5 ms·

I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people do

I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.

rcpt 1y ago
A lot of stuff would not happen if it took a little more effort. Giving people some extra time to second guess themselves is a big deal.
- artificialLimbs 1y ago
  This problem didn't happen in the 50s and 60s, when people brought their guns to school for funsies.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    Actually it did, just without so much press.
danpalmer 1y ago
I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now. Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK. Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did. Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
- hn_acc1 1y ago
  [flagged]
- grier 1y ago
  I live in the US. I don't hold much hope in gun control changing after recent years. Recent federal and state policy is trending towards less regulation and removal of the previous administrations regulations. In 2024, estimated 16,576 deaths in the US from guns (excluding suicide, which is a very large addition on top of that), and 499 mass shootings.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
artificialLimbs 1y ago
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
- koolba 1y ago
  Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
  - SideQuark 1y ago
    You should learn about the source and context of that quote. It does not mean what you think it means. For example, https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
- ryan_lane 1y ago
  The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
  - svieira 1y ago
    The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)#:~:text=In%201933%2C%20with,federal%20reserve%20force.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...
adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
[flagged]

rcpt 1y ago

A lot of stuff would not happen if it took a little more effort. Giving people some extra time to second guess themselves is a big deal.

artificialLimbs 1y ago
This problem didn't happen in the 50s and 60s, when people brought their guns to school for funsies.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  Actually it did, just without so much press.

danpalmer 1y ago

I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now. Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK. Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did. Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.

hn_acc1 1y ago
[flagged]
grier 1y ago
I live in the US. I don't hold much hope in gun control changing after recent years. Recent federal and state policy is trending towards less regulation and removal of the previous administrations regulations. In 2024, estimated 16,576 deaths in the US from guns (excluding suicide, which is a very large addition on top of that), and 499 mass shootings.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

artificialLimbs 1y ago

Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.

koolba 1y ago
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
- SideQuark 1y ago
  You should learn about the source and context of that quote. It does not mean what you think it means. For example, https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
ryan_lane 1y ago
The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
- svieira 1y ago
  The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)#:~:text=In%201933%2C%20with,federal%20reserve%20force.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...

adgjlsfhk1 1y ago

[flagged]