8 ms·

FYI we didn't "confiscate" them. It was a buyback for any guns you didn't register. I am anti guns. But after living in the US for more than a decade I acknowle

FYI we didn't "confiscate" them. It was a buyback for any guns you didn't register. I am anti guns. But after living in the US for more than a decade I acknowledge a mandatory buyback program wouldn't work here. For idealogical, practical and economic reasons. The USA is the largest manufacturer of guns in the world. And the domestic market is important to their business. In Australia we don't manufacture guns, so it's easy for us to say no more gun imports. If people in the US want their guns, then whatever. But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. We must acknowledge that all guns are not created equal. Some guns can kill more in a shorter period than others. If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter then why can't we go buy tomahawk missiles or a tactical nuke. Personally I'd like an M1 Abrams Tank for self defense.

spicyusername 4y ago
> But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. It's frustrating how small and simple of a step this could be but how unlikely a small, vocal, and politically active minority of American's are to it.
- treesknees 4y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws that restrict gun ownership. I think the truth is it's not a minority.
  - darknavi 4y ago
    > If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws Have week been watching the same government for the last 6 years?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    It may be a minority, but probably not a small one. The question then becomes about what restrictions would be found to be constitutional while being effective (and defining which specific part of the issue we're trying to fix). It's an interesting lead-in to the larger topic of when a majority should restrict the freedoms/rights of a minority and how that plays out - whether talking about guns or abortion, etc.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > I think the truth is it's not a minority. Survey data says otherwise: > 1. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2021. * https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a... So only 30% of people own guns, but if a family member was the one asked for the survey then we have 40% of households. <50% either way, so a minority. Further: > 5. Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, according to the Center’s April 2021 survey. Smaller shares say these laws are about right (32%) or should be less strict (14%). The share of Americans who say gun laws should be stricter has decreased from 60% in September 2019. Current opinions are in line with what they were in March 2017.
    - sparrish 4y ago
      Most gun owners I know are not going to tell you they have guns - in a survey or otherwise.
    - true_religion 4y ago
      The question isn’t if gun owners are a minority, but rather if people unwilling to restrict gun owners are a minority. For better or worse, people who don’t own guns and have no intention of getting a gun soon still don’t want to limit gun owners or limit their opportunity to own guns themselves. Yes, gun control is the “easy” solution to gun crime but instead we have chosen the hard and painful solution because the easy way offends our core values. That’s an okay decision to make in a democracy, and different democracies can choose different ways. It’s not crazy. Furthermore gun laws are getting stricter all the time, just simply to the point where it matches counties like the UK.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  lobbyists for gun makers?
- sanjiwatsuki 4y ago
  This is one of the interesting parts of gun control legislation. It often polls well in isolation but massively under-performs when it's a ballot initiative, even when the gun control side spends substantially more.
chipsa 4y ago
It is not easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license (in part because you need that driver's license, and partly because driver's licenses are really freaking easy to get).
- chucksta 4y ago
  There are other official forms of identification such as state ID which is the equivalent of a drivers license
- coenhyde 4y ago
  I'm not aware of any tests you are required to pass before you can have a firearm license. A driving test verifies if you are capable of driving a car. There should be gun safety and psych tests to verify you are capable and of sound mind for a gun.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > It is not easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license Well: "Only in Texas: Lubbock jeweler offers free gun with engagement ring purchase" * https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/10/25/only-in-texas-lubbock-jeweler-offers-free-gun-with-engagement-ring-purchase/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/10/25/only-in-tex... Can I get a driving license with an engagement ring? Perhaps I can get a driver's license, instead of a toy, in a box of Cracker Jack® candy? And not just Texas, Iowa: * https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shotgun-wedding-buy-engagement-ring-free-gun-184529691.html https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shotgun-wedding-buy-en... Edit: Also, see New Hampshire (aka "New England's Texas"): > In New Hampshire, the process for buying a gun is easy — easier than getting a driver’s license. > You go to a gun store, you show your ID, and if you pass a background check that looks at your criminal record and some of your mental health history, you can walk out with a firearm. No training required. No registration of the gun. In the great majority of cases, not even a waiting period. > Still sound arduous? Well, there’s a workaround: Private sellers — say, a family member or someone online — can sell you a gun without any background check at all. * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
giantg2 4y ago
"It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license." Why not? Cars claim more lives and are inherently more dangerous due to kinetic energy vs potential energy - essentially you're more likely to kill someone with your car than your gun because it takes active attention and constant decisions to control the kinetic energy of your vehicle. Frankly, we should be focusing on improving testing for drivers licenses to save lives. We are abysmal compared to most other developed nations. Purchasing firearms is already regulated to varying degrees based on state. What restrictions are you proposing? "If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter" It's about where to draw the line of the lethality of weapons allowed. Under the current laws there are a variety of restrictions/laws, but essentially non-automatic centerfire arms 50 cal and under is where that line is drawn. That could be redrawn again, but there would need to be discussion about where the new line would be and why. And the real reason I wanted to comment but got caught up in those other replies... didn't the buyback miss a lot of weapons? I heard from a friend who lived over there for a while that many in the rural areas ignored the buy back and illegal guns are fairly common if you know where to look.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > Cars claim more lives and are inherently more dangerous due to kinetic energy vs potential energy There are much larger targets then, like tobacco. But human lives are not just about statistics, it’s not as “easy” as optimizing a program where touching anything other than the hot loop is pretty much meaningless. Guns have a huge psychological effect - the quite large number of school shootings, while may not be that significant from a purely statistical view in number of deaths, are a constant stress factor for every children and parent (which by the way may itself have plenty of negative effects). Frankly, it is ridiculous that there is a market opening for bullet-proof backpacks viewing it from Europe. Nonetheless, I have to agree that the USA’s gun problem can’t be solved easily due to the insane amount of already circulating guns. But their amount should be decreased over a long period and then the issue might be ripe for a solution somewhere down the road.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    If it's really the stress of a rare event occurring, then shouldn't we be addressing the misperception around that risk? For myself, I never worried about that, and neither did my classmates. I don't worry about that now as a parent either.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. If people actually proposed laws that did that, we could have a real discussion about that. But instead, we get bills that are about outlawing guns that look scary. That's pointless. The pro-gun people (rightly, IMO) refuse to accept limitations that won't serve the stated purpose.
- WkndTriathlete 4y ago
  It's my understanding that it is already nearly impossible to purchase weapons that can cause outsized damage. Three factors contribute to "outsized damage": mass of the bullet and load of the cartridge/shell, which mostly determines the total kinetic energy (colloquially called "stopping power") delivered to the target; rate of fire; and distance to target. Assuming we agree that sport shooting and hunting are legitimate purposes for the use of firearms: - The "stopping power" on the bullets sold really cannot be reduced. Large game targets such as deer and wild boar require much higher stopping power than are required to stop a human. - Distance to target: since this is situational there really isn't much that legislation will help. - Rate of fire: firearms are _made_ as single-action (bolt/lever/switch), semi-auto, and burst-fire/full-auto, with the latter only available to the military (and maybe SWAT units.) Most rifles and shotguns used for hunting are single-action. Pistols are usually semi-auto, which has legitimate sport-/trick-shooting purposes as well as being useful for scaring off smaller predators while out hunting (wolf, wildcat, maybe bear, etc.) If I recall correctly full-auto weapons are already illegal. That leaves semi-auto rifles. I'm a little skeptical on the utility of semi-auto rifles for hunting, but larger game might require several quick shots with the right stopping power to bring down (again, wild boar fit this.) Maybe there is a little legislation that can happen here to limit the availability of semi-auto AR-15s to target/sport shooters or specific hunters, but it's hard to imagine carving out legislation specifically for that. But when it comes down to it, there's not really a great way to prevent a quiet, lone-wolf type killer. A shotgun and pistol in close quarters will do as much or greater damage than a pair of AR-15s, and both shotgun and pistol have legitimate uses. What I personally think is a better solution is to write legislation that adds responsibility to gun ownership. Firearms should be locked in a secure safe when not in use and access to the safe should be closely monitored by the owner of those firearms. Immediate action should be taken by the owner to report any unauthorized access, or access by an authorized person who is suspected to be suffering some mental health issues, to the police. Failure to secure firearms or to report unauthorized access in a timely fashion when said firearms are used to commit a crime should result in the firearm owner being at least partly culpable for those crimes. Owner culpability won't solve all mass shootings, but it should start to eliminate some of the culture of callous disregard for human safety that some families seem to exhibit when it comes to handling firearms.
theshrike79 4y ago
My favourite bit of trivia about American gun ownership is this: All records are kept ON PAPER. The gun lobby has successfully lobbied that electronic records with easy searching would somehow infringe on people's rights. https://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced https://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-gu...

spicyusername 4y ago

> But can we at least apply some degree of responsibility? It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license. And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. It's frustrating how small and simple of a step this could be but how unlikely a small, vocal, and politically active minority of American's are to it.

treesknees 4y ago
I'm not so sure about that. If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws that restrict gun ownership. I think the truth is it's not a minority.
- darknavi 4y ago
  > If it's such a minority as you claim, then there should be no problem with passing laws Have week been watching the same government for the last 6 years?
- giantg2 4y ago
  It may be a minority, but probably not a small one. The question then becomes about what restrictions would be found to be constitutional while being effective (and defining which specific part of the issue we're trying to fix). It's an interesting lead-in to the larger topic of when a majority should restrict the freedoms/rights of a minority and how that plays out - whether talking about guns or abortion, etc.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > I think the truth is it's not a minority. Survey data says otherwise: > 1. Four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2021. * https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-a... So only 30% of people own guns, but if a family member was the one asked for the survey then we have 40% of households. <50% either way, so a minority. Further: > 5. Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, according to the Center’s April 2021 survey. Smaller shares say these laws are about right (32%) or should be less strict (14%). The share of Americans who say gun laws should be stricter has decreased from 60% in September 2019. Current opinions are in line with what they were in March 2017.
  - sparrish 4y ago
    Most gun owners I know are not going to tell you they have guns - in a survey or otherwise.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    The question isn’t if gun owners are a minority, but rather if people unwilling to restrict gun owners are a minority. For better or worse, people who don’t own guns and have no intention of getting a gun soon still don’t want to limit gun owners or limit their opportunity to own guns themselves. Yes, gun control is the “easy” solution to gun crime but instead we have chosen the hard and painful solution because the easy way offends our core values. That’s an okay decision to make in a democracy, and different democracies can choose different ways. It’s not crazy. Furthermore gun laws are getting stricter all the time, just simply to the point where it matches counties like the UK.
sharemywin 4y ago
lobbyists for gun makers?
sanjiwatsuki 4y ago
This is one of the interesting parts of gun control legislation. It often polls well in isolation but massively under-performs when it's a ballot initiative, even when the gun control side spends substantially more.

chipsa 4y ago

It is not easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license (in part because you need that driver's license, and partly because driver's licenses are really freaking easy to get).

chucksta 4y ago
There are other official forms of identification such as state ID which is the equivalent of a drivers license
coenhyde 4y ago
I'm not aware of any tests you are required to pass before you can have a firearm license. A driving test verifies if you are capable of driving a car. There should be gun safety and psych tests to verify you are capable and of sound mind for a gun.
throw0101a 4y ago
> It is not easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license Well: "Only in Texas: Lubbock jeweler offers free gun with engagement ring purchase" * https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/10/25/only-in-texas-lubbock-jeweler-offers-free-gun-with-engagement-ring-purchase/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/10/25/only-in-tex... Can I get a driving license with an engagement ring? Perhaps I can get a driver's license, instead of a toy, in a box of Cracker Jack® candy? And not just Texas, Iowa: * https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shotgun-wedding-buy-engagement-ring-free-gun-184529691.html https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/shotgun-wedding-buy-en... Edit: Also, see New Hampshire (aka "New England's Texas"): > In New Hampshire, the process for buying a gun is easy — easier than getting a driver’s license. > You go to a gun store, you show your ID, and if you pass a background check that looks at your criminal record and some of your mental health history, you can walk out with a firearm. No training required. No registration of the gun. In the great majority of cases, not even a waiting period. > Still sound arduous? Well, there’s a workaround: Private sellers — say, a family member or someone online — can sell you a gun without any background check at all. * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...

giantg2 4y ago

"It should not be easier to buy a gun than get drivers license." Why not? Cars claim more lives and are inherently more dangerous due to kinetic energy vs potential energy - essentially you're more likely to kill someone with your car than your gun because it takes active attention and constant decisions to control the kinetic energy of your vehicle. Frankly, we should be focusing on improving testing for drivers licenses to save lives. We are abysmal compared to most other developed nations. Purchasing firearms is already regulated to varying degrees based on state. What restrictions are you proposing? "If the lethality of a weapon doesn't matter" It's about where to draw the line of the lethality of weapons allowed. Under the current laws there are a variety of restrictions/laws, but essentially non-automatic centerfire arms 50 cal and under is where that line is drawn. That could be redrawn again, but there would need to be discussion about where the new line would be and why. And the real reason I wanted to comment but got caught up in those other replies... didn't the buyback miss a lot of weapons? I heard from a friend who lived over there for a while that many in the rural areas ignored the buy back and illegal guns are fairly common if you know where to look.

kaba0 4y ago
> Cars claim more lives and are inherently more dangerous due to kinetic energy vs potential energy There are much larger targets then, like tobacco. But human lives are not just about statistics, it’s not as “easy” as optimizing a program where touching anything other than the hot loop is pretty much meaningless. Guns have a huge psychological effect - the quite large number of school shootings, while may not be that significant from a purely statistical view in number of deaths, are a constant stress factor for every children and parent (which by the way may itself have plenty of negative effects). Frankly, it is ridiculous that there is a market opening for bullet-proof backpacks viewing it from Europe. Nonetheless, I have to agree that the USA’s gun problem can’t be solved easily due to the insane amount of already circulating guns. But their amount should be decreased over a long period and then the issue might be ripe for a solution somewhere down the road.
- giantg2 4y ago
  If it's really the stress of a rare event occurring, then shouldn't we be addressing the misperception around that risk? For myself, I never worried about that, and neither did my classmates. I don't worry about that now as a parent either.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> And make it difficult to get weapons which can cause outsized damage. If people actually proposed laws that did that, we could have a real discussion about that. But instead, we get bills that are about outlawing guns that look scary. That's pointless. The pro-gun people (rightly, IMO) refuse to accept limitations that won't serve the stated purpose.

WkndTriathlete 4y ago
It's my understanding that it is already nearly impossible to purchase weapons that can cause outsized damage. Three factors contribute to "outsized damage": mass of the bullet and load of the cartridge/shell, which mostly determines the total kinetic energy (colloquially called "stopping power") delivered to the target; rate of fire; and distance to target. Assuming we agree that sport shooting and hunting are legitimate purposes for the use of firearms: - The "stopping power" on the bullets sold really cannot be reduced. Large game targets such as deer and wild boar require much higher stopping power than are required to stop a human. - Distance to target: since this is situational there really isn't much that legislation will help. - Rate of fire: firearms are _made_ as single-action (bolt/lever/switch), semi-auto, and burst-fire/full-auto, with the latter only available to the military (and maybe SWAT units.) Most rifles and shotguns used for hunting are single-action. Pistols are usually semi-auto, which has legitimate sport-/trick-shooting purposes as well as being useful for scaring off smaller predators while out hunting (wolf, wildcat, maybe bear, etc.) If I recall correctly full-auto weapons are already illegal. That leaves semi-auto rifles. I'm a little skeptical on the utility of semi-auto rifles for hunting, but larger game might require several quick shots with the right stopping power to bring down (again, wild boar fit this.) Maybe there is a little legislation that can happen here to limit the availability of semi-auto AR-15s to target/sport shooters or specific hunters, but it's hard to imagine carving out legislation specifically for that. But when it comes down to it, there's not really a great way to prevent a quiet, lone-wolf type killer. A shotgun and pistol in close quarters will do as much or greater damage than a pair of AR-15s, and both shotgun and pistol have legitimate uses. What I personally think is a better solution is to write legislation that adds responsibility to gun ownership. Firearms should be locked in a secure safe when not in use and access to the safe should be closely monitored by the owner of those firearms. Immediate action should be taken by the owner to report any unauthorized access, or access by an authorized person who is suspected to be suffering some mental health issues, to the police. Failure to secure firearms or to report unauthorized access in a timely fashion when said firearms are used to commit a crime should result in the firearm owner being at least partly culpable for those crimes. Owner culpability won't solve all mass shootings, but it should start to eliminate some of the culture of callous disregard for human safety that some families seem to exhibit when it comes to handling firearms.

theshrike79 4y ago

My favourite bit of trivia about American gun ownership is this: All records are kept ON PAPER. The gun lobby has successfully lobbied that electronic records with easy searching would somehow infringe on people's rights. https://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced https://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-gu...