Guns in America

[Campitor]

If the justification for gun ownership is "in case the Government comes for me", I'm saying that gun ownership will not protect you if/when that happens. So that specific justification is invalid.

Government versus 1 guy or small group - you're correct. Government versus 100+million armed citizens, many who have military training in explosives, plus the general population that could make firebombs, IEDs, and conduct active sabotage to essential infrastructure, its a different story. And you're presupposing that the government and its armed branches would act in a uniform manner instead of fracturing into patriots and rebels.

I see the purpose of [Democratic] government as to empower the little guy. The absence of government would be anarchy. Anarchy on its face is equal to absolute freedom. But in reality, anarchy just makes you subservient to whoever has greater "size, training, and numbers." Being governed democratically is choosing the most benign gang of warlords you can.

You're very correct - both sides (Government and Warlords) rely on a monopoly or imbalance of power to impose their will via force. This is why monopolies on force should never be tolerated. This is a central tenet held by most responsible gun owners.

We are giving up tremendous autonomy to a mob of voters, their elected representatives, and the military and police force that those representatives employ. Anarchy vs. government are two sides of the same coin, or maybe different ends of a spectrum. In both cases, individuals are below an authority. The authority is the better-armed, higher numbered gang than the one you're in.

It is better to have a small chance to escape/evade/deter than zero chance against a corrupt and violent mob/government. I don't see the logic in "you'll get your teeth kicked so why even try" philosophy. The USA wouldn't exist if the 13 colonies had adopted this "why even try" pathos.

That being said, the primary purpose of any government is to sustain a military and a police force. The military protects us from outsiders while the police force protects us from each other. And the whole rest of the government apparatus is to determine how those two forces should act.

A monopoly on force is the logical outcome of this understanding.

Perhaps there are some governments, i.e., North Korea, that prioritize military and police power over other considerations but this was never the intent of the Founders of the USA. I believe the purpose of government, at least at the inception of the US Republic, was defined in the Constitution's preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Because a military, police force, and government is just a bunch of individuals. And individuals are prone to self-serving abuse of power as well as tend to form gangs. So you inevitably end up with corrupt individuals having the monopoly on force. This would justify an armed revolution.

For an armed revolution to be successful, you would need the armed populace to be at least evenly matched in firepower to the government, AND for them all to agree that the time for the revolution has come.

If you have varying sized groups of armed individuals fighting over how to govern each other, you are back to anarchy again.

The threats that arise from corruption and monopolies of force is the reason the US Constitution contains a framework for the separation of powers to prevent the abuse that occurs when a small minority runs everything. The definition of anarchy is " a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." The US Government and its citizens promote anarchy every time they allow anyone, including government, to disregard the authority granted via the US Constitution.

The right to bear arms is declared within the Constitution via the 2nd amendment. So we can't confiscate guns without repealing the 2nd amendment otherwise we are promoting anarchy by disregarding the very document that is the roadmap and foundation of the American Republic. Repeal the 2nd amendment and I would respect gun confiscation even if I don't agree with the decision; its my duty as a citizen to uphold the US Constitution.

And having an armed citizenry as a check to government power was the intent of some within the Constitutional Assembly; their letters and diaries state so specifically.

Having typed the above, you all might think I'm a gun nut. I don't own a gun even though I could obtain one easily via the legal rights within my state. I was in a competitive rifle club so I do know about gun safety and I have gone shooting with some of my police buddies on occasion. I have never felt the need to own a gun but should the need ever arise, I would like the option of protecting myself via a firearm as a measure of last resort.

[ducknalddon]

Government versus 1 guy or small group - you're correct. Government versus 100+million armed citizens, many who have military training in explosives, plus the general population that could make firebombs, IEDs, and conduct active sabotage to essential infrastructure, its a different story. And you're presupposing that the government and its armed branches would act in a uniform manner instead of fracturing into patriots and rebels.

So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?

[nestbuilder]

From a very young age I remember seeing the locked gun cabinets in the basements of my respective grandmothers homes, evidence of the hunting culture of my grandfathers(by the time I came around one grandfather had passed and the other was severely disabled). I would stare into those cabinets with awe as I knew guns killed things but I was never scared by their presence. My uncle was one of the most avid and respectful hunters I have ever met although now he is gone as he shot himself a couple of years ago. I pulled trap for skeet-shooting competitions as kid and while the target shooting crowd seemed a little odd and intense, I was never intimidated by the mostly frumpy old men with Band-Aids on their faces from recoil abrasions. However, from a very early age, I remember my Great-Uncle - first motorcycle patrolman in Nebraska, expert marksman(rifle slung over shoulder, holding a mirror, split bullets on axe-head and popped balloons - for real), respected regional gunsmith, wealthy retired local bank executive - he had a handgun in EVERY drawer in his house, in EVERY room. And I remember at a very early age feeling very uncomfortable in his home and how he seemed paranoid and fearful even though to me he seemed so tall and imposing.

I have had fun in the past shooting and think I understand the basic pleasure in target practice. But I do not own a gun. I do not feel compelled to own a gun.

When I hear most people talk about gun rights in terms of personal safety from the boogeyman or the government, I wonder what the heck they are so scared of. And yes I have heard of Ruby Ridge and Waco, but I have also heard from the victims of domestic and sexual violence I work with and statistically - that holds buckets and buckets more water. Where I live(just north of RJ) stray bullets from high-powered gun-nut parties (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/lo ... 02478.html) or poor judgement from hunters (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... er-family/) seem just as concerning as the boogeymen.

So, really, firearms for hunting and reasonable sport, seem sensible if you demonstrate basic safety knowledge/practice and know you will loose that right if you cannot abide. Self-defense? perhaps we should reserve that option only for those who statistically need it if we are going to justify widespread gun-ownership based on fear. Fun with high-powered, high-capacity iron for your personal enjoyment or delusional fears - I have yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies this and am pretty sure my grandpas and uncle would agree( although Great Uncle Allen...)

[jennypenny]

What qualifies as statistically needing it? A reasonable threat of violence? If that's the case, then all women should be armed since 1 in 4 experience domestic abuse, 1 in 3 experience sexual violence and/or stalking, etc. That's half the country right there.

I also believe governments have been the bogeyman often enough in history to justify allowing competent citizens to own firearms.

I'm really uncomfortable arguing for gun rights while parents in Florida are planning funerals for their kids but I feel strongly that the issue isn't gun laws or ownership. It's important to identify the underlying issue so it can be addressed -- an issue I suspect is related to the opioid issue, the suicide rate, and other emerging problems. If true, it's killing a lot more people than just the victims of mass shootings, albeit in a less made-for-TV way.

[Sclass]

@dinosaur

I agree with everything you just wrote. I have absolutely no problem with more stringent guidelines and requirements, mainly competency levels, with owning a firearm. Right now, the minimum standard .....

There is no easy answer to this problem as it is multi-faceted and involves way more than just guns.

The voice of reason FFJ. Unfortunately this is called “control” and the NRA among others won’t have it. Among my family, I’m blasted for taking a liking to the British system.

Someone upthread was talking about how the UKs system requires, among other things, membership in a club. Which ensures some sort of eusocial behavior.

That would be me. I’m not British but I held a subscription to a UK fieldsports magazine that gave tutorials on how to navigate the FAC. So you need to join a club for at least two years shooting sub 12 FPE air guns. These are the weaker pellet guns you’d find at Walmart. You cannot be a solitary shooter at your club because when your FAC exam comes up two years in, the authorities come to your club and interview multiple members of the club about how they feel about you. They have to be members in good standing and possibly FAC as well. So there is a significant investment of time and social capital. You have to be serious about wanting to get through the FAC. Then, the next step (among others) is the coppers visit your home for tea and biscuits. They interview you in your home. The magazines said they are looking for tidiness, your gun locker and how you handle yourself - and any sign of sketchyness. As draconian as this is, it weeds out only the most serious players. Once you attain FAC you have a big time and social capital investment that any sane person would not want to discard over misbehavior. Like you have a domestic disturbance call you lose your FAC.

Another interesting detail is if you fail the interviewing process is all the interviews are sealed and confidential to protect naysayers from retribution.

My understanding is guns are available to those willing to go through the process. Nothing like the guns we have here but you can reasonably get a .22 rifle or a fowling shotgun.

I know, a bummer right? Nothing comes for free. It all comes down to how bad we want something. People in the USA overwhelmingly want things this way. Time to pay the piper literally like the old story.

[Campitor]

So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?

First let me preface my answer with the following. The US Government is composed of citizens and legal residents that don't auto-magically leave their beliefs and biases at the door. When we arm federal employees and their armies, we are arming citizens and residents of the US. When we talk about disarming citizens we are really talking about disarming only citizens and residents who are not government employees or members of the armed forces.

Yes. I do think civil war and its threat is a credible and reasonable means of deterring tyranny. I don't say this lightly. Our nation was founded on the principled idea that revolutions are a right and responsibility to remove the boot of despotism. The Declaration of Independence, through its eloquence and gravity, makes the argument for a just revolution clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And let me further state that there is no need to "justify" arming citizens because it is a right guaranteed within the US Constitution. Similarly we don't need to justify free speech, freedom of religion, assembly, free press or any other rights enumerated in the Constitution. There is no gray area here. Once you allow government to ignore any section of the Constitution without a lawful amendment, regardless if you support it or not, you are sowing the seeds of anarchy and despotism. Slavery, a blatant disregard of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, almost led to the dissolution of the United States. Let's not repeat this most grievous of errors with another blatant disregard of our enumerated Constitutional rights.

[Riggerjack]

Sclass wrote: ↑ Iraq.
I should have qualified my question with "and produced a good outcome".

I'm surprised nobody brought up the Bundy Ranch standoff. This is the extreme demonstration.

Ducknalddon, I know you are from the UK Commonwealth, somehow. So I assume you aren't familiar with how identity politics has worked in our system. When the red team has the White House, traditionally, the secretary of state will announce military action against some brown people in a small, far off place that most Americans couldn't find on a map, and nobody cares about. Grenada, Panama, Libya, Somolia, blah, blah, I'm sure Wikipedia has a list.

When a blue team president is in office, he chooses an attorney general who activates small armies of federal agents and sends them off to kill families of white people nobody ever heard of in places most Americans couldn't find on a map. Ruby ridge, Waco, (I'm sure it was unintended to send the same sniper who was ordered to kill all men with firearms, and interpreted it as authority to shoot a mom with a baby in her arms, as part of the Waco team.) Then, Bundy Ranch.

But I'm not talking about armed insurrection against the state. I'm talking about arms limiting the overreach of the state, thus preventing the armed insurrection issue.

I'm talking about the old lady getting the same treatment as a citizen as the respected father of three or the young lady. Because any of them could fight, could have a gun, could sue, could file a complaint, could vote. We have lots of ways to address improper behaviors. Guns are one of many, and I'm against losing any of them.

(And right here is where we should insert all the other, less direct methods of dealing with conflict 7w5 will bring up)

I don't want to live in an armed society to stop the government agents from being abusive. That license to the power to abuse is one of the reasons they became agents, and can make them more effective. But having an armed society puts limits on the abuse. But far more importantly, it puts limits on policies of abuse. When the agents read the new abusive policy, whether it be round up all the cattle, or round up all the Jews, it doesn't take the strong backbone to tell your boss, "and what about when they don't want to come along?" And the boss has to provide enough force to overcome resistance. Which puts a strong limit on how abusive a policy can be. Not because of superior morals, but because the more firepower is in the hands of citizens, the less thin the forces can be spread.

So, for everyone who remembers the dysfunction around the end of 2016, a certain amount of the misbehavior of the public was allowed from a "no need to make this worse" perspective. That the public owns as many guns as it does is part of the reason for authorities to allow some leeway. That my ownership of firearms allowed a bunch of leftist, unappreciative, spoiled kids go out and be heard in their angst and frustration is something I am proud of. As a mature member entrenched in this society, it is in my interests to want angry youth to have their say. I may not like what I hear, but I'd rather they had the chance to speak.

We tend to think of advanced economies as being similar, and in gun ownership argument, this comes up quite a bit. But only one side of the argument comes up, gun death. There is another. Freedom for minorities. Or worse, unpopular minorities. I haven't been off the continent, so I have to go off of what I have read. When it comes to the status of unpopular minorities, we can hold our heads up high. We aren't perfect, but we set the standards pretty high. This is a function of inheriting English law, and an armed populace. But let's look at those many exceptions.

Lynchings. They go back to the Reconstruction. And it was an armed white majority against unarmed blacks. The authorities didn't protect them, all they could do was protect themselves. Some did, some didn't. And it continued for a century.

But, slowly, things got a bit better in terms of material wealth. And we started sending black men into combat arms. And then, men trained to hold their heads high came back to the same places they were recruited from. It's no coincidence that the Civil Rights movement and black men in combat, and the Black Panther Party overlap as they did.

And now you think I'm just an old man rambling, but I'm coming to the point.

If you look at all the most restrictive gun laws, in Chicago, DC, NYC, California, Illinois, NY, they were all created as a reaction to black men in leather jackets walking around in public with longarms, policing the neighborhoods the cops wouldn't. I think the black Panther Party was wrong about alot of their beliefs, but their self policing policy was a reasonable reaction.

Banning firearms to keep blacks from being scary to soft city folk, not so reasonable.

Of course, they won't call it that, but their actions line up like dominos. Probably going to be contentious among the people that believe speeches, but the actions are clear.

NYC and many other cities had weapons laws early, but these tended toward just keeping the working class armed with knives. Shear cost of arms and munitions was enough to keep them out of the hands of the poor.

Serious gun control started with the national firearms act of 1934, mainly concerned with banning automatic weapons. Thompson submachine guns used to be sold through the mail. But, prohibition, and organized crime, made for a sharp uptick in extreme violence. The NFA of 1934 was the reaction. A rousing success. No more organized crime problem, right?

In the sixties, we got Black Panthers, and gun control. It's not like we didn't have crime before, or political minorities. Hell, Puerto Rican separatists shot up Congress, while in session, wounding 5 Congressmen back in the fifties. Not a blip. But armed black men walking around in the open? That couldn't fly. We talk about gun control today as being about middle aged white guys, and nutcases who shoot up schools and malls. But that's because gun grabbers have already succeeded in their primary goal of effectively disarming minorities. See what a rousing success that was?

Australia has confiscated the guns. Since, they haven't had any spree shootings. But they didn't have many before, and they missed the great recession, so we will see how that works out. But Australia was the example I was thinking about when I mentioned an advanced economy that doesn't seem to treat their minorities well. Just confining their murders to groups of 3 or less seems too low a bar for giving up the benefits of an armed society.

[nestbuilder]

@RJ

"Just confining their murders to groups of 3 or less seems too low a bar for giving up the benefits of an armed society" Wow. It is no wonder our country struggles to talk about guns when this is the starting point for some.

As I boil-down your argument, I see you suggesting American citizens should be thanking you for owning your guns because it enables our free speech? "That my ownership of firearms allowed a bunch of leftist, unappreciative, spoiled kids go out and be heard in their angst and frustration is something I am proud of." Again, wow. Guns sound downright magical in their power. Thank you for allowing me the freedom of speech - I mistakenly thought it was the First Amendment.

Additionally, you speak of the racial reality of gun control advocacy in the 1960s after your brief primer on lynching. But I do not hear you speak of the racial reality of current police and law enforcement "overreach" that continues in our modern society and I am guessing you would not suggest black men get armed up to counter the police violence they may encounter? Or the protestors at Standing Rock? I think many would argue it is safer for non-white citizens to not be armed in the face of potential "overreach" otherwise they are all the more likely to be shot. The "gun grabbers" policies of the 1960s may have been trained on non-white citizens per your account, but it is the ongoing racism that undergirds our country that makes it safer for non-white men to not have weapons in the face of that overreach.

And back to the Bundys, if that is going to be held up as why white folks should arm up, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. And it is probably worth reflecting on if you want to understand why people like me welcome restrictions on gun ownership and the types of weapons available to the public. The Bundys flagrantly broke the law for 20+ years due to their belief that the federal government/public should not own the land they grazed their cattle on. When their cattle were confiscated, a posse of armed people gathered at the cow holding pen and trained all sorts of weaponry on federal staff/law enforcement until their cows were released(and now continue to graze on those very lands illegally). I would never suggest all levels of law enforcement(and our military for that matter) do not suffer from amped up, over-confident and power-high individuals that wield weapons unjustly on American people (see history of African-Americans from slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights demonstrations through modern police violence or history of Native Americans from first contact, most contact, Wounded Knee to the present). But I do not think the Bundy drama is the best example of "overreach" for many Americans and if that is the drum that gets beat to justify unfettered access to guns, well, that argument will fall flat for many of us. Perhaps reviewing the secession and armed resistance of the South in the face of government overreach?...oh wait, that example may not be so good either.

The benefits of an armed society are not experienced the same by everyone. And I would question the assumption/speculation that free speech or as JP suggested earlier, Trumpsters victory, are somehow more safeguarded by ubiquitous arms in our society. It seems rather presumptuous and righteous and overreaching a bit.

[George the original one]

So what's the difference between an armed populace revolting against a government and a lynch party or death squad?

[Tyler9000]

As for whether we should just DO SOMETHING already about gun control, the Washington Post did an impresisvely thorough analysis of whether proposed gun legislation would have prevented any mass shootings since 2012. Spoiler alert -- it would have had no effect.

Gun violence is a complicated issue with no easy answers.

[BRUTE]

So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?

28 human lives per year as insurance against government tyranny?

seems like a fair price.

brute doesn't own or regularly shoot any guns, but the arguments from the Blue Team are just so bad that he constantly finds himself arguing for the Red side.

again, 28 lives per year in mass shootings. humans arguing about "assault rifles" (in fact, using that term) prove that they're disingenuous. that's not even a weekend in Chicago, and those gun deaths are mostly small arms fire between black gang members.

Blue Team members might not realize this, but they sound like Creationists when they talk about something they don't understand but have really strong feelings for. not even wrong, just not fit for the adult table.

[nestbuilder]

Yes @Brute. And suggesting more guns are the answer, or not talking about guns, or boogeyman talk about big government, or failing to act on bump-stocks or dismantling the meager mental health gun reform seem perfectly rational and big boy. This is not blue versus red and feeding that narrative gets us nowhere. And I would like you to tell those kids from Parkland making their voices heard they "sound like Creationists when they talk about something they don't understand but have really strong feelings for. not even wrong, just not fit for the adult table."

And @T9000 of course it is more complicated. So citing a WP assessment about mass shootings and anemic proposals for assault weapons bans for the years 2012-2015 based on a 2015 quote by Mark Rubio does not add to a more complicated conversation if it is used only to argue that "see - no effect". Gun violence in our country is complex, it is not only mass shootings, and has a long history. When we are not willing to allow proper study, much less have a discussion or call folks childish for talking "about something they don't understand" well, it is hard to have much hope.

[Riggerjack]

But I do not hear you speak of the racial reality of current police and law enforcement "overreach" that continues in our modern society and I am guessing you would not suggest black men get armed up to counter the police violence they may encounter? Or the protestors at Standing Rock?

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to give good advice. But in case I wasn't clear, I think the Black Panthers were right about most of what they did. The call for black separation was out there, and I never heard of even a plan for such a thing, so I think of it as a rallying cry. The Socialism movement looked a lot better 50 years ago, and all their support came from there. So I have issues with some of their ideology, but their actions were spot on. Their programs to police their own nieghorhoods, free breakfasts, community building, what's not to like about that? And yes, I think some of that could be appropriate, today. But I'm not suggesting it, because I really don't know.

As to bringing guns to a protest? That would be so stupid as to be nearly unbelievable. My mind stalls at all the ways that would go sideways.

As to the Bundy Ranch standoff, we have a whole thread on that. You seem to have some of your timeline wrong.

But as I said in that thread. I don't like the Bundy's. I didn't know or like the Weaver's or the Branch Davidians. But if they broke the law, it gets settled in court. The first two established a pattern, the third broke that pattern, and hopefully removed "show up in overwhelming force and kill em all." from the federal playbook. As a demonstration the good firearms can do in private hands, it couldn't be better.

So if you are asking me if I think more guns in more black homes would be a good thing, yes, I do. If you are asking me if I think anyone should be allowed to walk or drive around in public with a gun, I do. But if you are asking if I would advise anyone to walk or drive around with a gun, no, I wouldn't.

[Campitor]

So what's the difference between an armed populace revolting against a government and a lynch party or death squad?

It has been said that the difference between a rebel and a patriot is who wins and gets to write the history books. Having said that, I believe their are qualitative differences IF sober, deliberate, and sincere efforts have been made to find peaceful and lawful resolutions to persistent infractions to our civil liberties and essential freedoms. Lynch mobs and death squads are typically associated with bigotry or irrational political justifications of murder - neither have any place in the sober, deliberate, and collaborative decision to overthrow a despotic government.

[nestbuilder]

@RJ "As to bringing guns to a protest? That would be so stupid as to be nearly unbelievable. My mind stalls at all the ways that would go sideways.

As to the Bundy Ranch standoff, we have a whole thread on that. You seem to have some of your timeline wrong."

The Bundy Ranch protesters and then subsequent Bundy Malheur protesters most definitely showed up with all sorts of firearms for their protest. FYI. To pull together the Bundy protests/Sagebrush Rebellion and get a bigger picture I recommend: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film ... overnment/

Plenty of video that speaks for itself.

And again, if you and others want to hang your hat on the Bundys as justification for widespread and unlimited arming of our populace, just know many Americans will fail to appreciate any reasonable connection, much less value, to that.

[jacob]

https://i0.wp.com/www.lostrepublic.us/b ... upWMeA.png
World map of homicide mortality (# per year per 100k) divided at the state/amt level.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... te-red.svg
Same but averaged over countries.

Perspective:
Traffic mortality in the US is ~16.
Diabetes mortality in the US is ~24 (state numbers)
Cancer mortality in the US is ~175+

[Campitor]

And again, if you and others want to hang your hat on the Bundys as justification for widespread and unlimited arming of our populace, just know many Americans will fail to appreciate any reasonable connection, much less value, to that.

My take on RJ's words in regards to Bundy was different that your perception NB. I took it as an example of how armed civilians, regardless the poor justification for the use of force against government, were able to give armed Federal Agents pause in the execution of their duties. It's proof that armed civilians can prevent Government seizure of items or rights that a sizable group of civilians put significant value on. Having said that, I believe Bundy has no more right to graze his cattle on that land than I have the right to build an amusement park on it without due process and permitting.

[BRUTE]

And I would like you to tell those kids from Parkland making their voices heard they "sound like Creationists when they talk about something they don't understand but have really strong feelings for. not even wrong, just not fit for the adult table."

emotional brute says:

again, there is no problem, only emotional outrage. 28 deaths per year might be tragic, but nothing compared to car deaths, overdoses, diabetes deaths, cardiac arrest, unfastened furniture falling on top of humans, parents accidentally drowning their human children, and so on. even among gun deaths, active shooter scenarios are a rounding error.

empathizing brute says:

brute understands that innocent human deaths, especially of cute white children, gets humans riled up. brute would also prefer that, all else being equal, those children were alive. but all else is not equal. there have been no proposals of gun legislation that would actually prevent many of these active shooter scenarios.

many of the active shooters were already theoretically prevented by existing legislation but failed on a logistical/administrative level, e.g. the church shooting recently or this one. the FBI had been warned numerous times, but failed to pass on information to the relevant field offices and agents. this was a failure not of legislation, but of implementation.

emotional brute says:

it sounds nice to say that a human life is priceless, but it's not true. humans trade risk of death against other tradeoffs all the time - by driving cars, working construction, smoking, eating sugar, crossing the road.

if the tradeoff is 28 innocent lives vs. denying 100 million humans a basic right, a hobby, setting a dangerous constitutional precedent, losing a vital part of US culture, potentially risking government tyranny, plus the cost of confiscating 300 million weapons in the hands of existing humans, plus the risk of loss of life and property from law-abiding citizens no longer being able to defend said life and property when government oversight fails.. brute is willing to make that tradeoff. and apparently, so are millions of humans.

[ThisDinosaur]

there have been no proposals of gun legislation that would actually prevent many of these active shooter scenarios.

You cannot be a solitary shooter at your club because when your FAC exam comes up two years in, the authorities come to your club and interview multiple members of the club about how they feel about you. They have to be members in good standing and possibly FAC as well. So there is a significant investment of time and social capital. You have to be serious about wanting to get through the FAC. Then, the next step (among others) is the coppers visit your home for tea and biscuits. They interview you in your home. The magazines said they are looking for tidiness, your gun locker and how you handle yourself - and any sign of sketchyness. As draconian as this is, it weeds out only the most serious players. Once you attain FAC you have a big time and social capital investment that any sane person would not want to discard over misbehavior. Like you have a domestic disturbance call you lose your FAC.

Sounds like a good start. I'll say again, the fact that gun ownership is an "inalienable right" instead of a "privilege" like a driver's license is a problem. Not to derail the thread too much, but one argument I've heard in favor of stronger gun laws is that the phrase "keep and bear arms" does not imply ownership.

[BRUTE]

practically speaking, what would happen to the roughly 300 million firearms currently in circulation? would all firearm owners be grandfathered into one of those clubs? who would run them? currently, the closest thing seems to be the NRA. if nobody would be grandfathered in, what percentage of guns would likely be handed in? brute has heard that after the gun ban in Australia in the late 90s, only around 30% of guns were handed in.