5 ms·

I'd guess that at least in America drinking is pretty commonly involved so anyone spending half a second thinking wouldn't have made it past alcohol+guns.

Nextgrid 4y ago
Responsible gun ownership should prevent anyone from bringing a gun in a situation where they will be drinking, or leave the gun in a safe place before staring to drink. Sadly, a lot of people in the US own guns to make a political statement and have little interest in safe & responsible gun ownership.
- sureglymop 4y ago
  Would it really be that hard to just implement some better checks/requirements for people before they are able to buy a gun? Genuinely asking. It seems it's possible to do the bare minimum for letting people drive but somehow not for letting them buy guns. I mean just a little bit of training should make sure that they know not to drink and be anywhere near their guns.. or to have their guns stored somewhere safe and e.g. unreachable by kids, etc. and not easy to grab.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    The problem is that, not having a criminal record, and other easily "testable" things, is actually NOT a good proxy for having the emotional intelligence and responsibility and CONSISTENT RIGOR to never do something even a little dangerous with a gun. In fact we see the same thing with regulation around cars. It turns out being able to parallel park is a bad proxy for someone not being stupid with a two ton machine, and plenty of licensed drivers still end up driving distracted, or using their phone, or drinking and driving AND DEFENDING IT. Humans in general are very irresponsible creatures who like to blame others for poor choices they make. Why are we so confused when it comes to guns? So many firearm related incidents involve "responsible gun owners" until, oops, turns out they weren't responsible. How do you LEGALLY VERIFY someone is permanently responsible?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    The problem in the US is the gun culture. Guns are a political statement more than a tool, and any restriction attempt in the name of safety goes directly against that statement and will just reinforce and justify more of such "statements". Checks and requirements will only go so far. People can sit through training and forget it the next day if they don't care, which they don't if they just got the gun to make a political statement. Fixing the culture so that people who have no business owning guns stop buying guns is the long-term solution. Then, the only people who will buy them are those who legitimately need them and are interested in safe & responsible firearm ownership.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    As someone on the other side of this debate, yes, it is "that hard". The US has a long history of government using "background checks" and "tests" as a form of discrimination, for example how poll tests were used to discriminate against African Americans in the South. As recently as June 2022, New York State was unconstitutionally denying gun permits to average citizens while simultaneously granting them to rich celebrities and politicians, hence the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compromise with people who continue to act in bad faith (Claim they want to improve gun safety, but really just want to ban guns).
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Never mind that the most prominent group of gun wielders, law enforcement officers, get themselves exempted from every gun control law. If we reform the police to where the average traffic or patrol cop is reliably not armed with a gun, only then would it make sense to talk about introducing restrictions on the wider civilian population. Such reform would be a mere condition of employment, and thus not involve constitutionality issues. For what it's worth, taking a gun safety course made me realize I am not the type of person that will ever strap one to my hip to go about my daily business. And I'm an avid DIYer for basically everything, but calling the police after a break-in made me understand that clearing a building is a job I will never want to do myself. It's a nuanced issue, but I know that governments must ultimately be subservient to the people, and therefore the onus is on domestic-facing institutions to disarm before asking the people as a whole to do the same.
      - no-s 4y ago
        > I am not the type of person that will ever strap one to my hip to go about my daily business. I do strap on my pistol to go about my daily business, which could mean grocery shopping, going to the bookstore, walking the dogs. I know roughly what my capabilities are and set my ROE accordingly. I did take safety courses, concealed carry course, and practice occasionally. IMHO going about armed is functionally equivalent to wearing a seatbelt. Oh, and I did have to draw my pistol just a few days ago - while walking the dogs got into a tense situation with hazardous wildlife. Fortunately backing off and shouting/barking was all we needed to do...but it doesn’t always go that way.
- bluedino 4y ago
  > Responsible gun ownership should prevent anyone from bringing a gun in a situation where they will be drinking It's illegal to posses a gun while you are under the influence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jollyllama 4y ago
    I think it depends on the state. Some prohibit drunkenness, others, you can't even be in an establishment where alcohol is served.

Nextgrid 4y ago

Responsible gun ownership should prevent anyone from bringing a gun in a situation where they will be drinking, or leave the gun in a safe place before staring to drink. Sadly, a lot of people in the US own guns to make a political statement and have little interest in safe & responsible gun ownership.

sureglymop 4y ago
Would it really be that hard to just implement some better checks/requirements for people before they are able to buy a gun? Genuinely asking. It seems it's possible to do the bare minimum for letting people drive but somehow not for letting them buy guns. I mean just a little bit of training should make sure that they know not to drink and be anywhere near their guns.. or to have their guns stored somewhere safe and e.g. unreachable by kids, etc. and not easy to grab.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The problem is that, not having a criminal record, and other easily "testable" things, is actually NOT a good proxy for having the emotional intelligence and responsibility and CONSISTENT RIGOR to never do something even a little dangerous with a gun. In fact we see the same thing with regulation around cars. It turns out being able to parallel park is a bad proxy for someone not being stupid with a two ton machine, and plenty of licensed drivers still end up driving distracted, or using their phone, or drinking and driving AND DEFENDING IT. Humans in general are very irresponsible creatures who like to blame others for poor choices they make. Why are we so confused when it comes to guns? So many firearm related incidents involve "responsible gun owners" until, oops, turns out they weren't responsible. How do you LEGALLY VERIFY someone is permanently responsible?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  The problem in the US is the gun culture. Guns are a political statement more than a tool, and any restriction attempt in the name of safety goes directly against that statement and will just reinforce and justify more of such "statements". Checks and requirements will only go so far. People can sit through training and forget it the next day if they don't care, which they don't if they just got the gun to make a political statement. Fixing the culture so that people who have no business owning guns stop buying guns is the long-term solution. Then, the only people who will buy them are those who legitimately need them and are interested in safe & responsible firearm ownership.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  As someone on the other side of this debate, yes, it is "that hard". The US has a long history of government using "background checks" and "tests" as a form of discrimination, for example how poll tests were used to discriminate against African Americans in the South. As recently as June 2022, New York State was unconstitutionally denying gun permits to average citizens while simultaneously granting them to rich celebrities and politicians, hence the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compromise with people who continue to act in bad faith (Claim they want to improve gun safety, but really just want to ban guns).
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Never mind that the most prominent group of gun wielders, law enforcement officers, get themselves exempted from every gun control law. If we reform the police to where the average traffic or patrol cop is reliably not armed with a gun, only then would it make sense to talk about introducing restrictions on the wider civilian population. Such reform would be a mere condition of employment, and thus not involve constitutionality issues. For what it's worth, taking a gun safety course made me realize I am not the type of person that will ever strap one to my hip to go about my daily business. And I'm an avid DIYer for basically everything, but calling the police after a break-in made me understand that clearing a building is a job I will never want to do myself. It's a nuanced issue, but I know that governments must ultimately be subservient to the people, and therefore the onus is on domestic-facing institutions to disarm before asking the people as a whole to do the same.
    - no-s 4y ago
      > I am not the type of person that will ever strap one to my hip to go about my daily business. I do strap on my pistol to go about my daily business, which could mean grocery shopping, going to the bookstore, walking the dogs. I know roughly what my capabilities are and set my ROE accordingly. I did take safety courses, concealed carry course, and practice occasionally. IMHO going about armed is functionally equivalent to wearing a seatbelt. Oh, and I did have to draw my pistol just a few days ago - while walking the dogs got into a tense situation with hazardous wildlife. Fortunately backing off and shouting/barking was all we needed to do...but it doesn’t always go that way.
bluedino 4y ago
> Responsible gun ownership should prevent anyone from bringing a gun in a situation where they will be drinking It's illegal to posses a gun while you are under the influence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jollyllama 4y ago
  I think it depends on the state. Some prohibit drunkenness, others, you can't even be in an establishment where alcohol is served.