countries have laws that've been around longer than their oldest living citizens have been alive. Every generation has its own biases, and yes, "every" includes our own. The coexistence of different perspectives from varying points in time within a legal framework affords the government a fighting chance of overcoming the myopic slog of presentism.

But in any case, the Second Amendment wouldn't have lasted as long as it has were the underlying idea not inherently popular in America

[Tryhard]

2 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

Most successful countries have laws that've been around longer than their oldest living citizens have been alive. Every generation has its own biases, and yes, "every" includes our own. The coexistence of different perspectives from varying points in time within a legal framework affords the government a fighting chance of overcoming the myopic slog of presentism.

But in any case, the Second Amendment wouldn't have lasted as long as it has were the underlying idea not inherently popular in America

I do not really mean that there don't exist older laws in other countries. It is more that most other countries do not treat their constitutions anywhere to the same degree as America does. Other countries have constitutions as well, the American one is no more special than any other in that regard. Most other countries do not treat their many-centuries-old constitutions as an unchanging, infallible, document, however. How can you when the world has changed so much over the 250 years since they were initially written?

To the point where the highest legal positions in the land, the Supreme Court, spend the majority of their time analysing current day laws and cases to determine whether they are 'constitutional' or not as a basis for their legality.

It is sort of a prevailing attitude outside of some US leftist opinion (usually called unpatriotic for questioning such attitudes) that whether laws are or are not "constitutional" and the determination of that is an inherent basis for what should be legal or not.

I find it strange, obviously.

Edited February 21 by Tryhard

[Acacia Sgt]

8 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Just glancing at the data I linked above, their gun death rates are worse than the US, proportionately. Could their constitutional right to weapons have contributed to that?

It's perhaps more that guns are so prolific in the US, that it's where the Cartels and such get most of their weapons (lots of weapons smuggling flowing south), thus contributing a majority portion of those deaths.

Edited February 21 by Acacia Sgt

[Etrurian emperor]

The US has a very peculiar habit of insisting things never work that are already shown to work in about every developed country out there. Its a common argument that a healthcare system will never work despite even countries far poorer than the US have one, and in this particular case you have people making the claim that gun regulations won't solve anything despite them having indeed solved everything in most other countries. 

[Armchair General]

23 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The US has a very peculiar habit of insisting things never work that are already shown to work in about every developed country out there. Its a common argument that a healthcare system will never work despite even countries far poorer than the US have one, and in this particular case you have people making the claim that gun regulations won't solve anything despite them having indeed solved everything in most other countries. 

Yeah, but people generally don't appreciate being forced to pay extra or having their stuff confiscated solely because someone else couldn't get their priorities straightened out.

Plus, even if they banned guns over here, we'll still find ways of killing each other for petty reasons.

[Hrothgar777]

51 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Yeah, but people generally don't appreciate being forced to pay extra or having their stuff confiscated solely because someone else couldn't get their priorities straightened out

Yeah, this is what it boils down to. The American view of a right is as something which can't be taken away from an individual who didn't abuse the right, regardless of the number of other individuals who did. Rights are not and cannot be subjected to utilitarian calculations, and Americans consider gun rights as an embodiment of the right to self-defense.

In Europe and in developed countries outside the US, rights are malleable social constructs which can be redefined or restricted for the sake of some public good. The American nature is to react squeamishly to this approach, because allowing for a right to be curtailed a little bit could eventually lead to it being curtailed a lot, or for the same to be done to arguably more fundamental and uncompromisable rights. This caution is probably the reason our national government has managed 230 years without turning into what Russia is today, but the downside is that we miss out on a lot of chances at immediate social improvement.

Edited February 22 by Hrothgar777

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Hrothgar777 said:

This caution is probably the reason our national government has managed 230 years without turning into what Russia is today,

What do you mean by that? A corrupt and morally bankrupt institution run by and existing almost exclusively to benefit the further enrichment of a group of wealthy oligarchs?...oh wait.

[Acacia Sgt]

That is one reason why the systems remain broken, I suppose. Those that benefit from them being broken do their hardest to convince the rest that fixing them would either make things worse, or that it's impossible.

Sadly, it works on a lot of people getting duped.

[Hrothgar777]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

What do you mean by that? A corrupt and morally bankrupt institution run by and existing almost exclusively to benefit the further enrichment of a group of wealthy oligarchs?...oh wait.

As fashionable as it is and always has been in America to have nothing good to say about the feds, we ranked 24th on the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2023. We could do better, sure, but we're definitely not comparable to Russia, which is in 141st place and tied with literal Uganda.

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, Hrothgar777 said:

As fashionable as it is and always has been in America to have nothing good to say about the feds, we ranked 24th on the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2023. We could do better, sure, but we're definitely not comparable to Russia, which is in 141st place and tied with literal Uganda.

America does get around that by legalizing its corruption and calling it lobbying though. It's not corrupt if you openly say it's allowed!

Edited February 23 by Jotari

[ping]

It's worth remembering that gun control and a ban on guns are two different things. I had to invest a lot of time and money into acquiring a driver's licence. If I buy a car, it will have to be properly registered and insured. If I was caught passing five red lights while drunk driving, I would lose my driver's licence, be fined (admittedly too low, in Germany), and required to make a so-called Idiotentest before being able to re-acquire my driver's licence. There is quite a lot of "car control" in basically every country on the globe. There's still a f***ton of cars on the globe.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I feel pretty disgusted with my home state for just removing licensing and training requirements for concealed carry permits.

 

Apparently, even the USA's ludicrous lack of basic common sense gun control is too much for this stupid little hellhole of mine.

Edited March 7 by Fabulously Olivier

[FRZNHeir]

On 2/21/2024 at 4:15 AM, Tryhard said:

I do not really mean that there don't exist older laws in other countries. It is more that most other countries do not treat their constitutions anywhere to the same degree as America does. Other countries have constitutions as well, the American one is no more special than any other in that regard. Most other countries do not treat their many-centuries-old constitutions as an unchanging, infallible, document, however. How can you when the world has changed so much over the 250 years since they were initially written?

To the point where the highest legal positions in the land, the Supreme Court, spend the majority of their time analysing current day laws and cases to determine whether they are 'constitutional' or not as a basis for their legality.

It is sort of a prevailing attitude outside of some US leftist opinion (usually called unpatriotic for questioning such attitudes) that whether laws are or are not "constitutional" and the determination of that is an inherent basis for what should be legal or not.

I find it strange, obviously.

The American Constitution has become almost mythological in nature, it is practically a holy object to the country. It's practically the focus of half the history lessons on why America:tm: is America:tm:. It's a big part of the reason that nationalism is such a problem in the country. The pledge in schools and the national anthem at Every Event Ever also contribute to this. 
I imagine the Constitution was originally constructed in the way that it was in order to guarantee that an elected official couldn't like. Decide to change things and strip away certain rights LIKE gun ownership, however it's also started conflicting with the actual needs and wants of the people in the nation. Not being able to push forward serious gun reform due to a two century old piece of paper drafted before guns were able to accurately and quickly injure/kill/maim people en masse is quite the consequence of this, and I feel is a misrepresentation of the original intent of the Second Amendment, as I doubt the founding fathers intended civilians to have open access to tools of mass murder. The Constitution was not constructed in a way that takes into account the advancement of technology or society.

On 2/20/2024 at 3:23 PM, Tryhard said:

Despite being fundamentally anti-gun, this is a statement I don't disagree with. Pragmatically, there is no current feasible path. There is too many guns in circulation.

...

Of course, at least outside of the US in other first world countries, the prevalent opinion is anti-gun from both socialists and liberals.

1) That is the main issue regarding gun control/regulation in the states, I feel. Regardless of political alignment it's just not feasible to attempt any major gun bans as there's just TOO MANY people with guns who are a bit crazy about owning them. 
2) That is true, however I feel like there's just as many people of those ideologies who themselves support gun ownership, if only because people on the other side of the aisle own the majority of firearms and American propaganda has made being labeled a socialist/communist akin to being the devil (though this is less prevalent nowadays, it's just more likely to get your opinion ignored).