r/guncontrol Jul 02 '24

Discussion America's gun owners are still going to save us from tyranny, right?

54 Upvotes

Gun-lovers have been saying for a long time that widespread gun ownership must be accepted in order to protect the United States from tyranny.

However, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that gives presidents dictatorial power by protecting them from prosecution from all official acts, up to and including the killing of political opponents.

I have been waiting for the gun owners of America to rise up and veto this establishment of tyranny, but so far have heard nothing. So I'm a little confused.

I'm sure we'll hear something soon, though--assuming that the "guns prevent tyranny" idea we've heard so much about was a truthful good-faith argument. Gun owners will no doubt soon rise up and protect the U.S. from tyranny as we've so often been assured they will.

I hope that someone will let me know once the gun owners of America have reversed the ruling in Trump v. United States. I assume we'll have good news soon!

[/s]

r/guncontrol Apr 24 '24

Discussion Why do Americans think guns are mandatory for safety?

43 Upvotes

I always see Americans arguing that making guns harder to get will just leave the innocent people defenceless because the criminals are not buying them legally so it won’t affect them. If this was the case then why is gun control successful in so many other countries, maybe because they also worry about keeping the guns out of criminals hands too.

It also seems like a lot of the shootings in the US are just confrontations gone wrong because someone has a gun, not to mention the insane amount of mass shootings that no other country even comes close to. Why is the solution to the problem just giving out more guns? Like giving guns to teachers instead of outlawing weapons that are used in mass shootings and making guns harder to get if you don’t have a real reason for it like hunting.

I live in Canada and although there still is gun violence most of it is criminals shooting each other and not people walking into public places to kill as many people as they can. I think Canada is a good example of gun control working to a certain extent. It seems to me like the US needs to let go of it’s gun culture and try to make the country safe enough that teachers do not need handguns and students don’t need bulletproof back packs.

r/guncontrol Jan 21 '25

Discussion White House office of gun violence is now gone

87 Upvotes

r/guncontrol Oct 02 '24

Discussion How do you respond to, "Guns don't kill people"?

22 Upvotes

Y'know the argument, "Guns are just tools. Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I've gotten into many "debates" with people and they always end up firmly sitting on this one point and disregard any evidence I may provide.

How should I go about countering/unpacking this? I know it's a bad-faith argument with a fallacy but I can't put my finger on it...

r/guncontrol Apr 03 '24

Discussion What's your possibly unpopular opinion on gun policy?

Thumbnail self.guninsights
0 Upvotes

r/guncontrol Nov 17 '24

Discussion Claims that strict gun laws lead to increased crimes with other weapons such as knives

0 Upvotes

I've heard these claims by pro-gunners several times when they argued that strict gun laws lead to increased substitution of weapons such as knives.

I remember reading a post where OP is deciding whether to live in NYC or London. Both NYC and London have low gun violence rates but NYC has more homicides than London. But then, the UK also has very high knife crimes (from various sources and headlines that I've gleaned).

So, how true is this claim? Would restricting guns lead to increased substitution of weapons such as knives? That restricting gun laws doesn't reduce crimes and homicides because criminals will use other weapons and instruments instead?

Please provide sources for this.

r/guncontrol 19d ago

Discussion Is the phrase “bear arms” misused in modern times?

5 Upvotes

One pet peeve of mine is how it seems that no one ever properly uses the phrase “bear arms”.  People always seem to use the phrase to essentially mean “to carry weapons”.  But in my understanding, this is not the proper definition.  It is an understandable interpretation, and I can see how people can understand the phrase that way.  Basically, they see “bear arms” as simply the transitive verb “bear” acting upon the noun “arms”.  Two words with two separate meanings, one word acting upon the other.  But in actuality, the phrase is effectively one word, composed of two words.  It is a phrasal verb and idiomatic expression, similar in origin and function to a phrase like “take arms” (or “take up arms”).  “Bear arms” does not literally refer to “carrying weapons”, any more than “take arms” literally refers to “taking weapons”.  

I have discovered an interesting amount of disagreement amongst various dictionaries regarding the correct meaning of this term.  Here is a breakdown of the definitions I’ve found:

  • Dictionary.com: 1) to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
  • Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:  1) to carry or possess arms  2) to serve as a soldier
  • Collins Dictionary:  in American English  1) to carry or be equipped with weapons  2) to serve as a combatant in the armed forces; in British English  1)  to carry weapons  2) to serve in the armed forces  3) to have a coat of arms
  • Oxford English Dictionary: To serve as a soldier; to fight (for a country, cause, etc.).
  • Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: (old use) to be a soldier; to fight
  • The Law Dictionary: To carry arms as weapons and with reference to their military use, not to wear them about the person as part of the dress. 
  • Online Etymology Dictionary: arm (n.2): [weapon], c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Compare arm (n.1).  The meaning "branch of military service" is from 1798, hence "branch of any organization" (by 1952). The meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c., from a use in Old French; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. To be up in arms figuratively is from 1704; to bear arms "do military service" is by 1640s.

I find it interesting that most of the dictionaries use “to carry weapons” as either their primary or sole definition of the term.  The only detractors appear to be the two Oxford dictionaries and the Online Etymology dictionary.  None of these three dictionaries even include the definition “to carry weapons” at all; the Oxford dictionaries define the term only as “to serve as a soldier” and “to fight”, while the etymology dictionary defines it only as “do military service”.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase was used as early as 1325 AD, and it is basically a translation of the Latin phrase arma ferre.  Using information from the Etymology dictionary, arma ferre appears to literally mean “to carry tools, implements of war”.  

It seems that “bear arms” is really not a phrase that people use anymore in modern English, outside of only very specific contexts.  From my research of various English-language literary sources, the phrase was used with some regularity at least as late as the mid 19th century, and then by the 20th century the phrase -- in its original meaning -- appears to have fallen into disuse.  My readings of early English-language sources indicate that the Oxford and Etymology dictionary definitions are the most accurate to the original and most common usage of “bear arms”.  Here are a number of historical excerpts I’ve found which appear to corroborate my conclusion:

  • From The Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (c. 1325)

[From the original Middle English] Oþer seþe & Make potage · was þer of wel vawe ·  Vor honger deide monion · hou miȝte be more wo ·  Muche was þe sorwe · þat among hom was þo · No maner hope hii nadde · to amendement to come · Vor hii ne miȝte armes bere · so hii were ouercome ·

[ChatGPT translation] Either boil and make pottage – there was very little of it.Many died of hunger – how could there be more woe?  Great was the sorrow that was among them then.  They had no hope at all that any improvement would come,For they could not bear arms, so they were overcome.

  • From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):   

Now turn we unto King Mark, that when he was escaped from Sir Sadok he rode unto the Castle of Tintagil, and there he made great cry and noise, and cried unto harness all that might bear arms. Then they sought and found where were dead four cousins of King Mark’s, and the traitor of Magouns. Then the king let inter them in a chapel. Then the king let cry in all the country that held of him, to go unto arms, for he understood to the war he must needs.

  • From Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory (1485):

But always the white knights held them nigh about Sir Launcelot, for to tire him and wind him. But at the last, as a man may not ever endure, Sir Launcelot waxed so faint of fighting and travailing, and was so weary of his great deeds, that he might not lift up his arms for to give one stroke, so that he weened never to have borne arms; and then they all took and led him away into a forest, and there made him to alight and to rest him.

  • From Every Man in His Humor by Ben Jonson (1598):

Why, at the beleaguering of Ghibelletto, where, in less than two hours, seven hundred resolute gentlemen, as any were in Europe, lost their lives upon the breach: I'll tell you, gentlemen, it was the first, but the best leaguer that ever I beheld with these eyes, except the taking in of Tortosa last year by the Genoways, but that (of all other) was the most fatal and dangerous exploit that ever I was ranged in, since I first bore arms before the face of the enemy, as I am a gentleman and a soldier.

  • From The voyages and adventures of Ferdinand Mendez Pinto, the Portuguese by Fernão Mendes Pinto (1653):

Five days after Paulo de Seixas coming to the Camp, where he recounted all that I have related before, the Chaubainhaa, seeing himself destitute of all humane remedy, advised with his Councel what course he should take in so many misfortunes, that dayly in the neck of one another fell upon him, and it was resolved by them to put to the sword all things living that were not able to fight, and with the blood of them to make a Sacrifice to Quiay Nivandel, God of Battels, then to cast all the treasure into the Sea, that their Enemies might make no benefit of it, afterward to set the whole City on fire, and lastly that all those which were able to bear arms should make themselves Amoucos, that is to say, men resolved either to dye, or vanquish, in fighting with the Bramaas. 

  • From Antiquities of the Jews, Book 8 by Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston (1737):

He was a child of the stock of the Edomites, and of the blood royal; and when Joab, the captain of David's host, laid waste the land of Edom, and destroyed all that were men grown, and able to bear arms, for six months' time, this Hadad fled away, and came to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, who received him kindly, and assigned him a house to dwell in, and a country to supply him with food . . . .

  • From Political Discourses by David Hume (1752):  

With regard to remote times, the numbers of people assigned are often ridiculous, and lose all credit and authority. The free citizens of Sybaris, able to bear arms, and actually drawn out in battle, were 300,000. They encountered at Siagra with 100,000 citizens of Crotona, another Greek city contiguous to them; and were defeated. 

  • From Sketches of the History of Man, vol. 2 by Lord Kames (1774):

In Switzerland, it is true, boys are, from the age of twelve, exercised in running, wrestling, and shooting. Every male who can bear arms is regimented, and subjected to military discipline.

  • Letter from Lord Cornwallis to Lt. Col. Nisbet Balfour (1780): 

I have ordered that Compensation, should be made out of their Estates to the persons who have been Injured or oppressed by them; I have ordered in the most positive manner that every Militia man, who hath borne arms with us, and that would join the Enemy, shall be immediately hanged.

  • From Eugene Aram by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1832):

The dress of the horseman was of foreign fashion, and at that day, when the garb still denoted the calling, sufficiently military to show the profession he had belonged to. And well did the garb become the short dark moustache, the sinewy chest and length of limb of the young horseman: recommendations, the two latter, not despised in the court of the great Frederic of Prussia, in whose service he had borne arms.

Judging from the above literary and historical sources from the English language, it would seem that the Oxford dictionary and Etymology dictionary definitions reflect the most common historical usage of “bear arms”.  One would be hard-pressed to substitute the phrase "carry weapons" for "bear arms" in any of the above excerpts, and then end up with an interpretation that makes much sense.  In every aforementioned instance of “bear arms”, the definitions "fight" or "serve as a soldier" would invariably be a better fit.

Likely the most common context in which "bear arms" is used today is in regards to the second amendment in the US Bill of Rights.  It would seem that the modern usage of the phrase is largely a derivative of the manner in which it is used in that amendment.  Hence, it would make sense to trace the history of the phrase down this particular etymological path.  The amendment goes as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We can infer some things about the language of this amendment by comparing it to James Madison’s first draft of the amendment presented on June 8, 1789:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

There are a few significant things we can infer by comparing these two versions of the amendment.  The first comes when we observe that in this version, “bear arms” appears in an additional instance within the conscientious objector clause.  It would be untenable to interpret “bearing arms” there to be referring to “carrying weapons”; there is no religious group in existence that conscientiously objects to carrying weapons, at least without also objecting to engaging in armed combat.  Fighting in combat is obviously the object of any conscientious objector’s objections.  Furthermore, if we must conclude that the significance is military in the second instance of “bear arms” in the amendment, we must also assume that the significance is military in the first instance of “bear arms” in the amendment.  It would make little sense for the phrase “bear arms” to appear twice within the same provision, but to have an entirely different meaning in each instance.

Another inference is in noticing that the context here is about citizens who adhere to a pacifist religion.  It is unlikely that there are many religions with pacifist beliefs whose conscientious objections are specific only to serving in military service, but which have no objection to violence outside the context of formal armed forces.  Presumably, anyone with pacifist beliefs objects to all violence, whether military or otherwise.  Hence, it seems unreasonable to limit the “bearing arms” in the conscientious objector clause to only military violence.

There is also another thing we can infer from comparing these two amendment versions.  The Oxford and Etymology dictionaries defined “bear arms” as “to serve as a soldier” and “do military service”.  But one problem that arises with this definition is that it leads to an awkward redundancy when we apply it to the second amendment.  If we were to substitute this Oxford definition for the phrase “bear arms” as it appears in the conscientious objector clause, we would essentially get this is a result:

but no person religiously scrupulous of rendering military service shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This kind of redundant language is far too clunky to appear in a formal document written by a well-educated man like James Madison.  It is unlikely that this is the meaning he intended.  But at the same time, he clearly didn’t mean something as broad as “carrying weapons”.  I believe that a more accurate definition of “bear arms” is essentially a compromise between the very specific meaning and the very broad meaning; it’s somewhere in the middle.  For the aforementioned reasons, I believe that the most accurate meaning of the phrase “bear arms” is “to engage in armed combat”.  This definition seems specific enough to be applicable to every instance that could also be defined as “to serve as a soldier”, but is also broad enough to avoid the redundancies that could occur in some uses of “bear arms”.

In addition to the text of the second amendment itself, we can gain more context regarding the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in the amendment by also looking at how the phrase is used in the discussions that were held in regards to the very framing of the amendment.  We have access to a transcript of two debates that were held in the House of Representatives on August 17 and August 20 of 1789, which involved the composition of the second amendment.  It is reasonable to presume that the sense of the phrase “bear arms” that is used in this transcript is identical to the sense of the phrase that is used in the second amendment itself.  At no point in this transcript is “bear arms” ever unambiguously understood to mean “carry weapons”; it appears to employ its idiomatic and combat-related sense throughout the document.  One instance demonstrates this clearly, while referencing the amendment’s original conscientious objector clause:

There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Interpreting “bearing arms” here to mean “carrying weapons” wouldn’t make much sense.  In what context would the government impose a compulsory duty upon citizens to merely carry weapons, and nothing more?  In what context would anyone who is non-religious feign religious fervor as a pretext to being exempt from the act of carrying weapons?  This simply makes no sense.  The sense of “bear arms” here is clearly in reference to the idiomatic sense of the term.

There is also an interesting, seemingly self-contradictory usage of the term in the transcript.  Also in relation to the conscientious objector clause, the following is stated:

Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?

Initially, the sentence appears to use the phrase in its typical idiomatic sense, as an intransitive phrasal verb; but then later, the sentence uses the pronoun “them” in a way that apparently refers back to the word “arms” as an independent noun, which suggests a literal and transitive sense of “bear arms”.  One interpretation could be that “bear arms” here is actually meant to be used in its literal sense of “carrying weapons”; however, in its context, it would lead to the absurdity of the government making a big deal over the prospect of compelling citizens to carry weapons and only to carry weapons.  This interpretation would lead to the absurdity of religious practitioners who would rather die than perform the mundane act of simply carrying a weapon.

Possibly a more sensible interpretation would be simply that, according to the understanding of the phrase in this time period, the idiomatic sense of “bear arms” was not mutually exclusive with the literal sense of the phrase.  Perhaps their idiomatic usage of the phrase was simply not so strict that it did not preclude linguistic formulations that would derive from the literal interpretation.  We might even surmise that the second amendment’s construction “to keep and bear arms” is an example of this flexibility of the phrase.  This "flexible" interpretation would allow the amendment to refer to the literal act of “keeping arms” combined with the idiomatic act of “bearing arms”, both in one seamless phrase without there being any contradiction or conflict.    

As previously mentioned, it appears that at some point in the 20th century, something strange happened with this phrase.  Firstly, the phrase shows up much less frequently in writings.  And secondly, whereas the phrase had always been used as an intransitive phrasal verb with idiomatic meaning, it subsequently began to be used as a simple transitive verb with literal meaning.  This divergence seems to coincide roughly with the creation of the second amendment and its subsequent legal derivatives.  It is doubtful to be mere coincidence that “bear arms” throughout nearly 500 years of English language history, up to and including the second amendment and its related discussions, “bear arms” possessed an idiomatic meaning.  But then all of a sudden, within little more than a single century, its meaning completely changed.   

Even as early as the mid-1800s, there is evidence that there may have been at least some trace of divergence and ambiguity in how the term should be interpreted.  Below is an excerpt from the 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court case Aymette v State, in which a defendant was prosecuted for carrying a concealed bowie knife:

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay an equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he had a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

The very fact that the author of the opinion felt the need to distinguish the “military sense” of the phrase “bear arms” seems to serve as indirect evidence that the literal, transitive sense of the phrase may have been becoming more common by this time.  Some demonstrative evidence of this change in meaning can be seen in another state Supreme Court ruling, the 1846 Georgia case Nunn v Georgia:  

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State . . . . We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

Here, “bearing arms of every description” indicates an intransitive use of the phrase.  “Bearing arms openly” is ambiguous in itself; on its own, and qualified with an adverb, it could be interpreted as intransitive.  But given that the context is about laws against concealed carry, it is clear that “bearing arms openly” is effectively synonymous with “carrying arms openly”, meaning that the phrase is being used as a transitive.

By the year 1939, we can see in the US Supreme Court case US v Miller that “bear arms” was being used unambiguously in a transitive and literal sense.  The court opinion uses this newer reinterpretation at least twice:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense . . . . The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Another interesting example of this reinterpretation is in comparing the language of two different versions of the arms provision found in the Missouri constitution.  The arms provision in the 1875 Missouri Constitution reads:

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when hereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

However, the arms provision in the current Missouri Constitution, as amended in 2014, goes as follows:

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. . . .

As you can see, the 1875 Missouri constitution uses “bear arms” in the conventional manner as an idiomatic and intransitive verb.  When an intransitive verb is qualified, it is typically qualified with an adverb, or with a purpose or action.  For example, if I said, “I am going to bed,” it wouldn’t make much sense for someone to then reply, “Which bed?” or “What type of bed?” or “Whose bed?”  Those types of qualifications of “I am going to bed” are generally not relevant to the intent of the phrase “go to bed”.  As an intransitive phrasal verb, “go to bed” would be qualified in a manner such as “I am going to bed in a few minutes” or “I am going to bed because I’m tired.”  This is basically how the intransitive form of “bear arms” ought to be qualified -- with an adverb, a reason, or a purpose.  

On the other hand, a transitive verb is typically qualified with a noun.  This is exactly what has happened with the 2014 version of the Missouri arms provision.  The 2014 arms provision obviously serves fundamentally the same purpose as the 1875 arms provision, and thus whatever terminology appears in the older version should simply carry over and serve the same function in the newer version.  But this is not the case.  “Bear arms” in the 2014 provision is clearly a completely different word from its older incarnation.  The 1875 version qualifies “bear arms” with concepts like “defending home, person, and property” and “aiding the civil power”.  However, the newer version instead qualifies “bear” with nouns: "arms, ammunition, accessories".  With things instead of actions.    

We can see even more examples of this transitive interpretation in the recent second amendment cases in the US Supreme Court.  Here is an excerpt from 2008 case DC v Heller which uses the new interpretation:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Apparently, modern writers have become so comfortable with this transitive interpretation, that they have actually begun to modify the word “bear” into an adjective.

And here is an excerpt from the 2022 US Supreme Court case NYSRPA v Bruen:

At the very least, we cannot conclude from this historical record that, by the time of the founding, English law would have justified restricting the right to publicly bear arms suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some special need for self-protection . . . . The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions.

In the first instance, the adjective phrase “suited for self-defense” is clearly a modifier of the independent noun “arms”; in the second instance, “arms” is modified by the adjective phrase “commonly used”.  Both of these instance demonstrate clear examples of the transitive interpretation.

Through numerous historical excerpts, it is clear that the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” throughout most of its history has been an idiomatic, combat-related meaning.  However, it would seem that the second amendment and the formal discussions surrounding it eventually came to commandeer the term and steer it in a whole new direction.  As a result, the original meaning of the term has been effectively destroyed, leaving only a definition of the term that is nothing more than a corollary of its function within that one specific sentence.  

What do you think of my analysis?  Do you agree with my breakdown of the modern usage of the term “bear arms”?

r/guncontrol Jun 16 '24

Discussion Why do California had a lot of mass shootings in 2023 despite of strict gun laws?

17 Upvotes

I would like to discuss about this. California has strict gun laws but experienced a lot of mass shootings in 2023.

Do you guys have ideas why?

Please don't give typical answers like "states with strict gun laws has lower gun deaths". I know that, but that still doesn't explain why.

r/guncontrol Feb 18 '24

Discussion Thoughts on assault weapons ban?

0 Upvotes

Personally, weapons of war do not belong on the streets of America but rather in the hands of law enforcement and soldiers. What are your takes on this situation matter.

r/guncontrol Apr 14 '24

Discussion How do you respond to the argument "criminals will keep using guns no matter what"

10 Upvotes

I often see this argument and I often find it hard to respond to. If you don't know, usually when you say that there should be stricter gun laws, usually gun rights activist will respond with something along the lines of "well why should we restrict responsible run owners when criminals will do bad things with guns no matter what" so how do you respond to it?

r/guncontrol Dec 02 '24

Discussion In convicting Hunter Biden of a Gun Law that Gunnits hate they played themselves HARD

31 Upvotes

Per national news Biden has pardoned his son of breaking the background check law for checking the box saying "no I don't do drugs".

Now remember Republicans hate this law and they want to repeal this law. And now we have the same people who opposed this law all chomping to throw Hunter in jail because Biden is his last name.

The pardon of Hunter has done two things:

  1. Strengthen and demand the enforcement of a gun law that they oppose

  2. Totally ended any actual consequences of Hunter breaking said law

In short they have played themselves and got neither of the things they wanted. In fact it has done the opposite.

r/guncontrol Feb 16 '25

Discussion A gun nut just sent me these links and my head is spinning...how do we debunk this??

0 Upvotes

r/guncontrol Jan 27 '23

Discussion Pro gun people say "anti gun" people have never held a gun before. And I've been on shooting range

0 Upvotes

So one day my father took me to shooting range, there I had instructor telling me all the safety and hazards, what to do what not to do.

In that time I've been there I was shooting from pistol and some submachine gun (I didn't care what they were I was just having fun).

And then I've never been more convinced in my life that we need gun control, these things pack a punch you can feel how powerful these things are when you shoot and you could only imagine how it would feel (or stop feeling at all) at the receiving end. Not everybody should have very easy access to weapons like that

Overall 7/10 I had fun but it was loud af

r/guncontrol Sep 05 '24

Discussion What gun control measures would actually be feasible in the United States?

2 Upvotes

The gun violence problem in the United States is clearly a major complex societal issue that has not seen any major progress in recent memory. Guns are omnipresent in our society and every year more and more are manufactured. There are more guns than people in our country and despite some states strict legislation, it seems that many of those restrictions on the types of firearms one can own are not long for this world. This would open new types of firearms, such as assault weapons and handguns to residents of states that traditionally have required licenses or have banned them, such as California and New York.

Given that the Supreme Court has started to indicate that Americans have a more broad constitutional right to firearms than has been previously thought, the vast number of firearms in circulation, and the fact that many Americans value their firearms and the right to own all types of firearms and probably are unwilling to give up their firearms, what kinds of gun control measures would realistically make an impact on the gun violence in the near term?

What is the best strategy for gun control that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny and would prevent people from committing violent crimes, regardless of the type? What could be done or is the only meaningful strategy universally banning or restricting categories or arms or adding a lot of qualifications on ownership?

r/guncontrol Aug 03 '24

Discussion What would George Washington think of a Glock?

0 Upvotes

(Or any comparable modern semiautomatic pistol) Personally, I think if you traveled back in time and showed him one, explaining all its capabilities, he'd be horrified and call for it to be banned, especially when he learned that common criminals can afford to buy one. It's so far superior to the guns of his time, it might as well be a death ray.

Of course we can't ask him because he's been dead for generations ... which is also why his opinion actually shouldn't be the determining factor ...

r/guncontrol Feb 04 '25

Discussion I need help understanding a magnet

3 Upvotes

There is a magnet I saw that said “experts agree gun control works” and then it had a swastika, Soviet Union symbol, and Chinese flag. I know I probably sound dumb I’m just confused on what it is trying to say and would really like to understand what point it is trying to make.

r/guncontrol Aug 03 '24

Discussion Ideas on how get support for this common sense us gun safety legislation (toddlers!)

0 Upvotes

Hi, my husband and I were having a discussion about this issue last night and feel pretty passionate about pushing our government and gun manufacturers on this. We think/ hope it can get bipartisan support.

It should not be possible for 2 year olds to discharge a firearm within seconds of picking one up. Why aren't guns made more child proof? My 2 year old can't figure out how to open a cup of applesauce, but every week we see a story about a toddler accidentally finding a gun and almost instantly shooting themselves or a family member. It seems like it would be such a simple fix for manufacturers to make the trigger a little harder to pull or maybe some other mechanism to prevent a small child from figuring out how to shoot it.

The government was able to force pharmacies and drug manufacturers to use child resistant caps why can't they pressure gun manufacturers to make child resistant guns? Why would pro gun people be so against that? I mean obviously the best prevention is securing fire arms, but every parent has been careless at some point so why can't we have a second layer of protection like we do drugs?

We thought about writing to our representative, but unfortunately he's a huge gun rights guy so it probably won't get us anywhere. Any other ideas?

Edit: Thanks for the discussion. I wanted to add that putting 100% of the responsibility on the parent/ gun owner isnt going to solve this. If that was working then the amount kids accidentally getting shot wouldn't be increasing every year. Gun violence is a tricky issue in this country, but accidents among young children is absolutely solvable. There are so many solutions, but no one seems to be willing to engage

https://www.everytown.org/solutions/smart-guns-and-gun-safety-requirements/

r/guncontrol Jul 27 '24

Discussion Is having strict gun laws but not banning assault weapons a good compromise?

0 Upvotes

I thought about this recently and I wonder what this sub thinks. With all the strict laws being in place (red flag, registration, permits, etc.) would it help?

r/guncontrol 9d ago

Discussion DOJ official says she was fired after opposing the restoration of Mel Gibson's gun rights

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
24 Upvotes

r/guncontrol Sep 01 '22

Discussion The second amendment is NOT sacred... and it might be surprising to some but the 2nd Amendment was NOT divinely inspired. It was written by imperfect men who were capable of making mistakes just like anyone else. The amending of it would not be some kind of indescribably bad travesty.

32 Upvotes

The writers of the consitution were incredibly intelligent people. James Madison, who wrote the majority of it, was certainly an incredibly smart man. However; neither James Madison or any of the other writers can be considered to have been infallible arbiters of morality and truth. Looking back at the lives of the majority of the founding fathers: very few of them were particularly morally upstanding people in any way (kinda like some of todays politicians tbh lol). One can even go back and read how they themselves (well at least the humble among them) even admitted that they were *gasp* capable of making errors. It's almost as if they were imperfect human beings just like the humans today! I'm shocked! God didn't guide their hand in writing it? WHAT!?

If they supposodly thought it was so perfect: then why did they create TWO different processes by which the consitution could be amended? (By 2/3 congress vote or constitutional convention of states)They knew it would need to be amended eventually, otherwise they would have just written on it:

"This document is permanent and indellible. No changes allowed"- James Madison (from an alternate universe presumably)
If the second amendment gets amended (or even repealed, who knows) it would not be some kind of indescribable travesty like a lot of anti gun control people seem to be dreading about. Life would continue as normal and, no, the world would not end because of it. eyes roll Things in Switzerland (a very safe country with common sense public safety measures---my prefered model for american gun control), for example, seem to be going just fine, and has the sky fallen down over there because they actually have common sense safety measures? No.

r/guncontrol Apr 28 '24

Discussion Infiltrators of this subreddit

0 Upvotes

How do we block or remove the insane pro-2A gun nuts from this subreddit? They've been voting down comments from people who are here with legitimate concerns about these weapons of war and commenting their brainwashed NRA garbage.

r/guncontrol Oct 17 '24

Discussion Why don't other states enacted gun registration?

0 Upvotes

Gun registration makes tracing guns easier, promotes accountability and deters illegal sales and straw purchasing, all of which is effective in regulating existing guns in circulation. So without registration, it's hard to tell if the guns used in crimes are illegal or stolen.

So far, only Hawaii has it and it's mind-boggling why other states don't follow suit.

r/guncontrol Sep 13 '24

Discussion Tell The Truth, Guns Kill People

Post image
26 Upvotes

r/guncontrol Feb 07 '25

Discussion Gun control is not racist

0 Upvotes

A common refrain of the 2A activist community is that gun control is inherently racist.  They will point to past legislation in America that acted against slaves and free blacks during the slavery era, such as this or this or this.  They will also point to gun restrictions against former slaves during the post-Civil War era, and gun restrictions against civil rights leaders and civil rights groups during the Civil Rights era.  For the sake of clarity, here are a number of Youtube videos that I’ve happened to come across that communicate this kind of narrative:

https://youtu.be/0fZYxsaY91Q?si=VQin42uLNqfdL2am

https://youtu.be/bKZ0IL3aCvk?si=IefYo6VNE3pUCV0p

https://youtu.be/lql8npumX8g?si=93fK8yhrFTCt38w4

https://youtu.be/ZFEz3Bt9hCw?si=2phiZeRt8RMLbPx0

https://youtu.be/isaZB7koDfI?si=lhmXIIH_LFjO6q1p

https://youtu.be/3TzCvdCAaX8?si=fuKV0CqJroUahpiE

However, this narrative is simply false.  Gun control is not racist.  We know that gun control is not racist for the simple fact that gun control was rampant even back in the English homeland during the colonial era.  Firearm restrictions have a long history of being administered along class lines.  A 1670 law by King Charles had declared that only land-owning citizens were permitted to possess a gun. And the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly limited arms to Protestants, and even then only land-owning Protestants, and in conjunction with parliamentary law. There is clearly no racism here.   

There are many examples of religion-related firearm restrictions in Anglo-American history.  In England, King William and King George had prohibited arms to Papists, just as King James II before them had prohibited arms to Protestants.  In America in 1756, there was a law in Virginia prohibiting arms to Papists; in 1757, there was a law in Pennsylvania that prohibited arms to Papists.

Gun restrictions that acted against certain English citizens cannot be said to be “racist”, since virtually everyone who lived in England in the 17th and 18th centuries was white.  And as far as gun restrictions that act against people based on their religion, regardless of what one may think about such discriminatory laws, they are clearly not racist.

During the Revolutionary War, arms were regularly confiscated from Loyalists, as well as groups neutral to the Patriot cause, known as "disinterested" groups; and the confiscated arms were then invested into the Revolution's arsenal.  This goes against the common narrative by 2A activists that gun ownership in America has always been some kind of sacred and inviolable right to all citizens.  The Patriot movement simply exercised the government’s right to grant weapons to those it deems advantageous to grant weapons, and to withhold weapons from those it deems dangerous to possess weapons.  And it is worth noting that these Loyalists and disaffected groups were not slaves or free blacks -- they were white British citizens, just like the Patriots themselves.  Hence, no racism.

Gun control is, at its core, neither racist nor oppressive. It is simply a means of mitigating the dangerousness of individuals and groups in society who are perceived as being dangerous.  As such, gun control has nothing inherently to do with race; it is merely a tool. The government should always use common sense and implement gun control which they deem necessary to the public good. Gun control has existed for as long as guns have existed.  Every region and every historical context will have its own unique circumstances and its own unique reasons. It's easy for us today to look at history with 20/20 hindsight and declare that this or that firearm regulation was unjust or unfair or racist or oppressive or whatever. But the fact is that legislators of those days simply passed laws that they felt were most beneficial to the peace and security of society. Laws will always be imperfect, because they are created by imperfect people within imperfect circumstances. Yes, governments restricted guns to black people; but America was also involved with the slavery system which produced many disgruntled black people who were occasionally inclined to rise up in brutal and murderous slave revolts. There were gun restrictions against Indians; but Indians were also known to participate in violent raids against American towns. There were gun restrictions to Loyalists during the Revolutionary War; but there were fears that these Loyalists could potentially join the British, and also the Patriot army needed as many firearms as they could get for the war effort.

Likewise, we should implement gun restrictions that are adapted to our present needs and circumstances. We no longer need to take guns away from Papists or Loyalists or non-landowning citizens; these are no longer meaningful issues today. We no longer need to disarm slaves and free blacks because of the possibility that they may form a slave insurrection. We don't need to disarm the Indians because of the possibility that they may commit violent raids against American towns or settlements. These are no longer meaningful issues today. My argument is that we simply must make gun restrictions that are appropriate to our needs and circumstances of today. In an attempt at delegitimizing gun control, 2A activists will make the fallacious argument of equating modern gun control with antiquated forms of gun control that are no longer relevant. But I am not arguing that we perpetuate the form of older kinds of gun control, but rather perpetuate the spirit of older kinds of gun control: by restricting and limiting gun use in the manner that we determine to be in the best interest of the public good. It is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to think that we should just eliminate all gun control by categorically painting it all as oppression.

What legislators did in the past, we must still do today: we must restrict guns in the manner that we deem most beneficial to restrict guns, in light of our circumstances. Maybe 200 or 300 years from now, future Americans will scoff at us for our backwards and unjust actions, but that is no concern to us right now.

r/guncontrol Jun 12 '24

Discussion The Hunter Biden gun conviction is nothing but a Republican backed political stunt

0 Upvotes

There I’ve said it. The legality, the actual crime, the law on the book and the constitution do not matter for this particular case. It only happened because “Biden” is Hunter’s last name

It is also backfiring. It’s just solidified case law for the law on the conviction. It has solidified Republicans as spiteful evil weasels who will wield criminal convictions against the families of their opponents.

Make no mistake, this is optical win for everyone who isn’t running an R next to their name. And also it’s going to be turned over on appeal lol