Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up.
Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as soon as someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” then you know the conversation is over, and after that point it’s just a downward spiral.
Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage.
The people you are arguing with didn’t shoot and kill your family, in fact quite the opposite, if they had the chance they would probably jump at the opportunity of saving them with a firearm. You could argue whether or not they’d be effective, but it’s the thought that counts.
- Simply, guns are fun. Marksmanship is a serious sport of discipline and self-control.
- Hunting is also great recreation, is sometimes good for population control, and hunting is another reason for preserving and protecting nature.
- Self-defense. Sometimes, you need to use violence for self defense. Guns are a great way to apply violence.
- Independence. Partly, this ties in with self-defense above. Partly, this is about the government applying 'collective punishment' on all gun owners for the action of a very select few. Finally, some of this is about being able to resist a potential unjust government (i.e. the militia mentioned in the second amendment)
Now, all of these points have counter arguments. I think non of them hold up to the point of "we should keep semi-automatic weapons with 30 round magazines". But the arguments exist, and ignoring them isn't gonna help convince those that want to keep their guns.
On a purely technical level, I think the problem with the arguments you've mentioned are they don't generally stand on an even footing with the arguments against gun-ownership, except perhaps the one about self defense. Gun violence is a problem that costs lives, tears apart communities, and destroys families. For gun ownership to make sense, it needs to serve a similarly grave purpose. In that vein, only self-defense would fit the bill.
At which point, we break out the statistics - and it turns out that guns are kind of terrible for self defense. I think Americans would be better off just paying more taxes (with the money they would have spent on guns), and spending the money on police or social programs.
That said, many iconic possessions of western society are pretty horrible from a cost-benefit perspective. So I guess guns are just the most egregious.
Anyone who truly believes private citizen gun owners in the US could ever band together and overthrow the US government is deluded, at best. The US military would shut them down in record time.
On the other hand, as a reasonable, intelligent adult who reads and understands statistics, I can say without any doubt they are awful for the USA as a whole. So, just like I'd ban leaded gas, selling alcohol to ten year-olds, and driving drunk, I'd ban guns. There are many, many less harmful things to go full-libertarian on than machines designed to kill people.
The check on violent government overreach are the moral compasses of individual soldiers, peaceful protests and a free media. If we get past all of these things, no "well regulated Militia" is going to stop the U.S. Army. The best chance would be state national guards. My point here is that fully automatic fire, tanks, artillery and air support make any resistance useless. Perhaps a guerrilla war could be fought, but to someone seeking complete control fighting guerrillas is an annoyance, not an obstacle.
This is mostly because the FDA tightly restricts ownership of 'destructive devices', which are the weapons needed to fight an effective war.
What is one reasonable scenario of a thing the government may want to do, that we could stop because we have a firearm.
I have a gun, and I don't think the government really has a right to tax me for an unjust undeclared war. If I don't pay my taxes, I don't think the United States military or law enforcement cares that I may be armed.
Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point.
> Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up.
I don't think it's intellectually honest to blame it all on "anti-gun crowd", especially since we're talking about a highly heterogeneous group. It would be equally dishonest to just blame it all on "pro-gun crowd" being overly emotional and riled up by NRA.
> Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws.
I'm sure all gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, just as much as every gun-control activist is for banning all guns.
Here's an interesting question: if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws, how come this country hasn't had sensible gun control laws put in place to deal with this problem? And let's not pretend it's not a problem, either.
> Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues.
I completely agree. A rational, sober approach to these issues does not go down the path of laying blame exclusively on one side of the debate, no matter which side that is.
Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?
The 1994 assault weapons ban implemented by gun control advocates defines it as a gun with a bayonet mount on it (among other cosmetic definitions that it used).
So going by that definition, I would be curious as to why the OP wants to ban bayonet mounts.
Perhaps that is unfair but that is the literal definition that gun control advocates used!
Lets say the OP is instead talking about semi automatic weapons as at least rate of fire is a quality that a reasonable person could identify as being dangerous.
If they are talking about that, we'll then I'd like to point out that basically all weapons are semi automatic.
So that means that the OP either wants to ban bayonet mounts or wants to ban almost all guns.
Both of these positions I'd regard as ridiculous.
America is supposedly a first world developed country, not a third world undeveloped or developing one, though we are often left wondering.
If that were universally true, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths in the US. I absolutely believe that some (perhaps even many) gun owners handle their guns safely and responsibly, but the laws ensuring such safety and responsibility are few and far between and lack teeth.
> Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage.
You're attacking a straw man here. The majority of the pro gun control crowd pushes sensible restrictions and limits on firearm ownership: universal background checks, stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun, mandatory training and licensing, restrictions on ammo purchases and magazine size (notice how I'm not even mentioning "assault weapons" here). Sure, there are some (unfortunately loud) people who scream "ban all guns", which isn't productive to the discussion, but those people are in the minority. In the end, we can't even get these sensible regulations in place due to rabid groups like the NRA that spread FUD and whip their constituents into a frenzy.
This would be worth doing.
>stricter controls on what can disqualify some people from owning a gun
Possible but it would depend on what you wanted to disqualify people for.
>mandatory training and licensing
I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible.
>restrictions on ammo purchases
Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain.
>restrictions on ... magazine size
I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it.
> I don't think this is reasonable or politically feasible.
I agree that it's not politically feasible, but am curious as to why you don't think it's a reasonable requirement. No one reasonably complains against people have to complete a training course in order to get a driver's license (or to the requirement of a license itself). Both activities require a proper understanding of operation and safety, and operation and safety failures of both can easily result in severe injury and death. Ignoring the political issues around this, I'm entirely baffled how the idea of this requirement could be considered unreasonable.
> > restrictions on ammo purchases
> Not sure what good this would do in reducing gun deaths. You would be hitting target shooter pretty hard for not much gain.
In the recent Las Vegas shooting, the shooter reportedly fired several hundreds of rounds. Presumably if he had been legally limited to owning, say 50 or 100 rounds (more than enough for self defense in the home, and sufficient for most hunting outings), fewer injuries and deaths would have occurred.
I will grant the argument that mass shootings are by far the smallest percentage of gun deaths; you only need a single round to commit suicide or for a child to accidentally shoot him/herself, or a few rounds to kill your family, so this sort of limit wouldn't help there.
Regarding target shooters, I think we can easily make an exception for ammo purchased and used at a licensed gun range, as long as the ammo purchased for target use does not leave the gun range. (Shoot it or lose it, basically.)
But I think at the end of the day the question is "what can reduce unlawful harm without putting an undue burden on lawful use?" ... and I think ammo purchase/ownership limits pass that test.
> > restrictions on ... magazine size
> I don't see how this would be very helpful and always strikes me as something advocated for by people who don't understand guns very much. It's part of why you see such opposition to it.
Perhaps not, and I'll admit I'm certainly no gun expert. But a reload or magazine swap isn't instant, and in the case where a shooter is actively engaged with law enforcement, having to pause to reload after (say) 10 rounds instead of 50 could easily mean fewer deaths. Again, if I apply the test I suggest above, I think it passes.
I'll also admit that I personally do not believe in the need or fundamental "right" of private firearm ownership. I'd be fine with a repeal of the 2nd Amendment with an explicit directive to allow the individual states to make their own gun laws, and would be fine if my state banned private gun ownership entirely... so I'm comfortable with many more restrictions than probably most people are. I have no interest in owning a gun and find the vast majority of the reasons people use to argue for gun ownership to be entirely disingenuous. At the end of the day, aside from minor exceptions, the only real reason is "I think they're cool and fun and I and just want one". Which is totally fair and legitimate, and I wish more people would admit that's the real reason they support private gun ownership.
> how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets > someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!”
Here, you are essentially judging gun-opponents by their worst examples. That is, you are judging them by their members that are loud and unreasonable.
> Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws.
Here, you are judging gun-owners and presumably those who are against all firearms being illegal by something better than their worst examples. When you say "Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility" you are essentially judging this group by their ideals, not their practice. Moreover, it seems unlikely that literally all gun owners actually hold these ideals. Those that don't are a fringe crowd, but you judged the 'anti-gun' people by that same fringe.
Now, I am not accusing you, this is rather natural. You yourself are a gun-owner that is responsible and cares about safety, and most if not all gun-owners you know are the same. So, it makes sense to assume that this holds for all gun-owners. At the same time, the less outrageous gun-opponents are much less noticeable to you. Mostly because outrageous things get propagated.
Note that the opposite happens among gun-opponents. They share outrageously irresponsible gun-owners, and presume gun-opponents are reasonable like themselves. To make actual progress on gun laws, we need to start engaging the reasonable part of the opposing side.
This still involves tough choices, because in the end one side wants to restrict gun ownership a lot more than the other side. Gun-owners are afraid to give ground because it might be a slippery slope, and gun-opponents are frustrated that even the most reasonable proposals are rejected.
Not all gun owners.
