6 ms·

Cat's out of the bag on this one. You will never get all the guns back, not without running a very real risk of instigating civil war. Ms. Jackson Lee thinks t

• rolph 3y ago
  Its the fomentation of hate, fear, and protracted power struggles.
• outside1234 3y ago
  The good news is that guns are made of metal and metal rusts. So outlaw the military weapons and replacement parts and wait.
  • mech765 3y ago
    World war one rifles coated in cosmoline are just as ready to shoot today as when they were stored in a barrel 100 years ago. Take a look at the availability of the mosin nagant rifle.
  • linksnapzz 3y ago
    Clearly, the technology for making things out of ...ferrous metals...is beyond the ken of ...Americans.
    • tehwebguy 3y ago
      So we get manufacturing back in the US. Win-win!
  • rolph 3y ago
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license... https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/making-guns.htm https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/making-guns.ht... https://interestingengineering.com/video/guns-factory https://interestingengineering.com/video/guns-factory
  • Ancapistani 3y ago
    FYI: there's a pistol sitting on my desk in front of me, right now, that I had disassembled last night to thoroughly inspect and clean. It was made in 1909. That 114-year-old pistol is not only still functional, the only way you could tell it wasn't factory-new when I bought it a few years ago was that the black hard rubber grips were starting to turn a little brown at the edges, and the nickel finish was discolored in a few places on the slide. I've since restored the grips and carefully polished the finish to correct those two points. Off the top of my head, I have at least two shotguns, one pistol, and four rifles that have been in my family for >100 years. One of those rifles is so old that I'm unsure who first acquired it. It's a "Pennsylvania long rifle". Made long before serial numbers were "a thing", I'd date it to about 1820 based on the style. I know my great-great-grandfather had it, because I have a photograph of him using it as an old man in the early 1900s.
• andrewstuart2 3y ago
  If you want to use firearms for any purpose, you probably go to the place where firearms flow like milk and honey.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• mindslight 3y ago
  It doesn't seem like criminals per se (apart from murders by highly organized crime), but rather people with severe mental health problems. Mental health problems that are seemingly due to mainlining social media memes telling them everyone is out to get them, which have been given a pass due to standing in for real political discourse. For example by the time someone is answering their front door with a gun and pointing it at whomever is there, it's clear that person is suffering from a paranoia that should make them ineligible to possess firearms. And this should be policed by other gun owners! But it's been drawn into this culture war where if we admit that Crazy Bob perhaps shouldn't have guns, then the "liberals" win or whatever.
  • igetspam 3y ago
    Do you have evidence for that because psychologists disagree with you. But let's pretend they don't. I'm all for universal mental health care. How does that help? What can we do to curtail gun violence, if we take the stance that it's a mental health issue? Evaluate everyone before letting them buy guns? Sold! Hell, I'll give mine back (after I've damaged them beyond use so no one can have them in the future). We can play "Is it mental health?" all day but even if it is and we're going through a period of collective psychosis, I don't see how addressing mental health could ever really help here.
    • mindslight 3y ago
      Evidence for what, specifically? It's pretty obvious that society is having a major mental health crisis, likely caused by social media, and this isn't particularly controversial when talked about in any other context. But in this context, the groupthink of one political tribe is to focus on extremist solutions about the tools themselves as part of the culture war, all but guaranteeing that nothing will really change. And yes, I specifically said that mental illness should make you ineligible to possess firearms (isn't this already federal law or am I getting it confused with state laws?). There likely needs to be more implementation details to make this restriction actually effective. And there needs to be buy in from actual gun owners to police their own communities, rather than it being seen as more top-down nanny state regulations to be ignored. This used to be part of common sense, but especially with the rise of social media, it isn't so common any more.
• GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  > very real risk of instigating civil war. Doubtful. Especially considering the American Civil war was started by wealthy land owners, but fought by the poorest conscripted Southerners. I don't really think Americans are willing to give up their extremely consumerist lives to fight and potentially die over what is essentially a hobby to most. Of course it's a convenient narrative: that Americans would take up arms in a glorious battle to defend the Second Amendment. But, ultimately it's a marketing tactic pushed by gun manufacturers, a scare tactic to get people to buy up excess inventory before the next capital 'D' Democrat takes office.
  • giantg2 3y ago
    What these people are missing is that it's not just consumers that would be involved. We can already see how law enforcement is split on the issue when you look at how many rural sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun laws as they are enacted in various states. This is an issue that has a strong urban/rural divide, which means there are people in all manner of roles that could be on either side. And yes, some companies or people take advantage of that, just as other do from reporting on mass shootings while largely ignoring the everyday shootings that pose a bigger threat.
  • Ancapistani 3y ago
    > I don't really think Americans are willing to give up their extremely consumerist lives to fight and potentially die over what is essentially a hobby to most. I strongly disagree with the characterization that firearms are a "hobby to most". That might have been the case as recently as the 1980s, but the push for gun control in the 1990s, culminating in the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, galvanized gun owners. I believe that a comfortable majority of gun owners today see through a political lens, not as a hobby. There's a reason the AR-15 became so prominent so quickly: they were (ineffectively) banned in 1994. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, they flew off the shelves. They became symbols of the resistance to gun control, to the point that they acquired the nickname "America's Rifle". Now consider that in 1994, there were far, far fewer ARs in citizens' hands and a gun culture that was largely oriented around hunting. In 2023, American gun culture is firmly rooted in political activism.
• jimmytidey 3y ago
  A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind: 1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime. 2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result. I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.
  • giantg2 3y ago
    "Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference." If it is a tiny bit of friction, then SCOTUS would likely allow it. If not, it could be struck down. But what tiny bit of friction is being proposed that will have an impact on homicides? It seems your argument is that reducing the number of guns will reduce shootings and that we can reduce them with "a tiny bit of friction". But the courts are generally holding that if the restrictions prevent qualified individuals from obtaining a gun, then it is not a tiny bit of friction, but an infringement on rights. It seems these are incompatible.
  • Ancapistani 3y ago
    > Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify, or register them they will each carry the same penalty as if I had manufactured machineguns in - checks calendar - 22 days. Oh, and the registration process requires me to sign a statement indicating that I have committed a felony. The ATF has promised not to prosecute me for it, but... well, forgive me if I don't trust the ATF. This is not the first time I've had hundreds or thousands of dollars of my legally-acquired property declared retroactively illegal. I'd love "a tiny bit of friction", because this is ridiculous.
• WillPostForFood 3y ago
  Why's Texas have so many criminals Texas isn't an outlier in crime. It ranks 21st in murder rate . 84% of the population is urban (15th most urban state). Dallas and Houston are the 4th and 5th largest metro areas in the country, and struggle with the same crime problem as other big metros like New York, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta.
  • igetspam 3y ago
    Is that right? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-violence-republican-states-rural-b2129435.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-violen...
    • WillPostForFood 3y ago
      Yes, the article is combining suicide and murder to come up with a combined "gun violence" metric. It is not a relevant statistic when talking about crime specifically.
      • igetspam 3y ago
        Technically suicide is a crime and shooting yourself with a gun is a violent act, so... Seems about right
        • WillPostForFood 3y ago
          Technically suicide is a crime No it isn't, not in any of the 50 states is it a crime.
• throwawaysleep 3y ago
  You can slowly kill the gun culture over generations, both through legal restrictions and social ostracism of gun owners. Happy that my home country of Canada is becoming ever more anti gun.
  • Ancapistani 3y ago
    Statistics show that laws have had the opposite effect in the US - they've fostered an anti-authoritarian cause that has become by far the dominant meme in gun culture.
• stepbeek 3y ago
  Didn’t Australia do this? Or are you saying that the US is unique in gun culture? Not rhetorical, I’m genuinely interested.
• birdyrooster 3y ago
  I am far less free now that there are daily mass shootings. Me and millions of people stay in their homes and never go to populated places. It sucks and I would be willing to go to a deeper level of hell if it meant undoing these shackles.
  • igetspam 3y ago
    You didn't say if you have kids or not but as a parent, those worries are multiplied. There are lots of things we won't do because of the additional risk. The terrorists (white nationalists, red pills, etc) are winning.
• igetspam 3y ago
  Sorry, clarifying questions: Are you saying Texas has more criminals? And would that apply to red states in general, as they have the most mass shootings?
• giardini 3y ago
  branon asks: "Why's Texas have so many criminals willing to use firearms for evil?" What kind of a question is that? Have you ever heard of a criminal who was willing to use firearms for good? If you were in a "Criminals' Bar" and said what you say above, they would laugh you out of the room! The very definition of a criminal requires that s(he) do evil, their very reputations ride upon how evil/badass they are perceived. I, for one, am glad to see the broad acceptance of firearms in society. They bring with them a protocol that is commonly known, demands respect (under risk of death) and that encourages the adoption of etiquette (good manners), which is a necessity in a civil society. But while firearms keep our society safe, there is a price to pay. It's a sort of tax on society: you don't want it but it is necessary. Back to the original question: FWIW if you're a criminal, you'll get more laughs than money by beating someone with say, a shovel or a rake (as long as you don't overdo it). But you can't make decent money in stand-up comedy these days either. Soooo... In all seriousness fighting is a physically demanding task, especially if it is necessary to survive each encounter. One seeks a tool that will maximize the harvest at least risk and least effort. The firearm comes immediately to mind. For good reason the Colt .45 revolver was call the "Great Equalizer": https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/the-story-of-how-samuel-colt-made-men-equal/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/the-story-of-how-samuel... The same Colt .45 revolver was called the "Peacemaker". Finally, the more people, the more incidents of crime and thus more criminals. Texas is a growing state. For more details on crime growth maybe ask Joe Biden?