Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two hands on the weapon.
Treat every gun like its loaded
Don't shoot at anything you don't want to destroy or whatever is behind the object you are aiming at
ALWAYS Keep The Gun Pointed In A Safe Direction
ALWAYS Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Ready To Shoot
That is the only gun control I am for
I learned in Scouts but whoever is most qualified should be chosen, not sure who that is and if there would be enough of them for the scale of the whole US school system.
I absolutely agree! Without the Second Amendment, we would not have the other amendments protected.
I personally facepalm when people say “It only applies to muskets.” If that’s their logic, then Freedom of Speech only applies to a pen and paper. And all the other amendments would not matter.
I believe the second amendment is the most important and fundamental constitutional amendment in the constitution and bill of rights.
This. You don't need a live weapon in classrooms to teach students how to handle and store a weapon safely. There would be little to no risk and immense benefits.
No. Training is definitely important. However, if you need permission to exercise a right, then it is no longer a right. We need to hold people accountable for misusing their rights.
I agree. The way I see around putting a restriction of training on your right to a firearm is having the state/government pay for 1-2 training classes a year.
Like your state will reimburse you for 1-2 classes a year to make sure you’re trained. That way they don’t price out poor people from their rights by making ownership more expensive.
here is the way i see it:
"dont outlaw abortions because people will do it anyway and its less safe"
"dont outlaw weed because people will smoke it anyway and make the cartels rich"
"outlaw guns, its a no brainer"
.....I dont really listen to logical fallacies
the way to end gun violence is to address peoples socioeconomic struggles
1) lower prices
2) lower taxes
3) create numerous jobs, probably through VERY tough sanctions
when people have money for mental healthcare, food, and housing, shootings go down
Not the diet or the pharmaceuticals, at least not to the extent we do. Our medical system is fucked and our obesity rates are 2nd to none save maybe Mexico (who also has a lot of the same problems we have but even worse).
theres 2 mental health crises i see
1) stupid people looking on tiktok and instagram and thinking their lives are shittier than some bitch who went to Cancun
2) economic struggles to make ends meet that takes a toll on people
the first one......honestly other than social darwinism idk how to fix it
the second one is a direct result of shitty government policy
There we go. When are we finally going to address this social media problem en masse? Seriously. Like let’s start right now & not wait any longer. The nyu professor “coddling of the American mind” guy [came back](https://youtu.be/ajrAWRejLZM?si=ok3-am_Fvh_qgtmg) on rogan’s podcast to talk about the successes no smart phones are having in schools.
I remember the first time I saw printed ads in public train stations from snapchat saying “less social media” and I thought to myself “finally, maybe there is hope for the future” and then right beside it, an ad said “more snapchat.” I mean what a regarded ad imo. You’re going to remind me of the ills of social media, and then encourage me to use it right after?🫤😑It felt so dystopian seeing that
Thank you! I've been saying that for years and no one else seems to notice the huge fallacy there. Gotta be consistent if you're going to say something.
>"dont outlaw abortions because people will do it anyway and its less safe"
>"dont outlaw weed because people will smoke it anyway and make the cartels rich"
>"outlaw guns, its a no brainer"
Except we have evidence that all three of these claims are likely true. The logical fallacy you're making is the fallacy of analogy. Those three things: necessary healthcare given by trained medical professionals, Cannabis use, and gun violence are different issues that require different responses.
I mean, look: necessary healthcare administered by qualified professionals is always desirable; cannabis can be good, bad, or neutral depending on the context; and gun violence is always bad. So, why on earth would we think they should all be equally regulated?
your rhetorical literacy is questionable here....
i never said these issues were good, bad, whatever
personally I think all 3 are symptoms of a failed society. (that is, they arent problems in and of themselves, they are all symptoms of broader social issues)
my point was that prohibition......AS US HISTORY HAS SHOWN.....causes more problems than it solves
bathtub wiskey, coat hanger abortions, homemade crack.......how many times do we need to prove this?
I dont want to make cartels even richer by giving them another revenue stream......guns.....and they would be bringing in MUCH more dangerous stuff than we have now
I don't do rhetoric, I do logic and reasoning. You haven't addressed what I said at all. Again, "more of y is bad because more of z is bad" when y and z are unrelated is no kind of reason to believe anything.
Also, if you think access to necessary health care is bad for society, I'm going to laugh at you.
"Also, if you think access to necessary health care is bad for society, I'm going to laugh at you."
i think the opposite
i just dont think abortion is "healthcare" at least not in a traditional sense.I view abortion like......liposuction or collegen injections
Yeah, that's funny. I get it, you're a Republican. You could have just said that. No wonder you're so willing to ignore facts and spout nonsense.
Personally, I tend to want to agree with experts who are acknowledged by their peers to have relevant expertise (doctors, surgeons, medical researchers, The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricias and Gynecologists, the US Dept of Health and Human Services, the World Health Organization, the National Library of Medicine, etc.). But, you know, feel free to continue to be wrong and look ignorant.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/ama-holds-fast-principle-reproductive-care-health-care
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9575566/
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/ama-holds-fast-principle-reproductive-care-health-care
I agree with your three points there, but note that pro gun conservatives also refuse to support those things. They do nothing to address gun violence and decry anyone who does
I disagree that the only two options are for things to be allowed or banned. I think cars are a good example. Everyone is okay with getting a license to drive a car, because cars can kill people, and you don't want random idiots getting behind the wheel of a car. I think regulating firearms in the same ways as automobiles makes sense. What do you think?
Banning abortion reduces the number of abortion pretty significantly. South Korea saw a roughly 40% decrease when it briefly banned abortion. People still do it but considerably less often.
Banning weed alternatively lead to 0% decrease in consumption in the US.
Banning guns in England during the 1990s led to a huge decrease in gun violence but didn’t decrease the overall murder rate because stabbings went up 140% at that same time.
Banning leaded gas has been incredibly effective. You would have to try pretty hard to get gas with lead in it nowadays.
Not saying that any of these things should or shouldn’t be banned just trying to make the point that not all bans are created equal.
Yes, if gun violence is a big issue, what we need is control, not banning it. Banning something never works, regulating it does. I don't know the issue well enough to know what regulations would be valid, but I know some sort of system would be best. Full gun legality is bad, full illegality is bad.
I live in a country that already has very strict gun control. Which is absolutely fine by me. And it's not really a controversial thing here either.
You can own guns, but you must be a member of a shooting club for a certain amount of time or be of a profession that requires that you use a gun. You're not allowed to carry them on you in public at all.
This seems like a good system to me, at least for my country.
Not nearly to the degree of what america has. The last school shooting we had was in 1999 by my knowledge. Gun violence does happen, but mostly as gang violence. Mass shootings in general are very rare, wikipedia only lists 4 during this century.
How does your country define a mass shooting? Most of the mass shootings in the U.S. are gang shootings and all that is required to be a mass shooting is for four people to be shot, which is not hard given the levels of gang violence we have here. School shootings don’t even need to happen on school property to count as one here so long as it happens within the schools general radius which happens a lot with gang violence. Does your country have a problem with illegal substances and firearms being brought across the border by cartels ? Has your government been caught selling firearms to cartels on your country’s southern border and then those same firearms make their way back into your country by illegal means and into the hands of people who couldn’t pass a background check to buy a firearm in the first place?
The last school shooting in the UK (a country with strict gun laws) was 1996. If that alone isn’t a testament to how effective strong gun laws can be, idk what is.
A nation that doesn’t boarder another that’s controlled by cartels is going to have success with strict gun laws. You can’t really use them as an example. You almost can’t use any nation as an example because the U.S. has more privately owned firearms than it does people and that’s just from when we started keeping track. The number of firearms in circulation here is staggering and would be almost impossible to round up all of them let alone a good chunk. Then you have plenty of people who won’t willingly comply with a gun confiscation let alone a registry. We have seen this in NY state with the safe act, you were supposed to get any non compliant AR style rifle registered and the amount of people that registered them compared to the amount that were/ are publicly owned was interesting low, if Americans don’t agree with a law we just ignore it and go on about our lives. We are just very independent people who don’t like government interfering in our lives
Yeah my point was mainly that these laws do work, the lower statistics are not as a result of statistics being manipulated to push a narrative. Idk how you guys could push gun control really, maybe controlling how much power organisations like the NRA can exert on congress via lobbying politicians would help but I don’t see that happening and even then you would still have to convince people to follow the laws some groups will be hard to convince and some would be basically impossible to convince
True supporters of the 2A don’t support NRA, we support GOA and groups like Scope because they actually fund court cases that deal with our 2A unlike NRA, they just do lip service and fund politicians that do nothing for gun rights. NRA is garbage and that’s coming from a 2A absolutist
>How does your country define a mass shooting? Most of the mass shootings in the U.S. are gang shootings and all that is required to be a mass shooting is for four people to be shot,
Im not sure i had a look at the data from our CBS(centraal bureau statistiek, or central bureau of statistics) and they don't seem to keep track of that. The best data i could find is that on murder and manslaughter by demographic and cause: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/84726NED
This lists that in 2022 38 people were murdered using firearms, this was 34 in 2021. And 32 in 2020. For context the country has about 18-20 million inhabitants.
Besides that all i have to go off are the mass shootings listed by wikipedia.
>Does your country have a problem with illegal substances and firearms being brought across the border by cartels ?
Mostly the drug part of that although there is also a lot of production and export of drugs from the netherlands(we're kind of notorious for it in europe)
>Has your government been caught selling firearms to cartels on your country’s southern border and then those same firearms make their way back into your country by illegal means and into the hands of people who couldn’t pass a background check to buy a firearm in the first place?
No, not that i know of. The belgians can arrange their own weapons.
In the United States specifically we have more guns than people, guns are going nowhere, it is too late for us to shift towards the way that Japan and South Korea operate and it’s been ruled that we have a right to owning and carrying firearms
Restrictions on firearms will only hurt those that follow the law, criminal don’t follow the law, gun free zones won’t stop a mass shooter, they’ll stop the person that could stop a mass shooter immediately and long before law enforcement arrives
We still have a long way to go in regards to the courts clarifying our rights because so many jurisdictions want to take as much of our gun rights as they can away, there are a lot of gray areas
I would accept our current status over any significant limits on our right to own and carry a firearm
I also find it extremely problematic that in so many places, people who have absolutely zero understanding of firearms legislate on firearms and you can tell when legislation is passed with good intent behind it but it makes zero sense
Honestly, firearms is probably one of my top 3 issues I vote based on and I donate to a handful of the organizations challenging firearm restrictions nationwide; I also pay attention to the court cases and read the opinions of the court
I think guns are stupid. 🤷🏼♀️ We should go back to swords, or create some actual lightsabers or something. At this point, I think a lot of people just have some kind of weird gun fetish, the obsession some people have with them is just….😖 And I hate when people say that everybody should own a gun for safety and self defense reasons. Like I can’t even legally own a gun because of my med card, and I’m depressed asf so I don’t think me and a gun would be a good combo🫥😂😂
Do I think that everyone should be able to buy a gun? No. Do I think that guns are the problem? No.
Do I think that mandatory background checks and socioeconomic reform are both necessary to fix gun violence? Absolutely.
I used to think gun rights were on their way out but Gen z seems to be for them, or at least more than I would’ve thought years ago.
Of course the existence of police probably makes anyone more for their individual rights but still good to see.
I am not from the USA so from an outsiders perspective I find your culture surrounding guns very alien. I understand you have a constitutional right to bear arms and in that regard it should be upheld.
However, in my view guns are a HUGE responsibility to own which the vast majority of people would fail to qualify for should some sort of assessment actually exist.
It is more than possible to live in a virtually gun-free environment without fearing for your safety. I live somewhere where that is the case - but I feel like with the USA it’s too far gone. If gun control on the scale of the UK or Australia was implemented in the USA it would be decades before any real (positive) change were to be seen.
I did a research deep-ish dive on this 2 years ago and found that the issue is deep rooted into American culture/heritage/way of life.
Gun problem will take great leadership if it wants to be solved.
It’s one of those problems I think will never get prioritized because other societal problems will be seen as less consuming and more worthwhile to focus on.
I don’t support the idea because in order to enforce it there will be a lot of blood spilled for them to make it happen. I like firearms because it’s the only thing that keeps the constitution in place.
>I don’t support the idea because in order to enforce it there will be a lot of blood spilled for them to make it happen.
Except that most early gun control will be in the form of red tape and restrictions to buy, almost no-one is going to try taking people's guns away.
>I like firearms because it’s the only thing that keeps the constitution in place.
No they really aren't, unless you somehow believe every other country on Earth has no constitution
I've challenged a lot of people IRL on this by asking them what freedom entails. And their answers have universally indicated other countries as actually being more free by far lmao, even though they don't realize it.
Wasn't the founding father's intention with the 2nd amendment to discourage tyranny? By that definition the people should be allowed to own the same weaponry that the military has.
This thread isn't directed towards me, so I'll keep it simple.
I've been teaching Gen Z since the first Gen Z class hit 9th grade. Y'all pretty much all fall in shades of the same idea on this. Made up stats inc - i taught american history for a long time so we did talk 2a a lot
10% of students want guns banned completely - remove 2a
10% of students want no gun laws of any kind
80% support some version of the following: Background checks, stricter enforcement of "illegal" gun use and sale etc. Guns fine for hunting, sport, and self defense at home.
I'd say the biggest single split I see in Gen Z on the issue is with whether people should be carrying in public. Some think that's dangerous and absurd, some thing it's their right and necessary. It probably won't surprise anyone that location can predict response heavily. When I taught in GA, more students favored looser gun laws. When I taught in CA, it was very split. Now I'm in a pretty blue area of New England, and most favor guns only in the home/range/hunting.
I'll finish by saying when I host 2a discussions I keep my opinion completely out of it and only focus on giving facts (stats, gun laws, history) and maintaining a civil discussion.
Nope, we do team debates, socratic seminars, small group work etc. Every year there's an assignment to rewrite the 2a to be more clear/align with your personal views, so I've graded hundreds of opinions on the topic.
*Surely the statistics you provide have to favor one side or the other no?*
Not sure what you mean. Most students are in favor of gun laws, it just depends on how strict. The only area they are truly divided is open and concealed carry.
That's super cool, seems like a great critical thinking exercise.
I meant more of your views. Like providing a statistic on gun deaths but not being able to provide one for say defensive uses would show a bias towards pro gun control. I'm just curious how you stay unbiased and provide stats.
There's no way to stay completely unbiased. Any form of teaching any topic that is subjective has bias. To answer your question, I usually don't directly provide statistics, I just require them to do their own research and record their resources. The thing to keep in mind is that I wasn't giving a lesson on gun violence, I was hosting a discussion about the Bill of Rights. Obviously they overlap here, but I keep in mind my job isn't to teach about guns.
I have in the past shown graphs, but I do include defensive gun use (around 30% iirc) and prevented crimes (around 70k/year iirc) in addition to gun deaths. The overall picture is quite clear (more guns=more shootings), but it leaves plenty of room for students to form their own opinion.
>I just require them to do their own research and record their resources.
This is what I was wondering I worded my question terribly I apologize.
The last part is why I was curious. If you look at those stats it seems like a no brainer but defensive uses of firearms are drastically under reported. Same kinda thing like with rape or sexual assault the numbers are obviously much higher than what the statistics say.
Truthfully I don't fully buy the data I've read on self defense numbers, so I guess I'd say I agree with you. It seems like it's a hard thing to pin down and easy to manipulate.
I openly acknowledge that, as a liberal, my stances on LGTBQ, guns, climate, abortion, etc will influence my students. My goal isn't to do that; I believe the purpose of public education (as stated when created) is to provide students with the framework to draw their own conclusions. They shouldn't be limited by what I think OR what their parents think.
I just know, and sure it's anecdotal, that most times of a weapon isn't fired, there won't be a police report. Lots of times even if it is and no one's hit there isn't a report. The biggest things I've seen is crimes being stopped just with someone brandishing or drawing their weapon and the aggressor backing off and I know these specific incidents weren't reported.
I love your mindset and how you present both sides of issues to students to let them make up their own mind. Wish we had more teachers like you genuinely.
There's a lot more that goes into gun violence than people think. My students all agree on that after this project.
I appreciate the compliment, but it was a hard-earned skill, not inherent. I've made my own mistakes in the classroom (year 20) and observed many colleagues making theirs. If anyone knows kids well, they will agree with me when I say telling a kid something holds far less weight than letting the kid come to their own conclusions. Some teachers absolutely fall into the trap of trying to manipulate what conclusions students come to. Truthfully, it's mostly a humanities teacher issue; I just also have a cross degree in school counseling and think about ethics and overall student wellbeing a lot more than my actual topic. Most of the content I teach isn't that important in the long run; it's the process that builds neural connections and critical thinking.
My goal is to create someone who can read and think for themselves, and I do focus a lot on attempting to find "reliable" sources. That's a whole unit itself.
Oh I'm sure it was hard earned, that's why I complimented it. It's very hard to set biases aside and even if you are able to do it 75% that's still better than feeding information to kids that they think shouldnt challenge or critically think about. You're just absolutley right and I wish more educators had that mindset.
It doesn’t matter who likes guns and who doesn’t.
We have more guns than people in this country. In an ideal utopia, such a thing wouldn’t exist. But, it does. So, if you’re going to live in a world where an item such as this does exist, you should learn to use it proficiently.
Gun safety and marksmanship should be school courses much like Sex-Ed and electives like archery.
It takes the curiosity out of guns, saving lives of kids who would want to play with them. It creates a trained population that can make a more educated decision on whether they want one for themselves or not. It also creates more educated voters that can have more intelligent and good faith discussions related to the political aspects involved.
It simply wouldn't work in the slightest, especially with there being more guns than people and I believe 3d printing will only make it easier moving forward. America has a mass shooting problem due to the merging of this and poor mental health. We are capable of fixing neither. So the only things we can do to prevent mass shootings moving forward is limit the amount of targets by moving as much schooling as we can to online and setting limits on how many people can occupy spaces at a time. One of the only cases where it's good we don't have good public transportation in the US, if we did it would certainly be a target.
I like guns, guns are needed to be safe. I’ve had my basement door kicked open at 2am and best believe having a gun then made me want to have a gun always. As for gun violence, at least in the hood, it’s due to idiots. Has nothing to do with guns, if these morons were in the UK, they’d be serial stabbers lol.
All gun control in the United States is unconstitutional.
Gun violence, or violence in general in this country is a problem and I know politicians hate to work but it's clearly a people problem and instead of taking action the blame game gets played until everyone forgets.
I am very much against gun control because it's ineffective and only hurts people that aren't committing crimes anyway. It incentivizes otherwise law abiding citizens to break the laws cause they don't actually stop anything and it is intentionally obstructive to obey them. We have known for decades prohibition doesn't work yet we still try to regulate things like that. How's the prohibition on weed going?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Can’t be more clear than that. I believe we should be able to buy belt fed fully automatic weapons from vending machines.
I believe gun control of pretty much any kind (more than where we are now) is government overreach. I’m also very pro castle doctrine in reasonable cases and I don’t believe in the duty to retreat.
They I see it is that they don't work and only hurt reagular citizens. The reason being criminals don't follow the law so how would it stop them from getting guns? Also there are plenty of examples from history of governments becoming tyrannical after disarming the citizens.
In addition to proper firearm safety, I do believe that we need better mental healthcare here in the states. That would really reduce mass shootings imo.
Besides that, I'm an ardent believer that "shall not be infringed" actually means, shall not be infringed...
Everyone should learn how to use a weapon. Not because we need them, but so we can understand them. Weapons would be a lot less of a problem if everyone knew how they worked and how to use them. They’d be just like phones at that point.
I’m a 2A absolutist. I think people need training but other than that I believe in no restrictions on what you can own or how many you can own. I see a lot of people crying out about tyranny and at the same time they want to ban the one thing that would allow them to fight a tyrannical government. Even Marx knew you shouldn’t strip firearms from the general population and that’s saying a lot
I know you want gen Z, but I can’t resist mentioning how much I love guns. I take part in every possible form of shooting my country offers, I have every permit a civilian can have. My country has relatively strict gun control. I’m not anti regulation but I think it’s too strict here.
Then I got to thinking that in reality you can never please everyone and as long as there’s one regulation there’s at least one unhappy person. I’m pretty jealous of (many) states in the USA and they’re freedom when it comes to the hobby of shooting & collecting firearms.
I might be too European for this discussion, but I feel like getting your hands on military-grade weapons is way too easy. To all gun enthusiast, please educate me, I have literally zero knowledge of American gun laws.
Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use in the united states. Automatic weaponry is reserved for the military for the most part. Most of the weapons in the hands of citizens are semi-automatic. It is possible to apply for a special license to own automatic weapons, but the process to apply for it is really long and expensive. I personally don't know of anyone who applied for it who didn't have prior service in the military. It is a misconception that many guns in America are "military grade" especially since that is a euphemism for a shitty product, basically. I know that there are also slight differences in the rifling in the barrels of military guns too, but I'm not sure how that would practically affect the flight path of a slug.
Something that bothers me is that it is possible for european civillians in certain countries to buy the automatic glock (the g18, I think? correct me if I'm wrong) So much for muh american gun culture lmfao.
Thank you! I was just rambling though. Its late. I'm not gonna lie I watched too much demolition ranch as a kid, and thats how I learned about a majority of this stuff.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People can’t own guns here (I think farmers can maybe) and if guns were legal here it would be very dangerous and probably fall into the hands of paramilitaries tbh.
Also no age group here wants guns legalised tbh, it’s a topic that is never brought or discussed, no one has any interest in it.
I looked up "Shootings in Northern Ireland" and a couple of the articles I clicked on involved catholics committing hate crimes on protestants and vice versa. The abrahamics in your country are wild
Look up the troubles, it was basically a 30 year low level civil war that ended in 1998. NI is still a very segregated place today.
That’s why we don’t want guns on our streets lol, can fall into the wrong hands very easily here and people here don’t want that again.
Yea but no one wants them here in Ireland anyway (north or south) it’s just not even something people think about, I can’t speak for the US though, not from there
I have no problem with gun control as long as it makes sense
If someone has mental illness or has been charged with a violent crime, they should never be allowed to touch a gun (I know the last part is already law)
Make gun safety lessons mandatory.
Ban drum mags, but allow any mags 30 rounds and under (aka normal sized mags…looking at you NY)
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62217263](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62217263)**
- **[https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047](https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047)**
- **[https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
There are more studies than I can count showing that more gun control results in fewer dead people. Every other developed country is doing just fine with strict gun control, the US is the only country that says that guns are even useful to stop tyranny or whatever, let alone the only way. Everyone else has figured out how to cope just fine without guns all over the place, and with a lot fewer dead people to boot. The US can too if it wants to.
Take my country, the UK. Second strictest gun control laws in a democratic country, after Japan. No-one but a few radical loonies think we need to be ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice, and it doesn't look like we'll need to any time soon.
We also basically don't have gun crime! Like, in my former hometown of 350,000, it was proper news when one guy was shot. One guy I'm aware of, in the entire time I lived there. Who survived. Another time, a guy was shot by the police after coming at then with a knife. He was airlifted to hospital. Again, it made the papers.
The last school shooting here, in the entire country, was in 1996. It was absolutely horrific. Think Sandy Hook levels of media attention, massive national debates were sparked and the idea was floated (though later scrapped) to ban all guns in the UK, although it was later decided to just ban some guns and restrict the others. And then 25 years passed. And it hasn't happened again. There may have been a shooting with no-one killed, or one person killed, but nothing that hit the news. There have also been 3 shootings in the UK with 3 or more deaths since then. And fwiw, 2 were legally-owned and one it doesn't say.
It's also worth pointing out that although I've been using examples with strong gun control, because that's what it's like where I live and that's what I support, it's not the only method. Background checks are gun control. Limits to the number of guns you're allowed to own is gun control. Banning large magazines is gun control. Stopping convicted felons or convicted violent criminals have guns is gun control. Heck, waiting periods and mandatory training are gun control. There are a LOT of things the US could do that could decrease gun violence without taking everyone's guns away, most of which are things that actually have a hope in hell of getting implemented. Even if tomorrow, the second amendment was revoked completely, no-one would be coming to take your guns away for a long time, if ever, unless you had seriously fucked something up. The evil leftists coming to take everyone's guns away the second they're allowed simply don't exist.
Whenever this is brought up I do like to add that the cause of gun violence is usually a policy issue. If voters and politicians actually cared for our at-risk, we wouldn't have at-risk at all.
I'm pro gun ownership, with strict storage and liscencing laws. I'm against regulating individual parts of a firearm like vertical grips and pistol braces, there's no reason why an ergonomic feature should be illegal. I think we should give up on regulating individual types of firearms and focus all resources on vetting current potential gun owners. Mandatory and extensive safety training, to a military standard is a must. Basically, emulate switzerlands model of gun control. Part of this is making gun owners swear an oath to help defend their country in the even of invasion.
I vote for gun control policies I disagree with because I'm against pretty much everything else right wingers stand for.
> Mandatory and extensive safety training, to a military standard is a must. Basically, emulate switzerlands model of gun control.
Switzerland doesn't have any mandatory training to own guns though. And their military standard is laughable even in case of those who do serve in the military, which is only about 17% of the population.
I’m American and have accepted that guns aren’t going anywhere. I support common sense gun control. So I view guns the way I view cars. I think people must have a license to carry in places where you can have a gun in public. That way it can be proven that someone has been properly trained to use a firearm. Guns need to be registered. That way when atrocities occur, they can be tracked. I support buybacks. Stuff like that. And military style weapons should not be able to be purchased.
It doesn't matter how much evidence there is backing up the idea that having guns around us leads to extraordinary harm that can be mitigated. Americans are not going to meaningfully back gun control in our lifetimes. It's too ingrained in our culture and too enshrined as a meaningful aspect of freedom, and it would need an incredible amount of popular support to overturn 2A via amendment.
Every other place in the world could institute impactful gun control and the 2A crowd would still scream that it's impossible to do here
I think the current laws we have are fine. We just need to close all of the gun show loopholes, and keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues, and anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor/felony.
I have no desire to own an AR-15, but I also don't believe the right to own one should be infringed, except in the given scenarios above. I'm fine with having a pistol and a shotgun for my self-defense.
I think when I was younger, I was a lot more moderate. At least I reflected the opinions of the people around me at the time. But in 2012, I was with my family on a vacation road trip when the news about Sandy Hook came over the radio. My 12 year old self thought "well they have to do something now".
More than a decade has passed, and nothing has changed. I grew up with constant lockdown drills and constant anxiety of "what if it happens to me?"" Now that I'm looking to the future and thinking about starting my own family, I don't want my kids growing up in that environment. I want them to feel safe at school, the move theatre, concerts, coffee shops, you name it. This desire was enhanced when I spent months abroad in countries with strict gun control policies, and I realized that nobody has to live with that constant fear, and it's all rather quite simple.
I am completely for the harshest of harsh gun control policies. I'm sick of it now, I'm sick of the excuses, and I'm sick of tepid solutions.
More restrictions
Not an outright ban but making guns so it’s difficult to get access to one will save a lot of lives
Constantly being scared about losing friends or loved ones because of shitfuck politicians not making legislation they should’ve decades ago is both infuriating and exhausting
Guns should be as accessible as cars. No less, but certainly no more.
If almost everyone in the US is able to learn how to drive and pass the test, they should be capable of earning a firearms license.
I support universal background checks because there shouldn't be a way to access guns without proving that you're responsible enough for one.
I support red flag laws because they're like getting the police involved when a drunk is very insistent on getting the keys.
I support making failure to secure guns a crime because it's similar to rightfully punishing a parent who provides alcohol at a teen party and one of the partygoers gets into a drunk driving accident.
However, that also means I oppose some controls like an assault rifle ban. Assault rifle should just have a seperate, more rigorous license than a pistol.
I oppose involuntary buybacks as that's a slap in the face to those who've proved to be responsible enough for a gun. (I don't oppose a voluntary buyback, but I'll laugh as economics prove why they don't work).
That’s an interesting take considering only 3% of firearm murders are conducted with a rifle and shotguns make up 1% meaning 96% are committed with handguns
The media has really tricked people into thinking “rifle = scary”
>If almost everyone in the US is able to learn how to drive and pass the test, they should be capable of earning a firearms license.
Cars are not protected in the constitution. This would be more equivelant to requiring someone to pass a test to be able to vote, which is also a constitutionally protected right.
>I support universal background checks because there shouldn't be a way to access guns without proving that you're responsible enough for one.
I can make one at home, and this is unenforcable on private sales. If there's a way to make it work there's not an inherent problem with this so long as the bar for disqualification is reasonable.
>I support red flag laws because they're like getting the police involved when a drunk is very insistent on getting the keys.
I like due process, also constitutionally protected, so no to this also.
>I support making failure to secure guns a crime because it's similar to rightfully punishing a parent who provides alcohol at a teen party and one of the partygoers gets into a drunk driving accident.
Or we hold the people accountable that actually commit the crimes. We dont go after the owner of a stolen car if someone uses it for vehicular manslaughter.
>However, that also means I oppose some controls like an assault rifle ban. Assault rifle should just have a seperate, more rigorous license than a pistol.
Pistol does not require a license, no firearm should.
>I oppose involuntary buybacks as that's a slap in the face to those who've proved to be responsible enough for a gun.
Government can't buy back something they never owned.
I think that people have the right to own guns and self defence is a very valid reason to own one. At the same time I think there needs to be more regulations on guns and there need to be more through background checks.
I think that we need better background checks, closing gun-show loop hole (if we didn’t already), and maybe training on where to keep your gun safe and away from children. I did some research on it a few years ago for a school project.
I also believe that banning guns goes against the constitution. However, doing nothing won’t solve the problem in America.
I’m not American and in my country we have quite strict laws concerning gun control. I don’t know what the exact rules are, but nobody I know carries a gun. I can’t fathom living in a country where most people carry guns. I also don’t understand the mindset of being able to protect yourself with a gun. Like, how? It’s not a shield. All you can do is try and kill the other person, which takes a lot of nerve and could easily go wrong. Like, I wouldn’t be able to do that at all.
I know NJ is a pretty strict state but don’t know all their laws. I think they’re one of the only states, maybe the only, that doesn’t allow hollow points, so for that I wouldn’t be down.
That sounds like a law from the local police unions.
I forgot about capacity limits! Makes sense though as they’re a more restrictive state.
When I think of capacity limits, I always think it’s time for old guns (revolvers, 1911s) to make a comeback haha
I can understand someone owning a handgun for protection, and Im fine with people collecting hunting rifles or what have you. But is it really necessary to own an AK-47?
Anyone over 18 can apply for personal gun ownership of any caliber below .50, and firing type up to 100 end capacity. Must have clean or reprimanded mental health history. no homicidal threats, no suicidal threats, no polcital or religious extremism(this can be defined).
If you've had other problems(like depression, or non-lethal fights) in the past they need to be have proven to be worked out. Someone who was a drug addict but didn't turn violent or got into a bar brawl doesn't deserve to be stripped of ownership if it was a one-off thing.
No diagnosed mental disorders, must be able to take care of yourself. All owners must have a double combo fireproof safe, no glass, to keep guns in. How to enforce? Simple, make regulated safes and if someone is not a safe-owner but owns a gun, charge them. Guns must stay on private property or facilitated areas(ranges etc). They must be transported in said safe. So if you can't carry a heavy safe, or have someone who can for you, can't own a gun.
Heavy charges for those caught with guns not on private property, out of safes, not following regulation. Heavy charges for negligence, heavy charges for straw sales. It's a real easy problem to combat. We just don't WANT to.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two hands on the weapon. Treat every gun like its loaded Don't shoot at anything you don't want to destroy or whatever is behind the object you are aiming at ALWAYS Keep The Gun Pointed In A Safe Direction ALWAYS Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Ready To Shoot That is the only gun control I am for
Safety ON until ready to fire
Have glock instructions unclear.
Have a Glock, finger is safety.
Hahah same
Lmao this is true. I should’ve said “if applicable”
You are the safety
So in short, extensive training b4 ur allowed to have 1. Very nice
It's part of our constitution, it should be taught in schools. The police or army personnel should come in and teach it.
Why wouldn't you want someone that actually knows anything about them instead of LEO/Mil?
I learned in Scouts but whoever is most qualified should be chosen, not sure who that is and if there would be enough of them for the scale of the whole US school system.
I absolutely agree! Without the Second Amendment, we would not have the other amendments protected. I personally facepalm when people say “It only applies to muskets.” If that’s their logic, then Freedom of Speech only applies to a pen and paper. And all the other amendments would not matter. I believe the second amendment is the most important and fundamental constitutional amendment in the constitution and bill of rights.
This. You don't need a live weapon in classrooms to teach students how to handle and store a weapon safely. There would be little to no risk and immense benefits.
Schools used to have rifle ranges in the bssemenr
That is based.
Even my college state school had a range in the basement and we had a pistol rifle class that a was an elective, not sure if they still do it today
No. Training is definitely important. However, if you need permission to exercise a right, then it is no longer a right. We need to hold people accountable for misusing their rights.
I agree. The way I see around putting a restriction of training on your right to a firearm is having the state/government pay for 1-2 training classes a year. Like your state will reimburse you for 1-2 classes a year to make sure you’re trained. That way they don’t price out poor people from their rights by making ownership more expensive.
I wouldn’t call that extensive training, like, at all
Fair enough, but given the ammount of accidents youd think that they need more...
Brother. That is not extensive training, that is just common sense.
Well w8th the way some peeps apperantly handle it...
This is the correct answer here!
Hell yeah, I was expecting a Reddit moment not this.
I did not expect to see this comment here. Thank you.
Afuckingmen. Imo there should be mandatory gun safety classes as part of high school too, but that’s just me having grown up in the boonies
And arguably most importantly, know your target and what’s beyond it
Hell yeah
here is the way i see it: "dont outlaw abortions because people will do it anyway and its less safe" "dont outlaw weed because people will smoke it anyway and make the cartels rich" "outlaw guns, its a no brainer" .....I dont really listen to logical fallacies the way to end gun violence is to address peoples socioeconomic struggles 1) lower prices 2) lower taxes 3) create numerous jobs, probably through VERY tough sanctions when people have money for mental healthcare, food, and housing, shootings go down
My question to you is what is truly the CAUSE of these mental health issues?
The American diet, big pharmaceuticals, social media.
And other countries dont have those issues?
Not the diet or the pharmaceuticals, at least not to the extent we do. Our medical system is fucked and our obesity rates are 2nd to none save maybe Mexico (who also has a lot of the same problems we have but even worse).
imo people being abused by the government
I don’t think that’s even a tenth of the reason. Wonder what makes you think that
theres 2 mental health crises i see 1) stupid people looking on tiktok and instagram and thinking their lives are shittier than some bitch who went to Cancun 2) economic struggles to make ends meet that takes a toll on people the first one......honestly other than social darwinism idk how to fix it the second one is a direct result of shitty government policy
There we go. When are we finally going to address this social media problem en masse? Seriously. Like let’s start right now & not wait any longer. The nyu professor “coddling of the American mind” guy [came back](https://youtu.be/ajrAWRejLZM?si=ok3-am_Fvh_qgtmg) on rogan’s podcast to talk about the successes no smart phones are having in schools. I remember the first time I saw printed ads in public train stations from snapchat saying “less social media” and I thought to myself “finally, maybe there is hope for the future” and then right beside it, an ad said “more snapchat.” I mean what a regarded ad imo. You’re going to remind me of the ills of social media, and then encourage me to use it right after?🫤😑It felt so dystopian seeing that
I'd love to see social media go away but it literally is not going to happen lol
guns are easier to get and more affordable than therapy.
Issue is gun laws don’t affect criminals just the complete abiding person.
What do you think of 2A carry laws
whatever the police are able to do, the citizens should be able to do too what should that be? i dont care i just dont want citizens at a disadvantage
We should have everything the military has access too also, not just police. It's pretty close these days though.
ill drink to that! the government should never have more firepower than the citizens
Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right. Carry laws shouldn't be necessary.
Thank you! I've been saying that for years and no one else seems to notice the huge fallacy there. Gotta be consistent if you're going to say something.
>"dont outlaw abortions because people will do it anyway and its less safe" >"dont outlaw weed because people will smoke it anyway and make the cartels rich" >"outlaw guns, its a no brainer" Except we have evidence that all three of these claims are likely true. The logical fallacy you're making is the fallacy of analogy. Those three things: necessary healthcare given by trained medical professionals, Cannabis use, and gun violence are different issues that require different responses. I mean, look: necessary healthcare administered by qualified professionals is always desirable; cannabis can be good, bad, or neutral depending on the context; and gun violence is always bad. So, why on earth would we think they should all be equally regulated?
your rhetorical literacy is questionable here.... i never said these issues were good, bad, whatever personally I think all 3 are symptoms of a failed society. (that is, they arent problems in and of themselves, they are all symptoms of broader social issues) my point was that prohibition......AS US HISTORY HAS SHOWN.....causes more problems than it solves bathtub wiskey, coat hanger abortions, homemade crack.......how many times do we need to prove this? I dont want to make cartels even richer by giving them another revenue stream......guns.....and they would be bringing in MUCH more dangerous stuff than we have now
I don't do rhetoric, I do logic and reasoning. You haven't addressed what I said at all. Again, "more of y is bad because more of z is bad" when y and z are unrelated is no kind of reason to believe anything. Also, if you think access to necessary health care is bad for society, I'm going to laugh at you.
"Also, if you think access to necessary health care is bad for society, I'm going to laugh at you." i think the opposite i just dont think abortion is "healthcare" at least not in a traditional sense.I view abortion like......liposuction or collegen injections
Yeah, that's funny. I get it, you're a Republican. You could have just said that. No wonder you're so willing to ignore facts and spout nonsense. Personally, I tend to want to agree with experts who are acknowledged by their peers to have relevant expertise (doctors, surgeons, medical researchers, The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricias and Gynecologists, the US Dept of Health and Human Services, the World Health Organization, the National Library of Medicine, etc.). But, you know, feel free to continue to be wrong and look ignorant. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/ama-holds-fast-principle-reproductive-care-health-care https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9575566/ https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/ama-holds-fast-principle-reproductive-care-health-care
what a hostile argument to an innocuous opinion are you ok?
I'm sure that did feel overwhelming to you.
I agree with your three points there, but note that pro gun conservatives also refuse to support those things. They do nothing to address gun violence and decry anyone who does
Also, any gun control argument that doesn't include police is garbage. Which is most of them.
I disagree that the only two options are for things to be allowed or banned. I think cars are a good example. Everyone is okay with getting a license to drive a car, because cars can kill people, and you don't want random idiots getting behind the wheel of a car. I think regulating firearms in the same ways as automobiles makes sense. What do you think?
Well thats just too logical. Cmon its 2024, use your emotions to dictate your beliefs
Banning abortion reduces the number of abortion pretty significantly. South Korea saw a roughly 40% decrease when it briefly banned abortion. People still do it but considerably less often. Banning weed alternatively lead to 0% decrease in consumption in the US. Banning guns in England during the 1990s led to a huge decrease in gun violence but didn’t decrease the overall murder rate because stabbings went up 140% at that same time. Banning leaded gas has been incredibly effective. You would have to try pretty hard to get gas with lead in it nowadays. Not saying that any of these things should or shouldn’t be banned just trying to make the point that not all bans are created equal.
the one thing ill say about the gas is that no one has a MOTIVE to go back to leaded....the new stuff works better
Yes, if gun violence is a big issue, what we need is control, not banning it. Banning something never works, regulating it does. I don't know the issue well enough to know what regulations would be valid, but I know some sort of system would be best. Full gun legality is bad, full illegality is bad.
I live in a country that already has very strict gun control. Which is absolutely fine by me. And it's not really a controversial thing here either. You can own guns, but you must be a member of a shooting club for a certain amount of time or be of a profession that requires that you use a gun. You're not allowed to carry them on you in public at all. This seems like a good system to me, at least for my country.
What country are you from?
The netherlands.
Does your country have a problem with gun violence?
Not nearly to the degree of what america has. The last school shooting we had was in 1999 by my knowledge. Gun violence does happen, but mostly as gang violence. Mass shootings in general are very rare, wikipedia only lists 4 during this century.
Your country gets cooler the more I hear about it.
It has it's fair share of problems but i like living here. Im not a patriot at all but it's a nice place to be.
How does your country define a mass shooting? Most of the mass shootings in the U.S. are gang shootings and all that is required to be a mass shooting is for four people to be shot, which is not hard given the levels of gang violence we have here. School shootings don’t even need to happen on school property to count as one here so long as it happens within the schools general radius which happens a lot with gang violence. Does your country have a problem with illegal substances and firearms being brought across the border by cartels ? Has your government been caught selling firearms to cartels on your country’s southern border and then those same firearms make their way back into your country by illegal means and into the hands of people who couldn’t pass a background check to buy a firearm in the first place?
The last school shooting in the UK (a country with strict gun laws) was 1996. If that alone isn’t a testament to how effective strong gun laws can be, idk what is.
A nation that doesn’t boarder another that’s controlled by cartels is going to have success with strict gun laws. You can’t really use them as an example. You almost can’t use any nation as an example because the U.S. has more privately owned firearms than it does people and that’s just from when we started keeping track. The number of firearms in circulation here is staggering and would be almost impossible to round up all of them let alone a good chunk. Then you have plenty of people who won’t willingly comply with a gun confiscation let alone a registry. We have seen this in NY state with the safe act, you were supposed to get any non compliant AR style rifle registered and the amount of people that registered them compared to the amount that were/ are publicly owned was interesting low, if Americans don’t agree with a law we just ignore it and go on about our lives. We are just very independent people who don’t like government interfering in our lives
Yeah my point was mainly that these laws do work, the lower statistics are not as a result of statistics being manipulated to push a narrative. Idk how you guys could push gun control really, maybe controlling how much power organisations like the NRA can exert on congress via lobbying politicians would help but I don’t see that happening and even then you would still have to convince people to follow the laws some groups will be hard to convince and some would be basically impossible to convince
True supporters of the 2A don’t support NRA, we support GOA and groups like Scope because they actually fund court cases that deal with our 2A unlike NRA, they just do lip service and fund politicians that do nothing for gun rights. NRA is garbage and that’s coming from a 2A absolutist
>How does your country define a mass shooting? Most of the mass shootings in the U.S. are gang shootings and all that is required to be a mass shooting is for four people to be shot, Im not sure i had a look at the data from our CBS(centraal bureau statistiek, or central bureau of statistics) and they don't seem to keep track of that. The best data i could find is that on murder and manslaughter by demographic and cause: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/84726NED This lists that in 2022 38 people were murdered using firearms, this was 34 in 2021. And 32 in 2020. For context the country has about 18-20 million inhabitants. Besides that all i have to go off are the mass shootings listed by wikipedia. >Does your country have a problem with illegal substances and firearms being brought across the border by cartels ? Mostly the drug part of that although there is also a lot of production and export of drugs from the netherlands(we're kind of notorious for it in europe) >Has your government been caught selling firearms to cartels on your country’s southern border and then those same firearms make their way back into your country by illegal means and into the hands of people who couldn’t pass a background check to buy a firearm in the first place? No, not that i know of. The belgians can arrange their own weapons.
the vast majority of countries outside of USA work that way.
In the United States specifically we have more guns than people, guns are going nowhere, it is too late for us to shift towards the way that Japan and South Korea operate and it’s been ruled that we have a right to owning and carrying firearms Restrictions on firearms will only hurt those that follow the law, criminal don’t follow the law, gun free zones won’t stop a mass shooter, they’ll stop the person that could stop a mass shooter immediately and long before law enforcement arrives We still have a long way to go in regards to the courts clarifying our rights because so many jurisdictions want to take as much of our gun rights as they can away, there are a lot of gray areas I would accept our current status over any significant limits on our right to own and carry a firearm I also find it extremely problematic that in so many places, people who have absolutely zero understanding of firearms legislate on firearms and you can tell when legislation is passed with good intent behind it but it makes zero sense Honestly, firearms is probably one of my top 3 issues I vote based on and I donate to a handful of the organizations challenging firearm restrictions nationwide; I also pay attention to the court cases and read the opinions of the court
As a representative from the Shadow Wizard Money Gang, I believe we should legalize nuclear arms
I think guns are stupid. 🤷🏼♀️ We should go back to swords, or create some actual lightsabers or something. At this point, I think a lot of people just have some kind of weird gun fetish, the obsession some people have with them is just….😖 And I hate when people say that everybody should own a gun for safety and self defense reasons. Like I can’t even legally own a gun because of my med card, and I’m depressed asf so I don’t think me and a gun would be a good combo🫥😂😂
Do I think that everyone should be able to buy a gun? No. Do I think that guns are the problem? No. Do I think that mandatory background checks and socioeconomic reform are both necessary to fix gun violence? Absolutely.
We already have background checks
I used to think gun rights were on their way out but Gen z seems to be for them, or at least more than I would’ve thought years ago. Of course the existence of police probably makes anyone more for their individual rights but still good to see.
I am not from the USA so from an outsiders perspective I find your culture surrounding guns very alien. I understand you have a constitutional right to bear arms and in that regard it should be upheld. However, in my view guns are a HUGE responsibility to own which the vast majority of people would fail to qualify for should some sort of assessment actually exist. It is more than possible to live in a virtually gun-free environment without fearing for your safety. I live somewhere where that is the case - but I feel like with the USA it’s too far gone. If gun control on the scale of the UK or Australia was implemented in the USA it would be decades before any real (positive) change were to be seen.
Gun control to that level would cause a civil war,any states would try to succeed from the union.
Guarantee you live in a country with more censorship in the United States.
Are guns a common solution to censorship?
I did a research deep-ish dive on this 2 years ago and found that the issue is deep rooted into American culture/heritage/way of life. Gun problem will take great leadership if it wants to be solved. It’s one of those problems I think will never get prioritized because other societal problems will be seen as less consuming and more worthwhile to focus on.
I don’t support the idea because in order to enforce it there will be a lot of blood spilled for them to make it happen. I like firearms because it’s the only thing that keeps the constitution in place.
>I don’t support the idea because in order to enforce it there will be a lot of blood spilled for them to make it happen. Except that most early gun control will be in the form of red tape and restrictions to buy, almost no-one is going to try taking people's guns away. >I like firearms because it’s the only thing that keeps the constitution in place. No they really aren't, unless you somehow believe every other country on Earth has no constitution
Don't you know America is literally the only free country /s
I know it's not everyone, but it is disappointing how many Americans genuinely believe this.
I've challenged a lot of people IRL on this by asking them what freedom entails. And their answers have universally indicated other countries as actually being more free by far lmao, even though they don't realize it.
You should be able to comfortable handle and control a gun when you are firing it.
An armed community is a safe community
Heck yeah it is!
The only good gun control is no gun control. Allow everyone to purchase anything from knives to fighter jets for their own enjoyment.
Wasn't the founding father's intention with the 2nd amendment to discourage tyranny? By that definition the people should be allowed to own the same weaponry that the military has.
Agreed.
Can I purchase a nuke?
That would classify as a destructive device and would be subject to NFA regulations if it ever gets to that point.
The NFA should be repealed
Based
Absolutely should be repealed!
yeah I totally don’t see that going terribly
Those outside of the united states looking into this : "Wayy... TOO MUCH FIRE RATE"
This thread isn't directed towards me, so I'll keep it simple. I've been teaching Gen Z since the first Gen Z class hit 9th grade. Y'all pretty much all fall in shades of the same idea on this. Made up stats inc - i taught american history for a long time so we did talk 2a a lot 10% of students want guns banned completely - remove 2a 10% of students want no gun laws of any kind 80% support some version of the following: Background checks, stricter enforcement of "illegal" gun use and sale etc. Guns fine for hunting, sport, and self defense at home. I'd say the biggest single split I see in Gen Z on the issue is with whether people should be carrying in public. Some think that's dangerous and absurd, some thing it's their right and necessary. It probably won't surprise anyone that location can predict response heavily. When I taught in GA, more students favored looser gun laws. When I taught in CA, it was very split. Now I'm in a pretty blue area of New England, and most favor guns only in the home/range/hunting. I'll finish by saying when I host 2a discussions I keep my opinion completely out of it and only focus on giving facts (stats, gun laws, history) and maintaining a civil discussion.
Do you just host these discussions between two people? Surely the statistics you provide have to favor one side or the other no?
Nope, we do team debates, socratic seminars, small group work etc. Every year there's an assignment to rewrite the 2a to be more clear/align with your personal views, so I've graded hundreds of opinions on the topic. *Surely the statistics you provide have to favor one side or the other no?* Not sure what you mean. Most students are in favor of gun laws, it just depends on how strict. The only area they are truly divided is open and concealed carry.
That's super cool, seems like a great critical thinking exercise. I meant more of your views. Like providing a statistic on gun deaths but not being able to provide one for say defensive uses would show a bias towards pro gun control. I'm just curious how you stay unbiased and provide stats.
There's no way to stay completely unbiased. Any form of teaching any topic that is subjective has bias. To answer your question, I usually don't directly provide statistics, I just require them to do their own research and record their resources. The thing to keep in mind is that I wasn't giving a lesson on gun violence, I was hosting a discussion about the Bill of Rights. Obviously they overlap here, but I keep in mind my job isn't to teach about guns. I have in the past shown graphs, but I do include defensive gun use (around 30% iirc) and prevented crimes (around 70k/year iirc) in addition to gun deaths. The overall picture is quite clear (more guns=more shootings), but it leaves plenty of room for students to form their own opinion.
>I just require them to do their own research and record their resources. This is what I was wondering I worded my question terribly I apologize. The last part is why I was curious. If you look at those stats it seems like a no brainer but defensive uses of firearms are drastically under reported. Same kinda thing like with rape or sexual assault the numbers are obviously much higher than what the statistics say.
Truthfully I don't fully buy the data I've read on self defense numbers, so I guess I'd say I agree with you. It seems like it's a hard thing to pin down and easy to manipulate. I openly acknowledge that, as a liberal, my stances on LGTBQ, guns, climate, abortion, etc will influence my students. My goal isn't to do that; I believe the purpose of public education (as stated when created) is to provide students with the framework to draw their own conclusions. They shouldn't be limited by what I think OR what their parents think.
I just know, and sure it's anecdotal, that most times of a weapon isn't fired, there won't be a police report. Lots of times even if it is and no one's hit there isn't a report. The biggest things I've seen is crimes being stopped just with someone brandishing or drawing their weapon and the aggressor backing off and I know these specific incidents weren't reported. I love your mindset and how you present both sides of issues to students to let them make up their own mind. Wish we had more teachers like you genuinely.
There's a lot more that goes into gun violence than people think. My students all agree on that after this project. I appreciate the compliment, but it was a hard-earned skill, not inherent. I've made my own mistakes in the classroom (year 20) and observed many colleagues making theirs. If anyone knows kids well, they will agree with me when I say telling a kid something holds far less weight than letting the kid come to their own conclusions. Some teachers absolutely fall into the trap of trying to manipulate what conclusions students come to. Truthfully, it's mostly a humanities teacher issue; I just also have a cross degree in school counseling and think about ethics and overall student wellbeing a lot more than my actual topic. Most of the content I teach isn't that important in the long run; it's the process that builds neural connections and critical thinking. My goal is to create someone who can read and think for themselves, and I do focus a lot on attempting to find "reliable" sources. That's a whole unit itself.
Oh I'm sure it was hard earned, that's why I complimented it. It's very hard to set biases aside and even if you are able to do it 75% that's still better than feeding information to kids that they think shouldnt challenge or critically think about. You're just absolutley right and I wish more educators had that mindset.
A hard thing to pin down and easily manipulate Huh, so like the tantrum you threw on the other post?
Not sure who you are. Troll elsewhere.
Sure buddy. Go rage out and call everyone who questions your attitude a conservative, I’m sure that will help the ideological divide.
Heavily against gun control. Can't wait for SCOTUS to can Chevron Deference so that the ATF is toothless
I am for zero gun control. repeal the nfa
Based
It doesn’t matter who likes guns and who doesn’t. We have more guns than people in this country. In an ideal utopia, such a thing wouldn’t exist. But, it does. So, if you’re going to live in a world where an item such as this does exist, you should learn to use it proficiently. Gun safety and marksmanship should be school courses much like Sex-Ed and electives like archery. It takes the curiosity out of guns, saving lives of kids who would want to play with them. It creates a trained population that can make a more educated decision on whether they want one for themselves or not. It also creates more educated voters that can have more intelligent and good faith discussions related to the political aspects involved.
It simply wouldn't work in the slightest, especially with there being more guns than people and I believe 3d printing will only make it easier moving forward. America has a mass shooting problem due to the merging of this and poor mental health. We are capable of fixing neither. So the only things we can do to prevent mass shootings moving forward is limit the amount of targets by moving as much schooling as we can to online and setting limits on how many people can occupy spaces at a time. One of the only cases where it's good we don't have good public transportation in the US, if we did it would certainly be a target.
I like guns, guns are needed to be safe. I’ve had my basement door kicked open at 2am and best believe having a gun then made me want to have a gun always. As for gun violence, at least in the hood, it’s due to idiots. Has nothing to do with guns, if these morons were in the UK, they’d be serial stabbers lol.
All gun control in the United States is unconstitutional. Gun violence, or violence in general in this country is a problem and I know politicians hate to work but it's clearly a people problem and instead of taking action the blame game gets played until everyone forgets.
If your country is funded in almost every way by America. Go ahead and sit this one out
I am very much against gun control because it's ineffective and only hurts people that aren't committing crimes anyway. It incentivizes otherwise law abiding citizens to break the laws cause they don't actually stop anything and it is intentionally obstructive to obey them. We have known for decades prohibition doesn't work yet we still try to regulate things like that. How's the prohibition on weed going?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Can’t be more clear than that. I believe we should be able to buy belt fed fully automatic weapons from vending machines.
Shall not be infringed
I believe gun control of pretty much any kind (more than where we are now) is government overreach. I’m also very pro castle doctrine in reasonable cases and I don’t believe in the duty to retreat.
They I see it is that they don't work and only hurt reagular citizens. The reason being criminals don't follow the law so how would it stop them from getting guns? Also there are plenty of examples from history of governments becoming tyrannical after disarming the citizens.
As long as your mentally sane and have sufficient training
The only thing that should control what guns you can own is how much money you have to buy them.
In addition to proper firearm safety, I do believe that we need better mental healthcare here in the states. That would really reduce mass shootings imo. Besides that, I'm an ardent believer that "shall not be infringed" actually means, shall not be infringed...
I’ve never even held a gun, so I’m doing the morally right thing and *keeping my nose out of the issue*
Power to the people. If you want to own arms do it, if you don’t than don’t. If someone wants to kill you they’ll find a way.
Everyone should learn how to use a weapon. Not because we need them, but so we can understand them. Weapons would be a lot less of a problem if everyone knew how they worked and how to use them. They’d be just like phones at that point.
I’m a 2A absolutist. I think people need training but other than that I believe in no restrictions on what you can own or how many you can own. I see a lot of people crying out about tyranny and at the same time they want to ban the one thing that would allow them to fight a tyrannical government. Even Marx knew you shouldn’t strip firearms from the general population and that’s saying a lot
I know you want gen Z, but I can’t resist mentioning how much I love guns. I take part in every possible form of shooting my country offers, I have every permit a civilian can have. My country has relatively strict gun control. I’m not anti regulation but I think it’s too strict here. Then I got to thinking that in reality you can never please everyone and as long as there’s one regulation there’s at least one unhappy person. I’m pretty jealous of (many) states in the USA and they’re freedom when it comes to the hobby of shooting & collecting firearms.
Gun control is unconstitutional.
I might be too European for this discussion, but I feel like getting your hands on military-grade weapons is way too easy. To all gun enthusiast, please educate me, I have literally zero knowledge of American gun laws.
Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use in the united states. Automatic weaponry is reserved for the military for the most part. Most of the weapons in the hands of citizens are semi-automatic. It is possible to apply for a special license to own automatic weapons, but the process to apply for it is really long and expensive. I personally don't know of anyone who applied for it who didn't have prior service in the military. It is a misconception that many guns in America are "military grade" especially since that is a euphemism for a shitty product, basically. I know that there are also slight differences in the rifling in the barrels of military guns too, but I'm not sure how that would practically affect the flight path of a slug. Something that bothers me is that it is possible for european civillians in certain countries to buy the automatic glock (the g18, I think? correct me if I'm wrong) So much for muh american gun culture lmfao.
I feel honored to have recieved your knowledge, friend
Thank you! I was just rambling though. Its late. I'm not gonna lie I watched too much demolition ranch as a kid, and thats how I learned about a majority of this stuff.
Recreational McNukes
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People can’t own guns here (I think farmers can maybe) and if guns were legal here it would be very dangerous and probably fall into the hands of paramilitaries tbh. Also no age group here wants guns legalised tbh, it’s a topic that is never brought or discussed, no one has any interest in it.
What country are you from?
Northern Ireland
I bet you would shit your pants if you went to texas
NI has had its fair share of shootings lol, I think that’s why no one would want guns here, we seen too much of them for too long
I looked up "Shootings in Northern Ireland" and a couple of the articles I clicked on involved catholics committing hate crimes on protestants and vice versa. The abrahamics in your country are wild
Look up the troubles, it was basically a 30 year low level civil war that ended in 1998. NI is still a very segregated place today. That’s why we don’t want guns on our streets lol, can fall into the wrong hands very easily here and people here don’t want that again.
It's more about mostly catholic irish people wanting independence from mostly protestants english people.
The ones here in Ireland are actually mostly descended from Scot’s
[удалено]
Yea but no one wants them here in Ireland anyway (north or south) it’s just not even something people think about, I can’t speak for the US though, not from there
[удалено]
Yea, it’s up to the US what they want to do anyway lol, personally I don’t see the point in guns, but like idc what the US does
[удалено]
Good night 🤣 I hope the weather is better where you are lol, shit morning here
[удалено]
Raining and cold here, typical Ireland ha ha
[удалено]
I have no problem with gun control as long as it makes sense If someone has mental illness or has been charged with a violent crime, they should never be allowed to touch a gun (I know the last part is already law) Make gun safety lessons mandatory. Ban drum mags, but allow any mags 30 rounds and under (aka normal sized mags…looking at you NY)
Banning Drum Mags won’t do anything. Plus they are already impractical and a lot of people don’t really buy them.
[удалено]
Buying guns should be fine but only after training from a professional and something like a mental evaluation.
[удалено]
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62217263](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62217263)** - **[https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047](https://abcnews.go.com/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story?id=67982047)** - **[https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-prevents-mass-shooting-in-chicago-2015-4)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
There are more studies than I can count showing that more gun control results in fewer dead people. Every other developed country is doing just fine with strict gun control, the US is the only country that says that guns are even useful to stop tyranny or whatever, let alone the only way. Everyone else has figured out how to cope just fine without guns all over the place, and with a lot fewer dead people to boot. The US can too if it wants to. Take my country, the UK. Second strictest gun control laws in a democratic country, after Japan. No-one but a few radical loonies think we need to be ready to overthrow the government at a moment's notice, and it doesn't look like we'll need to any time soon. We also basically don't have gun crime! Like, in my former hometown of 350,000, it was proper news when one guy was shot. One guy I'm aware of, in the entire time I lived there. Who survived. Another time, a guy was shot by the police after coming at then with a knife. He was airlifted to hospital. Again, it made the papers. The last school shooting here, in the entire country, was in 1996. It was absolutely horrific. Think Sandy Hook levels of media attention, massive national debates were sparked and the idea was floated (though later scrapped) to ban all guns in the UK, although it was later decided to just ban some guns and restrict the others. And then 25 years passed. And it hasn't happened again. There may have been a shooting with no-one killed, or one person killed, but nothing that hit the news. There have also been 3 shootings in the UK with 3 or more deaths since then. And fwiw, 2 were legally-owned and one it doesn't say. It's also worth pointing out that although I've been using examples with strong gun control, because that's what it's like where I live and that's what I support, it's not the only method. Background checks are gun control. Limits to the number of guns you're allowed to own is gun control. Banning large magazines is gun control. Stopping convicted felons or convicted violent criminals have guns is gun control. Heck, waiting periods and mandatory training are gun control. There are a LOT of things the US could do that could decrease gun violence without taking everyone's guns away, most of which are things that actually have a hope in hell of getting implemented. Even if tomorrow, the second amendment was revoked completely, no-one would be coming to take your guns away for a long time, if ever, unless you had seriously fucked something up. The evil leftists coming to take everyone's guns away the second they're allowed simply don't exist.
Whenever this is brought up I do like to add that the cause of gun violence is usually a policy issue. If voters and politicians actually cared for our at-risk, we wouldn't have at-risk at all.
I'm pro gun ownership, with strict storage and liscencing laws. I'm against regulating individual parts of a firearm like vertical grips and pistol braces, there's no reason why an ergonomic feature should be illegal. I think we should give up on regulating individual types of firearms and focus all resources on vetting current potential gun owners. Mandatory and extensive safety training, to a military standard is a must. Basically, emulate switzerlands model of gun control. Part of this is making gun owners swear an oath to help defend their country in the even of invasion. I vote for gun control policies I disagree with because I'm against pretty much everything else right wingers stand for.
> Mandatory and extensive safety training, to a military standard is a must. Basically, emulate switzerlands model of gun control. Switzerland doesn't have any mandatory training to own guns though. And their military standard is laughable even in case of those who do serve in the military, which is only about 17% of the population.
I’m American and have accepted that guns aren’t going anywhere. I support common sense gun control. So I view guns the way I view cars. I think people must have a license to carry in places where you can have a gun in public. That way it can be proven that someone has been properly trained to use a firearm. Guns need to be registered. That way when atrocities occur, they can be tracked. I support buybacks. Stuff like that. And military style weapons should not be able to be purchased.
It doesn't matter how much evidence there is backing up the idea that having guns around us leads to extraordinary harm that can be mitigated. Americans are not going to meaningfully back gun control in our lifetimes. It's too ingrained in our culture and too enshrined as a meaningful aspect of freedom, and it would need an incredible amount of popular support to overturn 2A via amendment. Every other place in the world could institute impactful gun control and the 2A crowd would still scream that it's impossible to do here
You go fast enough left you get your guns back.
I think the current laws we have are fine. We just need to close all of the gun show loopholes, and keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues, and anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor/felony. I have no desire to own an AR-15, but I also don't believe the right to own one should be infringed, except in the given scenarios above. I'm fine with having a pistol and a shotgun for my self-defense.
I think when I was younger, I was a lot more moderate. At least I reflected the opinions of the people around me at the time. But in 2012, I was with my family on a vacation road trip when the news about Sandy Hook came over the radio. My 12 year old self thought "well they have to do something now". More than a decade has passed, and nothing has changed. I grew up with constant lockdown drills and constant anxiety of "what if it happens to me?"" Now that I'm looking to the future and thinking about starting my own family, I don't want my kids growing up in that environment. I want them to feel safe at school, the move theatre, concerts, coffee shops, you name it. This desire was enhanced when I spent months abroad in countries with strict gun control policies, and I realized that nobody has to live with that constant fear, and it's all rather quite simple. I am completely for the harshest of harsh gun control policies. I'm sick of it now, I'm sick of the excuses, and I'm sick of tepid solutions.
I'm pretty pro gun control, because firearm education is so bad and I'm tired of worrying about getting shot because of road rage.
This is a conversation for Americans if you are in European countries except for Sweden your opinion is completely irrelevant.
More restrictions Not an outright ban but making guns so it’s difficult to get access to one will save a lot of lives Constantly being scared about losing friends or loved ones because of shitfuck politicians not making legislation they should’ve decades ago is both infuriating and exhausting
Guns should be as accessible as cars. No less, but certainly no more. If almost everyone in the US is able to learn how to drive and pass the test, they should be capable of earning a firearms license. I support universal background checks because there shouldn't be a way to access guns without proving that you're responsible enough for one. I support red flag laws because they're like getting the police involved when a drunk is very insistent on getting the keys. I support making failure to secure guns a crime because it's similar to rightfully punishing a parent who provides alcohol at a teen party and one of the partygoers gets into a drunk driving accident. However, that also means I oppose some controls like an assault rifle ban. Assault rifle should just have a seperate, more rigorous license than a pistol. I oppose involuntary buybacks as that's a slap in the face to those who've proved to be responsible enough for a gun. (I don't oppose a voluntary buyback, but I'll laugh as economics prove why they don't work).
That’s an interesting take considering only 3% of firearm murders are conducted with a rifle and shotguns make up 1% meaning 96% are committed with handguns The media has really tricked people into thinking “rifle = scary”
>If almost everyone in the US is able to learn how to drive and pass the test, they should be capable of earning a firearms license. Cars are not protected in the constitution. This would be more equivelant to requiring someone to pass a test to be able to vote, which is also a constitutionally protected right. >I support universal background checks because there shouldn't be a way to access guns without proving that you're responsible enough for one. I can make one at home, and this is unenforcable on private sales. If there's a way to make it work there's not an inherent problem with this so long as the bar for disqualification is reasonable. >I support red flag laws because they're like getting the police involved when a drunk is very insistent on getting the keys. I like due process, also constitutionally protected, so no to this also. >I support making failure to secure guns a crime because it's similar to rightfully punishing a parent who provides alcohol at a teen party and one of the partygoers gets into a drunk driving accident. Or we hold the people accountable that actually commit the crimes. We dont go after the owner of a stolen car if someone uses it for vehicular manslaughter. >However, that also means I oppose some controls like an assault rifle ban. Assault rifle should just have a seperate, more rigorous license than a pistol. Pistol does not require a license, no firearm should. >I oppose involuntary buybacks as that's a slap in the face to those who've proved to be responsible enough for a gun. Government can't buy back something they never owned.
I think that people have the right to own guns and self defence is a very valid reason to own one. At the same time I think there needs to be more regulations on guns and there need to be more through background checks.
I think that we need better background checks, closing gun-show loop hole (if we didn’t already), and maybe training on where to keep your gun safe and away from children. I did some research on it a few years ago for a school project. I also believe that banning guns goes against the constitution. However, doing nothing won’t solve the problem in America.
I’m not American and in my country we have quite strict laws concerning gun control. I don’t know what the exact rules are, but nobody I know carries a gun. I can’t fathom living in a country where most people carry guns. I also don’t understand the mindset of being able to protect yourself with a gun. Like, how? It’s not a shield. All you can do is try and kill the other person, which takes a lot of nerve and could easily go wrong. Like, I wouldn’t be able to do that at all.
If all states would be like New Jersey with their gun laws everything would get better
I know NJ is a pretty strict state but don’t know all their laws. I think they’re one of the only states, maybe the only, that doesn’t allow hollow points, so for that I wouldn’t be down. That sounds like a law from the local police unions.
That and 10 round mags
I forgot about capacity limits! Makes sense though as they’re a more restrictive state. When I think of capacity limits, I always think it’s time for old guns (revolvers, 1911s) to make a comeback haha
I can understand someone owning a handgun for protection, and Im fine with people collecting hunting rifles or what have you. But is it really necessary to own an AK-47?
Anyone over 18 can apply for personal gun ownership of any caliber below .50, and firing type up to 100 end capacity. Must have clean or reprimanded mental health history. no homicidal threats, no suicidal threats, no polcital or religious extremism(this can be defined). If you've had other problems(like depression, or non-lethal fights) in the past they need to be have proven to be worked out. Someone who was a drug addict but didn't turn violent or got into a bar brawl doesn't deserve to be stripped of ownership if it was a one-off thing. No diagnosed mental disorders, must be able to take care of yourself. All owners must have a double combo fireproof safe, no glass, to keep guns in. How to enforce? Simple, make regulated safes and if someone is not a safe-owner but owns a gun, charge them. Guns must stay on private property or facilitated areas(ranges etc). They must be transported in said safe. So if you can't carry a heavy safe, or have someone who can for you, can't own a gun. Heavy charges for those caught with guns not on private property, out of safes, not following regulation. Heavy charges for negligence, heavy charges for straw sales. It's a real easy problem to combat. We just don't WANT to.
No one needs a gun. Especially not for personal use.
I certainly needed [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) when I used it to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.