4 ms·

> There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. We've seen it time and time again. What makes you say this? Even in heavy gun control countries,

> There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. We've seen it time and time again. What makes you say this? Even in heavy gun control countries, some forms of shooting (e.g. pest control, hunting, target) and gun ownership are still generally legal. Exactly what gets made legal and illegal is precisely what is being debated, but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. I think a compromise is exactly what everyone wants.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. Haven't some heavy gun control regimes in the US ended up as de-facto total bans? IIRC, one city "allowed" legal gun ownership (or maybe just legal handgun ownership), but it required police approval, which was almost never granted.
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  You've mostly described NYC's approach to concealed carry permits. But it's quite possible for a NYC resident to get permission to legally own a gun, use it at a shooting range, hunt with it, and have it available at home for self defense.
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    Also California - while some rural counties are effectively "shall issue" the most populous counties are "may issue."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
namlem 9y ago
The unfortunate reality is that there is a complete cultural disconnect where many people genuinely cannot fathom that guns have some legitimate purposes and have in their minds that a near total gun ban is a reasonable idea. Then you have the less extreme group that wants to ban all guns and gun accessories that aren't purely utilitarian. These tend to be the same kinds of folks that support bans on fireworks. The anti-gun side are far too eager to hold up extreme examples like Australia, Japan, and the UK as their ideal, rather than more moderate countries like Germany or New Zealand. There is no evidence to support that the highly restrictive gun control policies of the former countries make them any more safe than the moderately restrictive policies of the latter countries.

Chaebixi 9y ago

> but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. Haven't some heavy gun control regimes in the US ended up as de-facto total bans? IIRC, one city "allowed" legal gun ownership (or maybe just legal handgun ownership), but it required police approval, which was almost never granted.

jkaplowitz 9y ago
You've mostly described NYC's approach to concealed carry permits. But it's quite possible for a NYC resident to get permission to legally own a gun, use it at a shooting range, hunt with it, and have it available at home for self defense.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  Also California - while some rural counties are effectively "shall issue" the most populous counties are "may issue."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

namlem 9y ago

The unfortunate reality is that there is a complete cultural disconnect where many people genuinely cannot fathom that guns have some legitimate purposes and have in their minds that a near total gun ban is a reasonable idea. Then you have the less extreme group that wants to ban all guns and gun accessories that aren't purely utilitarian. These tend to be the same kinds of folks that support bans on fireworks. The anti-gun side are far too eager to hold up extreme examples like Australia, Japan, and the UK as their ideal, rather than more moderate countries like Germany or New Zealand. There is no evidence to support that the highly restrictive gun control policies of the former countries make them any more safe than the moderately restrictive policies of the latter countries.