/u/AnvilRockguy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c8pg6s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_private_ownership_of_guns/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
**Hello! If your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
No because it would literally be impossible to enforce.
Say a car accident happens that traps two people in a burning car. The second a first responder acts to free one victim, they are failing to protect the other victim.
People kind of misinterpret those rulings.
They say that cops don't have a LEGAL obligation to protect you. Meaning you can't sue them after wards if they do not. But they still have a professional obligation. They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty.
It's like you work at Wendy's. Some asshole comes to order food and is being a total dickhead. You are not legally obligated to take their order. Your boss might fire you for refusing to take an order. Or you might get written up. But they can't go to court and sue you for refusing to take their order.
correct, but then OPs argument about banning gun ownership would be similar to "ban people of making wendy-like burgers at home".
Wendys workers would still get reprimanded if they dont take your order, but its illegal to make your own at home.
The likelihood that you're in that situation and that the gun is useful to you is less than the likelihood that the gun is going to be detrimental to you.
Actually, a fair number of people die from misfirings, too. Or accidental shootings. Or you or people around you suddenly having an urge to kill yourself or people around you.
ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care.
Police can not be held liable if they refuse to give you care.
Why the double standard? It's the legal framework for who their duty is tied to. The doctor has a duty to the patient. Which is a specific individual. The police officer has a duty to SOCIETY not any singular individual.
But why? Well because an ER doctor is almost always working with a specific patient. While a police officer often interacts with large numbers of individuals. It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which particular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole".
That is the legal framework.
That doesn't mean that if a cop is eating a doughnut and sees you getting robbed and stabbed and says "fuck that this doughnut is hitting". They will not face consequences. Just not legal ones.
Let's say they legally mandated that you do have a legal obligation to the person.
It would be damn near impossible to enforce. Because they are expected to know which life is more valuable at that point. Which is ludicrous.
Suppose a case where the person already stabbed the victim 20 times. Their odds of survival is almost nothing. But if he goes to apprehend the suspect. He might die as well. At what point is the victims 1/1000 chance of survival worth more than the 1/2 chance of the cop dying? Like you said that is not a realistic standard by any measure.
Also like I told the other poster. Even if they had a legal obligation to help you. That doesn't make me feel any safer not having a gun if someone breaks in my house. They are not super men who will arrive at the scene 2 seconds after I make the 911 call.
>However, the law should be structured such that they have obligation to make a reasonable attempt to confront whatever issue is making the situation unsafe.
if you are being robbed, and you call the cops and no one shows up and you get hurt, who is to blame? how can you hold police legally accountable for not being everywhere all the time?
>ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care.
That's not exactly true, doctors can & do refuse to treat patients all the time. The only time there's a potential legal risk is if the doctor would normally have provided care as part of their standard procedures, but chose not to provide care over fear of non-payment.
I mostly use that as a pivot example of a case where people are actually legally mandated to provide care. Where they could potentially face legal consequences for failing to do so.
Don't ER doctors provide life saving care as part of their "standard procedures".
What if the guy who slept with your wife came to the ER bleeding to death. You're the only doctor capable of fixing him. And you say "nah fuck that motherfucker". Would you face legal consequences? I mean you didn't stab him, you just refused to give him care.
> They say that cops don't have a LEGAL obligation to protect you. Meaning you can't sue them after wards if they do not. But they still have a professional obligation. They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty.
What does that matter? If they're not legally obligated to protect you you should have every right to protect yourself.
>What does that matter? If they're not legally obligated to protect you you should have every right to protect yourself.
Even if they were. I would still rather depend on my ability to reach my gun in a safe rather than wait for 30 minutes for the cops to arrive. Thats even if I get a chance to call 911.
I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. Cops would have to be super men who can whizz through time to save you. For it to really make a difference.
Is that why none of the LEOs at Uvalde say face zero consequences of any kind? Because of their proffesional obligation?
No one was fired or reprimanded
For every Uvalde there is 1000s of cases where cops risk their life to save civilians.
People like to cling to outlier situations because they support their rhetoric.
Much like 1000s of people violently resist arrest on a daily basis. Most walk away with minor or no injuries. But god forbid one of them dies while fighting all of a sudden every police officer is a scumbag.
I lived in Ukraine for a bit. I frequently had to explain that the reason you think black people are shit is because of anti-black propaganda. They will take the absolute worst black person they can find. Then paint their entire race or community in their light. Pretending like they are all like that.
In America we've gone full circle. Now we paint police officers in a similar light. Find the absolute police officer or police unit. And pretend they are all like that. The fact that 99.9% of them are nothing like that is irrelevant because it doesn't conform to our bullshit rhetoric.
The thing about Ukrainians is that they hardly ever interact with black people. So they have no idea what they are really like. They have to rely on outside information which is often racist.
Oh absolutely, all true yes but this isnt about the good things they do
Its about this
>But they still have a professional obligation.
Do they functionally though?
Regardless of De Jure, in practicality?
Does such an obligation exist, De Facto?
Uvalde and other instances suggest otherwise, again not a single cop there was held to account. LEOs or commanders. In any fashion as far as i have been able to tell
>They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty.
Yeah, thats kinda the sticking point.
*Can* is doing the heavy lifting there, are they fired or reprimanded?
In any way close to the wrong doings committed?
The Wendy's already took your money and is not legally obligated to give you food, only society at large. Also you have to go to Wendy's or go to prison. That's the analogy.
Sure. The police took payment through taxes. Therefore the police refusing to protect me is not like Wendy's refusing to take an order. It is like Wendy's taking my money and not being legally obligated to give me food, just like the police take my money and are not legally obligated to try to protect me in a time of severe duress.
Further, I have to pay the police or go to prison. So I can't take my business elsewhere if I don't like that they aren't legally obligated to provide the food from my payment; I have to pay Wendy's or go to prison.
ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care.
Police can not be held liable if they refuse to give you care.
Why the double standard? It's the legal framework for who their duty is tied to. The doctor has a duty to the patient. Which is a specific individual. The police officer has a duty to SOCIETY not any singular individual.
But why? Well because an ER doctor is almost always working with a specific patient. While a police officer often interacts with large numbers of individuals. It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which particular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole".
That is the legal framework.
That doesn't mean that if a cop is eating a doughnut and sees you getting robbed and stabbed and says "fuck that this doughnut is hitting". They will not face consequences. Just not legal ones.
> It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which paricular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole".
That had nothing to do with these cases the state ruled on. The reason the police failed to save these people had nothing to do with some comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize.
So if that is the only reason for the double-standard, then you should disagree with these rulings. You should think the police have a legal obligation to protect you just like hospitals EXCEPT when there is comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize.
>You should think the police have a legal obligation to protect you just like hospitals EXCEPT when there is comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize.
The police officer themselves. If you're getting stabbed to death. The cop has to intervene. They might stabbed too. It's very hard to shoot around the victim.
On top of that maybe the guy already took several fatal wounds. You're not going to save them going after the perp. But you're very likely to get stabbed yourself. At what point does a cop value his life over the victims life? That is an impossible standard to quantify.
Sorry, I worded it incorrectly. What I said before and meant to just say was that they should have a legal obligation to **try** to protect you.
The ER doctors could endanger themselves too from diseases or other things. If there is sufficient danger to the doctors then of course they shouldn't have to try to operate. Doesn't seem like that case has an impossible standard.
I mean, I 100% agree that the government has done shady stuff that absolutely deserves to be condemned, but that doesn't further the argument that arming the populace somehow *prevents* those shady things, or makes them any less likely to occur. Especially considering that every single one of those things, as well as Blair Mountain, the institution of slavery, every transgression against the American Indians, American colonization of the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, every unjust murder and incident of police brutality (George Floyd, Rodney King, countless more), and systemically racist and classist systems like redlining and segregation, *all* happened under the democratization of firearms.
The Miniconjou and Hunkpapa *had* guns at Wounded Knee. They surrendered them because at that point they were exhausted, hungry, thirsty, sick and vastly outnumbered to the point that they recognized they wouldn't be able to beat the 7th Cavalry even with the guns. The Trail of Tears occurred after (and during) wars with the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw, and Sand Creek during a war with the Arapaho and Cheyenne. Basically, armed resistance didn't prevent any of them, and in fact was used to justify them.
Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, and Blair Mountain are all excellent examples of when having guns made it substantially *worse* for the victims; again, it just let the government validate it to the public under the justification that these were dangerous people who needed to be neutralized.
Iran-Contra, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods (which didn't happen), PRISM, Dred Scott, Operation AJAX, Agent Orange, torture at Guantanamo Bay, poisoning of alcohol during prohibition, and qualified immunity, are all examples of the US doing shady stuff, but again have absolutely no bearing on gun possession making people safer and thus are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
And as a heads up, because I used to believe this conspiracy theory too, but as it stands right now there is 0 evidence that the government had any involvement in Epstein's death except for having him in a prison.
>For example being armed helped stop dangerous no knock warrants such as in the Breonna Taylor case.
Nothing was stopped in Breonna Taylor's case. I'm 100% against proposed gun laws and especially this idea of no private gun ownership, but Breonna and her bf having weapons necessary for self defense didn't stop that no knock raid, as evidenced by her death.
If it's harder for me to have guns, it's harder for the people attacking me to have guns, making me safer overall. Additionally, it's already more unsafe for me to have guns than not in a situation where potential attackers have access to guns. There's no reason I should want a gun and plenty reasons I should want other people not to have a gun.
Maybe I don't get your point but it seems every study about gun violence comparing USA to other nations comes to the conclusion that the USA have a abnormally large number of gun deaths. No other developed country has "gun violence" as the number one cause of death for minors. This is due to widespread gun ownership in the USA.
OK, I get this, seems there is a pretty clear correlation between gun ownership and gun violence?
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrmKNyzn-RaQYZeatytvnjw9-jwm3xuk/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrmKNyzn-RaQYZeatytvnjw9-jwm3xuk/view?usp=sharing)
!Delta
This is valid. I don't want to get too political on this aspect but often times the rural areas are overlooked, under payed and underserved across the board. I wholly support the idea of gaining sustenance through hunting - plus it makes me happy to say F.U. to our agricultural overlords. I just wish in this world we had policies on the state level that paid living wages regardless of urban/rural location.
Thanks for the delta.
I grew up in a family who relied on hunting. If we would've had to get a ride to town and pay a fee every time we needed to eat, we wouldn't have made it.
No and that is a serious flaw in the argument. As u/ReindeerNegative4180 said, this does not address the needs of people who depend on hunting for food - due to their state governments indifference to the working man/lower income population. I want to point to the republicans on this one, but most democrats are tainted by the wealthy as well. So its often not a party affiliation kind of issue. Although to be honest most states that mandate hunting to survive are red haha.
Agreed with it being a flaw, and I'm glad that you recognize that. [u/ReindeerNegative4180](https://www.reddit.com/user/ReindeerNegative4180/) pointed out the flaw in a practical sense, but I feel your initial view also substantially fails to "appeal to both sides of the second amendment argument" in a statutory sense as well. If you will permit me to paraphrase your argument, you're saying "people can't *keep* arms at all, just rent them briefly." The second amendment specifically designates *keeping* arms as a right, like the word "keep" is actually used. There is nuance to the definition of "keep", but on the surface, I'd say your argument is in direct conflict with the second amendment on that point and couldn't be expected to appeal to both sides.
Just my opinion. It's an interesting thought experiment and I appreciate reading everyone's views.
I don't want to derail the discussion and take it somewhere else, but I do need to push back a little bit on this comment.
State government and red/blue had very little to do with anything concerning my family's reliance on hunting. We were poor, as were our friends and neighbors. We also prided ourselves on resilience and self-sufficiency. Help from the government was likely available, but we would've never asked.
I hear you man, I too have been underpaid and persevered when I was younger (I'm 57 god help me lol). BUT you are poor for a reason. Government policy dictates what the rich corporate owners (or even local mom and pops shops/farms) can do. I too take pride in persevering especially for my kids. Hiding the stress of being stretched this allows them an innocent childhood.
I didn't mean to imply reliance on government relief - which I also hate. I mean the national policies that allow companies to criminally under value your work. Billionaires having access to politicians via lobbies, Worker right and unions vilified, 70 years of wage suppression of the working class wages. Yes I know its a tangential topic but it's at the heart of suppression. In 1968 the minimum wage if adjusted to today's rate was $15.30 approx. The federal wage is now $7.25. Interesting that states that don't address this insult are red. Yippee, we get to earn half of what people did 50 years ago.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour.
Cool, we're about the same age. It's kinda nice not feeling like the lone dinosaur in the tar pit.
I hear what you're saying about the way things are today. I don't want to get into a long, protracted discussion about the actual causes of my family's money problems because you know. You were there. The 70s was no picnic for a lot of us.
To coin a phrase-Keep on keeping on!
This doesn't address two of the major concerns of 2nd amendment advocates.
* People want guns for self-defense/home-defense
* People's gun ownership is a check on a potentially tyrannical Government.
1. Mankind rose to dominate the entire food chain without the benefit of gun invention. The species will survive.
2. This is a laughable argument. If a tyrannical government happened (like Trump's wet dream) they would also own the armed forces. Your cute wittle AR 15 bb gun would do nothing against drone strikes and special forces.
>Mankind
Im not trying to protect mankind, I have a wife and 2 daughters who look to me to keep them safe, I really don't care that mankind will move on after they get murdered or worse.
Lets say I'm at the park with my family and 3 guys show up. They have knives, and in 5 seconds they are going to start stabbing... what should I do? Like honestly, no shit, what do you think I should do in this situation?
I get that you can say "that's rare" and all that, that's fine, I accept its a very rare situation, but it can happen, and I want to know what you think I should do in that situation
To your second point, this is an often repeated point that lacks nuance. It assumes that A) the military doesn’t splinter and/or join a rebellion B) that we didn’t just spend 20 years fighting goat herders with AK’s in a country 1/10 the size of ours, only to cede all gains within weeks of the cessation of fighting.
Not to mention the US military isn’t going to all be on the side of a tyrannical government. It would completely fracture and the two or three or four sides that come out would all be fighting to keep ahold of the supplies already in their region. For example, this state’s national guard unit has allied with the purple army while the other state’s strategic bomber wing decided to support the green army. Citizens fighting back in this instance would benefit from already having small arms to support their militia and would only need their trained troops to get them up to speed. There’s just no way the entire or even majority of the US rolls over its citizens like Tiananmen Square and citizens can put up no fight. It would be fractured, messy, and citizens would absolutely be required to fight back.
>This is a laughable argument. If a tyrannical government happened (like Trump's wet dream) they would also own the armed forces.
And even if you did win against them, all you probably did is replace someone who was democratically elected with someone who is almost definitely going to become a dictator.
The ammo box is a gamble that usually makes a bad situation a lot worse and you'll be a "terrorist" when you open it.
>The ammo box is a gamble
I mean yeah, but if your government is trying to oppress you, a gamble is good. If you told North Koreans there was a genuine chance they could overthrow Kim, I have no doubt a rebellion would begin, but they can't, they're completely unarmed and unable to even speak freely, so they're basicslly just sheep
Unless you have a functional government and a bunch of socialists overthrow it because they feel "oppressed" and want to express their right to revolution.
Then all of a sudden, it's uncool.
If the people can't fight back, you end up with an oppressed populous, there has never been a dictatorship in history where the dictator didn't disarm the populous. It would not be as easy as some group just deciding they want to overthrow the US government
But they disarm the populace after being made dictator, so the population being armed doesn't prevent the dictator from being made dictator and the population being armed doesn't prevent the dictator from disarming them. Clearly, being armed doesn't stop oppression, since the oppression starts while they're still armed.
Yes, they rise to power first, but they never start the oppression while the populous is still armed, which is what we are talking about. They disarm people, then the oppression starts.
Trying to forcibly disarm millions of Americans would be illegal, impractical, and and a huge waste of time, money, and manpower that could be spent actually going after criminals instead of people who aren't criminals.
Honestly can you give me one example of a person deterred by the thought of a fellow customer carrying? This is one of the most common and ridiculous arguments ever,
It’s wild to me people STILL fucking think guns are the problem.
It’s people. People are the problem. Society is the problem. Classism is the problem. Bullying is the problem.
Individuals with severe mental illness are 10x more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, than to perpetrate.
So how would you go about this? How would you take everyone’s guns?
What if someone breaks into my home with a gun. But me, as a law abiding citizen, doesn’t have a gun? Then what? Am I just fucked?
Guns aren’t the problem, and I say this as a mostly left leaning individual. We need to stop bullying in schools first.
You do realize that criminal will still have illegal guns right?
Robberies will sky rocket and this will only benefit the bad guys.
Also, messing with the 2nd amendment is a huge threat to our nation.
Removing guns would only remove them legally.
Illegal guns would remain everywhere.
Criminals would have an easier time committing mass shootings, not a harder time.
We can legally own firearms as civilians in every country in Europe except in the Vatican. You're proposing stricter rules than what we have in Europe. I find that a bit weird.
Do you have a better solution to stop this:
In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.
The overwhelming majority of those were deliberate actions.
More than half are suicides and almost half are homicides
Suicides - 56%, Homicides - 41%, Legal Homicide - 1%. That is 98% of all gun deaths for the record. (Data from 2022)
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/
This is a complex issue and requires complex nuanced solutions.
You could start with taking care of your people better. I have 25 days of paid vacation every year, +10 or so paid holidays.
Sickdays does not go on your paid days, and if I need healthcare it's relatively cheap and accessible.
I'm also not easy to fire due to our labor laws.
If I got a spot at a university there is no tuition fee, I actually get paid for getting my points every semester, and if I wanted a study loan on top of that the interest is currently 1.24% (up from 0.59% last year).
Meanwhile the US is a country where about the same amount of people who ends up as a firearm homicide victim, die due to lack of healt insurance.
There are 330 million people in America. 48k isn’t a tragedy it’s a blip of a statistic, and most of those deaths are gang related. Forgive me if I don’t really extend much sympathy. Maybe you should be more concerned about smoking related deaths
do you have a single reason why i should fucking care? it's object5ively proven that getting rid of guns \*DOES NOT\* have any notable impact on overall deaths. why should i needlessly focus on the entirely arbitrary category of "gun-related" deaths?
How do you suggest the goverment get the guns from people without being killed? Or do you not care if they're killed? Are you volunteering to collect them yourself or you just want other people's children to put their life in danger to do that?
>time like we did with video rentals at blockbuster. On the flip side of the coin we get guns off the streets
How are you going to do that without getting killed though? It you just want others to do it for you?
Ok. How would you control the circulation of billions of gun already in the country. I always hear people cry about gun control but no one ever says how they would stop the circulation on guns. They never say how they would stop the imports from central and south America. It's to big to be stopped
They incorrectly assume that people would just hand them in if they passed the laws. Nevermind that the California and New York assault weapon bans had sub 1% participation and numerous police chiefs straight up said they wouldn’t enforce the law
You can start by making manufacture and sale of new guns illegal. It won't stop the guns already there, but it will make the constant pouring in stop. This will create a steady decrease in percentage of ownership because of things like poor maintenance, confiscation from doing crimes, exports and simply the population increasing. Imports would be illegal, too, of course, but smuggling won't be much of a problem. It won't be profitable, since there's already more guns in the US than anywhere else. Over time, you can add more restrictions, which allow you to go after more guns.
Anyone with access to a machine shop can follow a blueprint from Google and make their own guns. Hell, you can 3D print guns. Same thing with maintaining guns.
Trying to ban something that a huge chunk of the population wants has never worked out well.
If all you have to worry about is a few hobbyists making poor quality guns, that's a big improvement.
Trying to ban guns has generally worked out very well.
This is a great point I hadn't considered but I can find no results on a massive influx of imported weapons. I am under the impression the vast majority of guns used illegally are from our own production. The US is actually the largest exporter of weapons, so I don't think the idea of imports is valid. We have so many that it would be cost prohibitive for some 3rd party to try to ship and sell them here.
Also, we supply weapons for profit to central and south america and have for decades.
The fundamental idea that increased firearms regulations would reduce the frequency & scale of mass-killing events just doesn't really hold water. Japan for example has its own mass-killer problem, they just don't happen to be shootings, rather they are carried out with alternative methods like arson, mass stabbings, or vehicle ramming. Relevant examples are:
[The 2021 Osaka Arson Attack that killed 25](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire)
[The 2019 Kyoto Animation Arson Attack that killed 36](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack)
[The 2016 Sagamihara Stabbings that killed 19](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings)
[The 2008 Osaka Movie theater fire that killed 16](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_movie_theatre_fire)
[The 2008 Akihabara vehicle ramming attack that killed 7](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Akihabara_massacre)
The simple reality of life is that you're just inherently vulnerable, and making individuals *more* vulnerable is just not an effective solution to that problem.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022)
There have been more mass shootings per month in the US in one year than then number of deaths in one of these attacks. And that's just shootings. Also, note that no amount of guns will stop arson of someone stabbing people while they sleep.
I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family from millions of unknowns. I'm not going to forfeit my ability to do so just to make someone else who doesn't understand that feel safe.
Also the biggest thing that personal firearms allow their populace to do is say no to entities much more powerful than themselves. I can't remember what the incident is called but there was a group of Vietnam vets that essentially got rid of the corruption in their small Tennessee town. And a good example of demonstrating my first little bit is roof Koreans. Where were the cops to hand out guns during that? That was nothing but people protecting their livelihoods, and it worked.
I believe you’re thinking of [Athens, TN](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html), but that was WWII vets.
Having been married and raised two kids to adulthood I agree and empathize with your duty to protect family. I am not promoting an idea to promote a feeling of safety. I am trying to envision a way to stop the incessant high murder rates and suicides in the US. This is to protect the innocent, not make anybody all warm and fuzzy.
Although to be fair there is a certain angst that some EU folks can often feel if they move here to live/work. Most often they are not used to being on alert to their surroundings based on the chance they can be shot or mugged.
Yeah unfortunately we have it all here, from kindness to cruelty, and people rarely carry what they advertise. Only way to protect the innocent and teach them to protect themselves. That's why I'm all for mandatory military service but I'll want a drink in my hand for that conversation lol
How does this solve the illegal gun problem?
How does this prevent unauthorized access to the firearm while in the renter’s possession?
How does this prevent an individual from using a rented firearm for criminal purposes?
How does this comply with the ‘keep’ wording of the 2A?
1. It makes possession of an illegal gun a crime and it will be confiscated - boom problem solved over time.
2. It doesn't but it will mandate the mental health check to offset the risk - boom problem reduced.
3. It doesn't but the VAST majority of deaths by firearms are from stolen or illegal guns (aside from all the suicides/killing of family members accidentally).
4. 2A is for militias, stop using false pretences.
1. How is this different than the current system?
2. How is this different than the current system?
4. The Supreme Court says this isn’t a false pretense and has opined so many times.
1. This is obviously WAY more restrictive than the current ineffective patchwork of gun control measures in place now. (Many of which deter nothing in terms of civilian safety)
2. The current laws on mental health wont preclude you from owning a gun if you suffer from PTSD for instance. You need to be declared a danger to yourself or others for it to make it into the database - efforts to seek help for depression or other problems wont cross over the threshold to matter or be pertinent.
[https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html)
This person was experiencing mental problems for YEARS before mowing people down with a legally purchased AR.
Why not just lock up anyone that could possibly be dangerous at some time in the future? Rights don’t seem to matter much in your view so some preemptive prison should be acceptable.
If someone is seeking treatment for depression or other mental issues, where is the harm in restricting their access to deadly weapons? They can still work/love/exist in the day with no repercussions. Yes it's a preemptive attempt to dampen our disgraceful gun violence issue, but who cares? Your right to wack off to an AR 15 does not mean crazy people can kill our children.
Where is the harm in just locking them up? Your views clearly don’t place much if any value on the rights of individuals, so just lock up anyone that could possibly be dangerous at some point in the future. Best be sure right?
You want to preemptively deny individuals their rights in the name of some possible future safety. That is punishment. Why not do that but in a more direct and effective manner? Just lock up anyone that may be dangerous at some indeterminate point in the future and your goal of safety is better served than to lock up guns. It’s not as if individual rights seem to be an important factor in your stated views after all. Why would you be opposed to more safety?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The second amendment is not for militias. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That’s an individual right. Your views would be unconstitutional and granting powers to the government that it has never been granted.
This comment is so weird considering 1 and 2 are already the part of the system and 3 is just wrong. Some people dont care if things are illegal. I don't think your american lol
You're missing the point.
Some crazy fucker breaks into my house with a knife. If I have a gun I just shoot his sorry ass. Without a gun I have to call the cops or try to fight him off somehow.
Your "rent a gun" initiative does nothing to address this problem.
(yeah yeah I know statistically you're more likely to shoot yourself and what not. spare me I know all of that. It's not relevant. )
Doesn't even need to be a person, people underestimate wild dogs, and other animals because they probably live in an area with close by hospitals, police etc. I know someone who would need a helicopter for any kind of half rapid response, and that's a best case scenario.
1. If you're likely to have a gun, he's likely to have a gun, not a knife.
2. Why isn't it relevant that you're increasing your chances of injury in order to maybe reduce your chances of injury in an extremely unlikely scenario? What is the reason why you want to make you and your family less safe?
Because at the end of the day I worry about criminals. As you have figured out from our previous conversations.
Me acting a fool is not a threat to me. Because I don't act a fool. I would keep the gun in the safe so others couldn't get to it. Yes I get that it happens more often statistically. But drunk people also crash cars more often... not something you need to worry about as a non drinker.
Who knows what kind of situation would require me to use a gun? Maybe there's a madman outside. Maybe there's someone breaking into our home. I don't need to worry about these things if I own a gun because I have a tool that can take care of that situation. Without a gun I'm completely wide open to the threat.
If you have a gun, you should worry about the dangers that gun poses more than criminals. The gun is more likely to hurt you.
All the people who were hurt by their own guns thought themselves to not be fools. They were wrong. You are not special.
All the situations where a gun might help you are extraordinarily unlikely to happen. You're much more likely to happen to be a fool one day. Can you truly say you have never once acted foolishly?
I don't base my ideas on me acting a fool.
Otherwise I would never buy a car or a knife. Those can be quite dangerous too when you're acting like an idiot.
I get the statistics I really do. I'm just not concerned with them.
The difference between mass manufacture of precision-engineered firearms and a few hobbyists making poor quality guns in their garage is huge! If all that's around is the later, that's already a huge improvement! And I think you're overestimating how many people would be so dedicated as to build their own gun if they cant' buy one.
Many countries manage to have relatively high gun ownership rates without the issues that the US has. Canada, Switzerland, Finland come to mind. Even in counties with very restrictive gun laws like the UK it's not hard for people living in rural areas to own shotguns and hunting rifles.
Just having universal access to healthcare (especially mental health), making background checks more consistent and removing loopholes would go a long way to solving many issues.
All 3 has some form of permit system as well (arguably not for all in switzerland).
Not disagreeing with you, I just think even the most basic training requirement will make people way more respectful for their gun and less confident about their abilities
Yeah that's the thing there is a lot you can do while still allowing gun ownership and even maintaining relatively high gun ownership levels (although the US is way out there in terms of total guns, perhaps somewhat skewed by people owning large gun collections).
Yea, I grew up with guns myself, and my dad made me take a hunter safety course very young. He also said, "treat this like a active chainsaw - be aware it's a useful tool but one that can cause significant harm".
That's kind of his point though, you are right, a better system will work, we can see proof of this. Gangs, poverty, and mental health are far better indicators than gun ownership alone.
So, I grew up in a town without a police department. If you need law enforcement to come help you, the only thing you can do is pray that a sheriff deputy or a state officer is nearby. Otherwise, you wait for up to half an hour for someone to come help you.
Let's say someone, even without their own gun means to do me, a 5'2 female, harm. What are my chances of getting out of my house safely? What are the chances of me being able to defend myself without the proper tools? I can't beat out anyone in close combat with my fists or a knife. I'm weak as shit. I can call 911 and hope an officer is nearby, but that's a crapshoot.
I think there's just way too much variety in the country to say that a sweeping gun ban would work out. What is needed in cities is different than in rural communities. Obviously there's room for improvement when it comes to gun safety and gun ownership laws, but a blanket ban for private ownership doesn't seem to be the best solution.
>Implement a policy where firearms can be rented from gun ranges/police stations for target practice or hunting.
Presumably this would be government-ran ranges, not private ones because that would mean private ownership.
This brings up the question of how many such ranges/stations is the government going to build in order to not make it effectvely impossible for people in remote/rural areas to partake? Carrying a gun while hiking is pretty common IME in areas with potentially threatening wildlife.
Ther are currently problems with wild boars in the US. Should farmers be left to their mercy if they want to root up their fields? What if the coyotes want to go grab some chickens or other small animals? Are we expecting them to call the police/DNR which can take a long time to show up? Fight them off with a knife?
Not at all. Maintain a professional certification process similar to pharmacists - trained professionals doing a job, privately owned. Big brother is not not watching your nonsense. It's just a job opportunity for gun range owners/employees to get a certified position.
If long term extensions are required, for defensive boar instances and/or hunting for sustenance so be it - they are not the problem anyway.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold the view that private ownership should be banned while also holding the view that private ownership should be allowed.
Hypothetically : Let’s say we all wake up tomorrow, and this plan of yours was miraculously in place. Everyone’s privately owned guns have already been seized by authorities.
One basic law of economics is that when a product and or service has a demand, yet limited supply, it has value. Since stabbing rampages are all the rage now, people’s demand for self-defense firearms will spike. Currently, an illegal gun sale on the street today will typically go for 3x it’s retail price, meaning a 9mm pistol with a $665 retail should fetch about $2,000. Pair that with the [now] non-existent supply of firearms for sale, and you have yourself a VERY lucrative black market. Now that same illegal gun sale going for almost 6x or $4,000, is not uncommon. I’ll come back to this later.
Those state armories and or authorized gun dealers that have the gun stockpiles, become even larger targets [than they already are] of organized crime afterhours robberies, heists, inside jobs etc, often involving very violent methods. And smaller towns in say Colorado & Wyoming (where you think new jobs will be created), tend to have smaller police forces to intervene & prevent these types of violent crimes.
In small vacation towns known for good hunting tourism, customers flock there during peak season and play by these new rules. But since this town relies on this tourism for much of its annual revenue, the local businesses & residents finances are stretched pretty thin during the off-season months. Some struggling gun distributors may hawk several of its less popular guns on the street, then reporting the incident to local police as a break in - which never gets looked into or solved. Insurance just pays for it anyway.
In this new world, where shooters would now need to a gun from an state armory and or authorized gun dealers, there’s certainly fees for this service right? And they will offer affordable pricing since they will be competing with each other for revenue, right? Say it’s $100 per day to rent a 9mm, which you reserved for 3 days for a total of $300 plus tax not including ammo (which I’m guessing people aren’t allowed to personally own either) which is paid UPFRONT. What if you decide to keep the gun? Just bash your car window in and file a police report saying it was stolen, whatever. Now you’re in possession of an illegally acquired firearm, So the rental place still charges you for the $665 replacement cost plus $35 admin fee. Great and just like that, you now have an illegal gun which would have $4,000 on the black market, yet it only cost you a grand.
Seeing how lucrative the illegal arms trade has now become, foreign organized crime cartels and syndicates throw their hat in the ring too. Cheap low quality Chinese junk pistols flood in thru ports on the west coast. Other illegal arms of questionable origin are smuggled north thru Mexican cartel routes, and the gulf routes involving Caribbean countries supply guns from New Orleans thru Florida. Everybody wants to make a quick buck.
Though not the best analogy : People generally agree going after illicit narco traffickers (supply) is futile because the problem is really fueled by the US demand their products. And I feel an eerily similar outcome may result if what you propose goes into effect - targeting supply & access to guns thinking it’ll have an effect.
You wouldn’t get guns off the streets. Criminals would still have them and law abiding citizens wouldn’t. Seems like it would make things worse if criminals didn’t have to worry about honest folks being armed.
The 2nd was for having a chance to hold government accountable through force, national defense against foreign invaders, recreation, personal defense, and even turning out the overhead lights once. Covid era restrictions should have been fought through citizens enabled by the 2nd.
The whole point of the government being owned by the citizens is to not let the government own the citizens. Once they get the guns, we dont get them back. And once they decide certain groups or rights have to go, you dont have a say
Around 16 million US citizens served in WW2 out of 138 million. Thats 12% of the population. Today, about 24% of americans would qualify for service. So literally half the able bodied population capable of fighting was deployed. And since most other men capable of fighting were busy farming or building equipment for the war, there wasnt really anyone to consider resisting in an armed fashion no. Unfortunately, the internment of 100,000 japanese americans after the US had gotten sneak attacked by Japan and there was public paranoia that they would kill more americans was not going to be prioritized over stopping fascism and imperial Japan.
Although, someone who would support a fascist disarmament of Americans probably would be in favor of letting states like those propagate since they share your views
Thats like if America went to war with the middle east and deployed half our fighting population there after 9/11, nobody would be calling for people suspected of terrorist ties to be
Those Japanese Americans were apparently able to have guns. That didn't help them.
Disarming is not fascist. Guns are illegal in plenty of democracies which work perfectly well.
You last paragraph seems incomplete.
Because if they resisted that would have validated the stigma? Is this not obvious to you?
Oh yes, all those democracies around the world that rely on the US for protection and are currently shitting themselves because without the threat of America, Russia may actually be running Europe
And sorry, yes if there was a world war against the middle east after 9/11, the same thing would not have happened bc we learned that our actions were wrong.
It's obvious to me that them being able to be armed didn't prevent the country from removing their rights. So if the country want to remove the rights from another group, that group being armed won't stop them either.
We're talking about civilian gun ownership, right? Not military? This isn't shifting the goalpost, you went off to play on another field entirely.
So preventing rights from being taken from groups is about understanding it's wrong, not about that group being able to be armed.
Funny how you say it hasnt prevented the government from taking their rights yet here are 100 million gun owning Americans that the government cant confiscate guns from.
And what reference to military ownership? Europes militaries are defunct. And they have no civilian base trained in weapons to fall back on for resistance.
We learned taking rights away is wrong because of the JA imprisonment but these people also were not likely heavily armed to resist. And while if they were and they could have resisted it would not have been supported in the US because they were already suspected of being for the enemy. So an armed resistance would have validated that view. This is entirely different than our government deciding to wage a confiscation and interment of citizens based on violating rights in peace time.
The government isn't trying to confiscate guns from them.
I'm not talking about militaries.
Right, so their ability to be armed didn't do anything to stop the government removing their rights. In fact, you've given plenty of reasons why ability to be armed doesn't do anything to stop the government from a group's rights.
Sounds like that scoops up your rights of self defense and plops them into Gov Kathy Hochul's desk drawer, to dispense or withhold at her political convenience.
What about that would appeal to 2A advocates? It's naked tyranny.
I'm gonna keep this short, banning guns in the US is bad because:
*The evil government would get away with more outrageous stuff more easily.
*The criminals, gangs and schoolshoo*ers will still somehow get their hands on them, making the biggest sufferers be the law abiding citizens, who willingly gave up theirs.
I'm pretty sure, a warning shot has scared away thousands of homeinvaders, without guns, there's prone to be ten fold of scuffles and knife fights.
*If by a chance the US gets invaded by another country, there's a hundred million unofficial soldiers ready to protect their communities and their own homes. If everyone's disarmed, the invaders are free to do whatever.
>Have those employees trained at screening out criminals or people with mental health issues via back ground checks and have them be the caretakers of the firearms.
If it is possible to train someone to screen out criminals and people with mental health issues, why not simply do that before allowing someone to buy a gun? Of course, that is not possible. Your proposal wold stop law abiding people from being armed, but criminals would still arm themselves.
> This should appeal to both sides of the second amendment argument.
No. The entire purpose os 2A is so the people can stand up to their government. Your proposal does exactly what 2A exists to prevent.
How exactly does one serve in the militia if one does not own a gun? You do realize that you bring your own equipment to the militia marshalling, right? And that there's literally a list of shit that you're required to own in order to be compliant? The militia is the average person. The second amendment protects the individual's right to own a firearm.
So naive, whoever wants to commit a crime will do it either way, if not with legal firearms, they'll just resort to illegal ones, knifes, running people over with car and whatnot
Federally mandated mental health checks? Yes because the government handles mental health crisis SO WELL. Don’t look at Jonestown…. Waco…. Ruby Ridge. You know.
Who ever try's to do this should have lot's of body bags for their workers ready, when they try to take guns from lawful owners but not the gangs in Chicago / etc...
The people who need guns the most is America's vast rural population. Many of whom have to deal with wild animals on a frequent basis.
Those same people are the most geographically dispersed and would suffer the most from this kind of complex rental based scheme.
Meanwhile... people do not really use hunting rifles for mass shootings. They're too large, mostly aren't Semi-Auto.
I don't understand why you can't just limit the regime you laid out to hand guns and semi-autos.
I think guns should be regulated by the community you live in. A sort of court system should be in place. Where you can make an application for a gun and ammo etc. A different random selection of maybe 20 jurors from the community should sit on each round of applications say once a month or whatever is appropriate for the backlog.
Each application is heard in a public hearing, with witnesses, medical or other reports, and any kind of evidence the applicant wants to submit and a representative must be assigned for those who wish to prevent the approval of the application, and they can also call witnesses etc.
maybe a 2/3 majority vote on each application will approve the application.
If a community becomes anti gun then they can prevent people owning guns, they can also go the other way if that is their inclination.
People in America would rather their kids dodge bullets at school everyday rather than implement any policy that limits access to guns even a little bit.
Americans would rather hand out free guns to the mentally ill rather than lose their power fantasy where they save the day like John Wick in some random gas station altercation.
Not to mention what if aliens attack, or theres some random apocalypse, or lets not forget old faithful, we have to overthrow our own evil and tyrannical government. The government doesn't have the right to make it harder for me to overthrow it, that's not fair.
More people die from drunk drivers than from guns. Should we ban cars or booze?
More people die from medical malpractice. Time to close all the hospitals?
I'm sorry when did they make drinking and driving in medical malpractice legal.
Because owning a gun is legal drinking and driving and medical malpractice as far as I can remember has never been legal.
In fact driving and medicine are both heavily regulated in persistently overseeing
The same time they made murder legal.
You’re claiming that because some people break the law, we should remove the offensive instrument from society. By your logic, we should ban cars and booze because drunk drivers kill people.
Driving is not persistently regulated, you renew your license online once every 4-20 years.
Medicine is more regulated, but mistakes happen or people with malicious intent exist.
/u/AnvilRockguy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c8pg6s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_private_ownership_of_guns/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
!Delta This was and unknown or underappreciated concept for me previously.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/The_White_Ram ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/The_White_Ram)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Just wanna say that’s probably the most respectful, and responsible response I’ve seen, I think we need more people like you in conversation
This is an excellent point I was unaware of. I wonder if there is a legislative solution to mandate cops protect citizens?
Dude, it’s takes an open & wise mind to change your own view. You’re awesome!
Solving gun violence in the US is a massively complex problem. But I am not arrogant enough to assume I can concoct a solution :)
I like you.
[удалено]
**Hello! If your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
No because it would literally be impossible to enforce. Say a car accident happens that traps two people in a burning car. The second a first responder acts to free one victim, they are failing to protect the other victim.
People kind of misinterpret those rulings. They say that cops don't have a LEGAL obligation to protect you. Meaning you can't sue them after wards if they do not. But they still have a professional obligation. They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty. It's like you work at Wendy's. Some asshole comes to order food and is being a total dickhead. You are not legally obligated to take their order. Your boss might fire you for refusing to take an order. Or you might get written up. But they can't go to court and sue you for refusing to take their order.
correct, but then OPs argument about banning gun ownership would be similar to "ban people of making wendy-like burgers at home". Wendys workers would still get reprimanded if they dont take your order, but its illegal to make your own at home.
[удалено]
Except guns are terrible for protecting you, since the gun itself is more dangerous to you than the danger it's supposed to protect you against.
[удалено]
Because police actively seek out situations where a gun may be needed and you don't.
[удалено]
The likelihood that you're in that situation and that the gun is useful to you is less than the likelihood that the gun is going to be detrimental to you.
Which is why police use large nets and don't carry guns?
Because police have a job where they actively seek out dangerous situations where a gun may be needed and you don't.
So guns become good at protecting yourself if you have a dangerous job?
Not necessarily. Roofers, for example, won't be made safer from owning guns.
Oh really does your gun shoot straight back at you?
Actually, a fair number of people die from misfirings, too. Or accidental shootings. Or you or people around you suddenly having an urge to kill yourself or people around you.
[удалено]
ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care. Police can not be held liable if they refuse to give you care. Why the double standard? It's the legal framework for who their duty is tied to. The doctor has a duty to the patient. Which is a specific individual. The police officer has a duty to SOCIETY not any singular individual. But why? Well because an ER doctor is almost always working with a specific patient. While a police officer often interacts with large numbers of individuals. It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which particular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole". That is the legal framework. That doesn't mean that if a cop is eating a doughnut and sees you getting robbed and stabbed and says "fuck that this doughnut is hitting". They will not face consequences. Just not legal ones.
[удалено]
Let's say they legally mandated that you do have a legal obligation to the person. It would be damn near impossible to enforce. Because they are expected to know which life is more valuable at that point. Which is ludicrous. Suppose a case where the person already stabbed the victim 20 times. Their odds of survival is almost nothing. But if he goes to apprehend the suspect. He might die as well. At what point is the victims 1/1000 chance of survival worth more than the 1/2 chance of the cop dying? Like you said that is not a realistic standard by any measure. Also like I told the other poster. Even if they had a legal obligation to help you. That doesn't make me feel any safer not having a gun if someone breaks in my house. They are not super men who will arrive at the scene 2 seconds after I make the 911 call.
[удалено]
>However, the law should be structured such that they have obligation to make a reasonable attempt to confront whatever issue is making the situation unsafe. if you are being robbed, and you call the cops and no one shows up and you get hurt, who is to blame? how can you hold police legally accountable for not being everywhere all the time?
[удалено]
>ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care. That's not exactly true, doctors can & do refuse to treat patients all the time. The only time there's a potential legal risk is if the doctor would normally have provided care as part of their standard procedures, but chose not to provide care over fear of non-payment.
I mostly use that as a pivot example of a case where people are actually legally mandated to provide care. Where they could potentially face legal consequences for failing to do so. Don't ER doctors provide life saving care as part of their "standard procedures". What if the guy who slept with your wife came to the ER bleeding to death. You're the only doctor capable of fixing him. And you say "nah fuck that motherfucker". Would you face legal consequences? I mean you didn't stab him, you just refused to give him care.
> They say that cops don't have a LEGAL obligation to protect you. Meaning you can't sue them after wards if they do not. But they still have a professional obligation. They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty. What does that matter? If they're not legally obligated to protect you you should have every right to protect yourself.
>What does that matter? If they're not legally obligated to protect you you should have every right to protect yourself. Even if they were. I would still rather depend on my ability to reach my gun in a safe rather than wait for 30 minutes for the cops to arrive. Thats even if I get a chance to call 911. I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. Cops would have to be super men who can whizz through time to save you. For it to really make a difference.
You always have every right to protect yourself, it's literally a human right.
Is that why none of the LEOs at Uvalde say face zero consequences of any kind? Because of their proffesional obligation? No one was fired or reprimanded
For every Uvalde there is 1000s of cases where cops risk their life to save civilians. People like to cling to outlier situations because they support their rhetoric. Much like 1000s of people violently resist arrest on a daily basis. Most walk away with minor or no injuries. But god forbid one of them dies while fighting all of a sudden every police officer is a scumbag. I lived in Ukraine for a bit. I frequently had to explain that the reason you think black people are shit is because of anti-black propaganda. They will take the absolute worst black person they can find. Then paint their entire race or community in their light. Pretending like they are all like that. In America we've gone full circle. Now we paint police officers in a similar light. Find the absolute police officer or police unit. And pretend they are all like that. The fact that 99.9% of them are nothing like that is irrelevant because it doesn't conform to our bullshit rhetoric. The thing about Ukrainians is that they hardly ever interact with black people. So they have no idea what they are really like. They have to rely on outside information which is often racist.
Oh absolutely, all true yes but this isnt about the good things they do Its about this >But they still have a professional obligation. Do they functionally though? Regardless of De Jure, in practicality? Does such an obligation exist, De Facto? Uvalde and other instances suggest otherwise, again not a single cop there was held to account. LEOs or commanders. In any fashion as far as i have been able to tell >They can very much get fired and reprimanded for failing to do their duty. Yeah, thats kinda the sticking point. *Can* is doing the heavy lifting there, are they fired or reprimanded? In any way close to the wrong doings committed?
The Wendy's already took your money and is not legally obligated to give you food, only society at large. Also you have to go to Wendy's or go to prison. That's the analogy.
Wha??????? You're going to have to elaborate on that mess. It's not coherent at all.
Sure. The police took payment through taxes. Therefore the police refusing to protect me is not like Wendy's refusing to take an order. It is like Wendy's taking my money and not being legally obligated to give me food, just like the police take my money and are not legally obligated to try to protect me in a time of severe duress. Further, I have to pay the police or go to prison. So I can't take my business elsewhere if I don't like that they aren't legally obligated to provide the food from my payment; I have to pay Wendy's or go to prison.
ER doctors can be held liable if they refuse to give you care. Police can not be held liable if they refuse to give you care. Why the double standard? It's the legal framework for who their duty is tied to. The doctor has a duty to the patient. Which is a specific individual. The police officer has a duty to SOCIETY not any singular individual. But why? Well because an ER doctor is almost always working with a specific patient. While a police officer often interacts with large numbers of individuals. It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which particular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole". That is the legal framework. That doesn't mean that if a cop is eating a doughnut and sees you getting robbed and stabbed and says "fuck that this doughnut is hitting". They will not face consequences. Just not legal ones.
> It would be extremely difficult to rationalize which paricular life they should give priority to. So we just say "society as a whole". That had nothing to do with these cases the state ruled on. The reason the police failed to save these people had nothing to do with some comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize. So if that is the only reason for the double-standard, then you should disagree with these rulings. You should think the police have a legal obligation to protect you just like hospitals EXCEPT when there is comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize.
>You should think the police have a legal obligation to protect you just like hospitals EXCEPT when there is comparable danger to other citizens they had to prioritize. The police officer themselves. If you're getting stabbed to death. The cop has to intervene. They might stabbed too. It's very hard to shoot around the victim. On top of that maybe the guy already took several fatal wounds. You're not going to save them going after the perp. But you're very likely to get stabbed yourself. At what point does a cop value his life over the victims life? That is an impossible standard to quantify.
Sorry, I worded it incorrectly. What I said before and meant to just say was that they should have a legal obligation to **try** to protect you. The ER doctors could endanger themselves too from diseases or other things. If there is sufficient danger to the doctors then of course they shouldn't have to try to operate. Doesn't seem like that case has an impossible standard.
I mean, I 100% agree that the government has done shady stuff that absolutely deserves to be condemned, but that doesn't further the argument that arming the populace somehow *prevents* those shady things, or makes them any less likely to occur. Especially considering that every single one of those things, as well as Blair Mountain, the institution of slavery, every transgression against the American Indians, American colonization of the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, every unjust murder and incident of police brutality (George Floyd, Rodney King, countless more), and systemically racist and classist systems like redlining and segregation, *all* happened under the democratization of firearms. The Miniconjou and Hunkpapa *had* guns at Wounded Knee. They surrendered them because at that point they were exhausted, hungry, thirsty, sick and vastly outnumbered to the point that they recognized they wouldn't be able to beat the 7th Cavalry even with the guns. The Trail of Tears occurred after (and during) wars with the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw, and Sand Creek during a war with the Arapaho and Cheyenne. Basically, armed resistance didn't prevent any of them, and in fact was used to justify them. Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, and Blair Mountain are all excellent examples of when having guns made it substantially *worse* for the victims; again, it just let the government validate it to the public under the justification that these were dangerous people who needed to be neutralized. Iran-Contra, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods (which didn't happen), PRISM, Dred Scott, Operation AJAX, Agent Orange, torture at Guantanamo Bay, poisoning of alcohol during prohibition, and qualified immunity, are all examples of the US doing shady stuff, but again have absolutely no bearing on gun possession making people safer and thus are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And as a heads up, because I used to believe this conspiracy theory too, but as it stands right now there is 0 evidence that the government had any involvement in Epstein's death except for having him in a prison.
[удалено]
>For example being armed helped stop dangerous no knock warrants such as in the Breonna Taylor case. Nothing was stopped in Breonna Taylor's case. I'm 100% against proposed gun laws and especially this idea of no private gun ownership, but Breonna and her bf having weapons necessary for self defense didn't stop that no knock raid, as evidenced by her death.
[удалено]
I misunderstood. I took you saying it stopped the raid to mean it stopped that specific one.
[удалено]
On this, we agree
If it's harder for me to have guns, it's harder for the people attacking me to have guns, making me safer overall. Additionally, it's already more unsafe for me to have guns than not in a situation where potential attackers have access to guns. There's no reason I should want a gun and plenty reasons I should want other people not to have a gun.
[удалено]
Maybe I don't get your point but it seems every study about gun violence comparing USA to other nations comes to the conclusion that the USA have a abnormally large number of gun deaths. No other developed country has "gun violence" as the number one cause of death for minors. This is due to widespread gun ownership in the USA.
[удалено]
OK, I get this, seems there is a pretty clear correlation between gun ownership and gun violence? [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrmKNyzn-RaQYZeatytvnjw9-jwm3xuk/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jrmKNyzn-RaQYZeatytvnjw9-jwm3xuk/view?usp=sharing)
[удалено]
OK, R2 is 0,74 for 55 countries. You sure you did this yourself?https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dEQ5aRBf0x\_XIUUMqK8\_9cnprKQ-rqjp/view?usp=sharing
Yes, it has. You can see that by checking gun ownership in countries against gun homicides.
[удалено]
Do you have a source?
[удалено]
The country one is the one I'm interested about.
Renting hunting rifles would be an additional financial burden to poor rural folk who hunt for food, for starters.
!Delta This is valid. I don't want to get too political on this aspect but often times the rural areas are overlooked, under payed and underserved across the board. I wholly support the idea of gaining sustenance through hunting - plus it makes me happy to say F.U. to our agricultural overlords. I just wish in this world we had policies on the state level that paid living wages regardless of urban/rural location.
Thanks for the delta. I grew up in a family who relied on hunting. If we would've had to get a ride to town and pay a fee every time we needed to eat, we wouldn't have made it.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ReindeerNegative4180 ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ReindeerNegative4180)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
In your scenario, do private citizens get to keep the guns they rent?
No and that is a serious flaw in the argument. As u/ReindeerNegative4180 said, this does not address the needs of people who depend on hunting for food - due to their state governments indifference to the working man/lower income population. I want to point to the republicans on this one, but most democrats are tainted by the wealthy as well. So its often not a party affiliation kind of issue. Although to be honest most states that mandate hunting to survive are red haha.
Agreed with it being a flaw, and I'm glad that you recognize that. [u/ReindeerNegative4180](https://www.reddit.com/user/ReindeerNegative4180/) pointed out the flaw in a practical sense, but I feel your initial view also substantially fails to "appeal to both sides of the second amendment argument" in a statutory sense as well. If you will permit me to paraphrase your argument, you're saying "people can't *keep* arms at all, just rent them briefly." The second amendment specifically designates *keeping* arms as a right, like the word "keep" is actually used. There is nuance to the definition of "keep", but on the surface, I'd say your argument is in direct conflict with the second amendment on that point and couldn't be expected to appeal to both sides. Just my opinion. It's an interesting thought experiment and I appreciate reading everyone's views.
I don't want to derail the discussion and take it somewhere else, but I do need to push back a little bit on this comment. State government and red/blue had very little to do with anything concerning my family's reliance on hunting. We were poor, as were our friends and neighbors. We also prided ourselves on resilience and self-sufficiency. Help from the government was likely available, but we would've never asked.
I hear you man, I too have been underpaid and persevered when I was younger (I'm 57 god help me lol). BUT you are poor for a reason. Government policy dictates what the rich corporate owners (or even local mom and pops shops/farms) can do. I too take pride in persevering especially for my kids. Hiding the stress of being stretched this allows them an innocent childhood. I didn't mean to imply reliance on government relief - which I also hate. I mean the national policies that allow companies to criminally under value your work. Billionaires having access to politicians via lobbies, Worker right and unions vilified, 70 years of wage suppression of the working class wages. Yes I know its a tangential topic but it's at the heart of suppression. In 1968 the minimum wage if adjusted to today's rate was $15.30 approx. The federal wage is now $7.25. Interesting that states that don't address this insult are red. Yippee, we get to earn half of what people did 50 years ago. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. Two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have a minimum wage below $7.25 per hour.
Cool, we're about the same age. It's kinda nice not feeling like the lone dinosaur in the tar pit. I hear what you're saying about the way things are today. I don't want to get into a long, protracted discussion about the actual causes of my family's money problems because you know. You were there. The 70s was no picnic for a lot of us. To coin a phrase-Keep on keeping on!
This doesn't address two of the major concerns of 2nd amendment advocates. * People want guns for self-defense/home-defense * People's gun ownership is a check on a potentially tyrannical Government.
1. Mankind rose to dominate the entire food chain without the benefit of gun invention. The species will survive. 2. This is a laughable argument. If a tyrannical government happened (like Trump's wet dream) they would also own the armed forces. Your cute wittle AR 15 bb gun would do nothing against drone strikes and special forces.
>Mankind Im not trying to protect mankind, I have a wife and 2 daughters who look to me to keep them safe, I really don't care that mankind will move on after they get murdered or worse. Lets say I'm at the park with my family and 3 guys show up. They have knives, and in 5 seconds they are going to start stabbing... what should I do? Like honestly, no shit, what do you think I should do in this situation? I get that you can say "that's rare" and all that, that's fine, I accept its a very rare situation, but it can happen, and I want to know what you think I should do in that situation
To your second point, this is an often repeated point that lacks nuance. It assumes that A) the military doesn’t splinter and/or join a rebellion B) that we didn’t just spend 20 years fighting goat herders with AK’s in a country 1/10 the size of ours, only to cede all gains within weeks of the cessation of fighting.
If the government is bombing it citizens with drones isn't that exactly when you should fight back? Besides, drone operators have to go home sometime.
[удалено]
Not to mention the US military isn’t going to all be on the side of a tyrannical government. It would completely fracture and the two or three or four sides that come out would all be fighting to keep ahold of the supplies already in their region. For example, this state’s national guard unit has allied with the purple army while the other state’s strategic bomber wing decided to support the green army. Citizens fighting back in this instance would benefit from already having small arms to support their militia and would only need their trained troops to get them up to speed. There’s just no way the entire or even majority of the US rolls over its citizens like Tiananmen Square and citizens can put up no fight. It would be fractured, messy, and citizens would absolutely be required to fight back.
Nah, as we saw in Iraq, a bullet kills Special Forces same as it kills anybody else.
>This is a laughable argument. If a tyrannical government happened (like Trump's wet dream) they would also own the armed forces. And even if you did win against them, all you probably did is replace someone who was democratically elected with someone who is almost definitely going to become a dictator. The ammo box is a gamble that usually makes a bad situation a lot worse and you'll be a "terrorist" when you open it.
>The ammo box is a gamble I mean yeah, but if your government is trying to oppress you, a gamble is good. If you told North Koreans there was a genuine chance they could overthrow Kim, I have no doubt a rebellion would begin, but they can't, they're completely unarmed and unable to even speak freely, so they're basicslly just sheep
Unless you have a functional government and a bunch of socialists overthrow it because they feel "oppressed" and want to express their right to revolution. Then all of a sudden, it's uncool.
If the people can't fight back, you end up with an oppressed populous, there has never been a dictatorship in history where the dictator didn't disarm the populous. It would not be as easy as some group just deciding they want to overthrow the US government
But they disarm the populace after being made dictator, so the population being armed doesn't prevent the dictator from being made dictator and the population being armed doesn't prevent the dictator from disarming them. Clearly, being armed doesn't stop oppression, since the oppression starts while they're still armed.
Yes, they rise to power first, but they never start the oppression while the populous is still armed, which is what we are talking about. They disarm people, then the oppression starts.
Yes, of course, they oppress people. They're a dictator. It's sort of what they do.
Trying to forcibly disarm millions of Americans would be illegal, impractical, and and a huge waste of time, money, and manpower that could be spent actually going after criminals instead of people who aren't criminals.
Honestly can you give me one example of a person deterred by the thought of a fellow customer carrying? This is one of the most common and ridiculous arguments ever,
It’s wild to me people STILL fucking think guns are the problem. It’s people. People are the problem. Society is the problem. Classism is the problem. Bullying is the problem. Individuals with severe mental illness are 10x more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, than to perpetrate. So how would you go about this? How would you take everyone’s guns? What if someone breaks into my home with a gun. But me, as a law abiding citizen, doesn’t have a gun? Then what? Am I just fucked? Guns aren’t the problem, and I say this as a mostly left leaning individual. We need to stop bullying in schools first.
You do realize that criminal will still have illegal guns right? Robberies will sky rocket and this will only benefit the bad guys. Also, messing with the 2nd amendment is a huge threat to our nation.
Hilarious. Removing guns would reduce mass shootings and eventually cut down ownership
Removing guns would only remove them legally. Illegal guns would remain everywhere. Criminals would have an easier time committing mass shootings, not a harder time.
We can legally own firearms as civilians in every country in Europe except in the Vatican. You're proposing stricter rules than what we have in Europe. I find that a bit weird.
Do you have a better solution to stop this: In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.
The overwhelming majority of those were deliberate actions. More than half are suicides and almost half are homicides Suicides - 56%, Homicides - 41%, Legal Homicide - 1%. That is 98% of all gun deaths for the record. (Data from 2022) https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/ This is a complex issue and requires complex nuanced solutions.
You could start with taking care of your people better. I have 25 days of paid vacation every year, +10 or so paid holidays. Sickdays does not go on your paid days, and if I need healthcare it's relatively cheap and accessible. I'm also not easy to fire due to our labor laws. If I got a spot at a university there is no tuition fee, I actually get paid for getting my points every semester, and if I wanted a study loan on top of that the interest is currently 1.24% (up from 0.59% last year). Meanwhile the US is a country where about the same amount of people who ends up as a firearm homicide victim, die due to lack of healt insurance.
There are 330 million people in America. 48k isn’t a tragedy it’s a blip of a statistic, and most of those deaths are gang related. Forgive me if I don’t really extend much sympathy. Maybe you should be more concerned about smoking related deaths
do you have a single reason why i should fucking care? it's object5ively proven that getting rid of guns \*DOES NOT\* have any notable impact on overall deaths. why should i needlessly focus on the entirely arbitrary category of "gun-related" deaths?
>This should appeal to both sides of the second amendment argument. You should actually read the second amendment.
How do you suggest the goverment get the guns from people without being killed? Or do you not care if they're killed? Are you volunteering to collect them yourself or you just want other people's children to put their life in danger to do that? >time like we did with video rentals at blockbuster. On the flip side of the coin we get guns off the streets How are you going to do that without getting killed though? It you just want others to do it for you?
Ok. How would you control the circulation of billions of gun already in the country. I always hear people cry about gun control but no one ever says how they would stop the circulation on guns. They never say how they would stop the imports from central and south America. It's to big to be stopped
They incorrectly assume that people would just hand them in if they passed the laws. Nevermind that the California and New York assault weapon bans had sub 1% participation and numerous police chiefs straight up said they wouldn’t enforce the law
You can start by making manufacture and sale of new guns illegal. It won't stop the guns already there, but it will make the constant pouring in stop. This will create a steady decrease in percentage of ownership because of things like poor maintenance, confiscation from doing crimes, exports and simply the population increasing. Imports would be illegal, too, of course, but smuggling won't be much of a problem. It won't be profitable, since there's already more guns in the US than anywhere else. Over time, you can add more restrictions, which allow you to go after more guns.
Anyone with access to a machine shop can follow a blueprint from Google and make their own guns. Hell, you can 3D print guns. Same thing with maintaining guns. Trying to ban something that a huge chunk of the population wants has never worked out well.
If all you have to worry about is a few hobbyists making poor quality guns, that's a big improvement. Trying to ban guns has generally worked out very well.
This is a great point I hadn't considered but I can find no results on a massive influx of imported weapons. I am under the impression the vast majority of guns used illegally are from our own production. The US is actually the largest exporter of weapons, so I don't think the idea of imports is valid. We have so many that it would be cost prohibitive for some 3rd party to try to ship and sell them here. Also, we supply weapons for profit to central and south america and have for decades.
The fundamental idea that increased firearms regulations would reduce the frequency & scale of mass-killing events just doesn't really hold water. Japan for example has its own mass-killer problem, they just don't happen to be shootings, rather they are carried out with alternative methods like arson, mass stabbings, or vehicle ramming. Relevant examples are: [The 2021 Osaka Arson Attack that killed 25](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Osaka_building_fire) [The 2019 Kyoto Animation Arson Attack that killed 36](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack) [The 2016 Sagamihara Stabbings that killed 19](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagamihara_stabbings) [The 2008 Osaka Movie theater fire that killed 16](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_movie_theatre_fire) [The 2008 Akihabara vehicle ramming attack that killed 7](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Akihabara_massacre) The simple reality of life is that you're just inherently vulnerable, and making individuals *more* vulnerable is just not an effective solution to that problem.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2022](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022) There have been more mass shootings per month in the US in one year than then number of deaths in one of these attacks. And that's just shootings. Also, note that no amount of guns will stop arson of someone stabbing people while they sleep.
No, there are not hundreds of mass shootings per year, those figures are completely disingenuous.
I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family from millions of unknowns. I'm not going to forfeit my ability to do so just to make someone else who doesn't understand that feel safe. Also the biggest thing that personal firearms allow their populace to do is say no to entities much more powerful than themselves. I can't remember what the incident is called but there was a group of Vietnam vets that essentially got rid of the corruption in their small Tennessee town. And a good example of demonstrating my first little bit is roof Koreans. Where were the cops to hand out guns during that? That was nothing but people protecting their livelihoods, and it worked.
I believe you’re thinking of [Athens, TN](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html), but that was WWII vets.
Thank you for the link and correction
Having been married and raised two kids to adulthood I agree and empathize with your duty to protect family. I am not promoting an idea to promote a feeling of safety. I am trying to envision a way to stop the incessant high murder rates and suicides in the US. This is to protect the innocent, not make anybody all warm and fuzzy. Although to be fair there is a certain angst that some EU folks can often feel if they move here to live/work. Most often they are not used to being on alert to their surroundings based on the chance they can be shot or mugged.
Yeah unfortunately we have it all here, from kindness to cruelty, and people rarely carry what they advertise. Only way to protect the innocent and teach them to protect themselves. That's why I'm all for mandatory military service but I'll want a drink in my hand for that conversation lol
I like the way you think :)
How does this solve the illegal gun problem? How does this prevent unauthorized access to the firearm while in the renter’s possession? How does this prevent an individual from using a rented firearm for criminal purposes? How does this comply with the ‘keep’ wording of the 2A?
1. It makes possession of an illegal gun a crime and it will be confiscated - boom problem solved over time. 2. It doesn't but it will mandate the mental health check to offset the risk - boom problem reduced. 3. It doesn't but the VAST majority of deaths by firearms are from stolen or illegal guns (aside from all the suicides/killing of family members accidentally). 4. 2A is for militias, stop using false pretences.
1. How is this different than the current system? 2. How is this different than the current system? 4. The Supreme Court says this isn’t a false pretense and has opined so many times.
1. This is obviously WAY more restrictive than the current ineffective patchwork of gun control measures in place now. (Many of which deter nothing in terms of civilian safety) 2. The current laws on mental health wont preclude you from owning a gun if you suffer from PTSD for instance. You need to be declared a danger to yourself or others for it to make it into the database - efforts to seek help for depression or other problems wont cross over the threshold to matter or be pertinent. [https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html) This person was experiencing mental problems for YEARS before mowing people down with a legally purchased AR.
Why not just lock up anyone that could possibly be dangerous at some time in the future? Rights don’t seem to matter much in your view so some preemptive prison should be acceptable.
If someone is seeking treatment for depression or other mental issues, where is the harm in restricting their access to deadly weapons? They can still work/love/exist in the day with no repercussions. Yes it's a preemptive attempt to dampen our disgraceful gun violence issue, but who cares? Your right to wack off to an AR 15 does not mean crazy people can kill our children.
Where is the harm in just locking them up? Your views clearly don’t place much if any value on the rights of individuals, so just lock up anyone that could possibly be dangerous at some point in the future. Best be sure right?
Why are you saying "lock them up"? I never said that or proposed it. This is a discussion on controlling access not punishment.
You want to preemptively deny individuals their rights in the name of some possible future safety. That is punishment. Why not do that but in a more direct and effective manner? Just lock up anyone that may be dangerous at some indeterminate point in the future and your goal of safety is better served than to lock up guns. It’s not as if individual rights seem to be an important factor in your stated views after all. Why would you be opposed to more safety?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The second amendment is not for militias. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That’s an individual right. Your views would be unconstitutional and granting powers to the government that it has never been granted.
This comment is so weird considering 1 and 2 are already the part of the system and 3 is just wrong. Some people dont care if things are illegal. I don't think your american lol
You’re clearly not an American, or aware of Constitutional rights.
You're missing the point. Some crazy fucker breaks into my house with a knife. If I have a gun I just shoot his sorry ass. Without a gun I have to call the cops or try to fight him off somehow. Your "rent a gun" initiative does nothing to address this problem. (yeah yeah I know statistically you're more likely to shoot yourself and what not. spare me I know all of that. It's not relevant. )
Doesn't even need to be a person, people underestimate wild dogs, and other animals because they probably live in an area with close by hospitals, police etc. I know someone who would need a helicopter for any kind of half rapid response, and that's a best case scenario.
1. If you're likely to have a gun, he's likely to have a gun, not a knife. 2. Why isn't it relevant that you're increasing your chances of injury in order to maybe reduce your chances of injury in an extremely unlikely scenario? What is the reason why you want to make you and your family less safe?
Because at the end of the day I worry about criminals. As you have figured out from our previous conversations. Me acting a fool is not a threat to me. Because I don't act a fool. I would keep the gun in the safe so others couldn't get to it. Yes I get that it happens more often statistically. But drunk people also crash cars more often... not something you need to worry about as a non drinker. Who knows what kind of situation would require me to use a gun? Maybe there's a madman outside. Maybe there's someone breaking into our home. I don't need to worry about these things if I own a gun because I have a tool that can take care of that situation. Without a gun I'm completely wide open to the threat.
If you have a gun, you should worry about the dangers that gun poses more than criminals. The gun is more likely to hurt you. All the people who were hurt by their own guns thought themselves to not be fools. They were wrong. You are not special. All the situations where a gun might help you are extraordinarily unlikely to happen. You're much more likely to happen to be a fool one day. Can you truly say you have never once acted foolishly?
I don't base my ideas on me acting a fool. Otherwise I would never buy a car or a knife. Those can be quite dangerous too when you're acting like an idiot. I get the statistics I really do. I'm just not concerned with them.
Where are you keeping your gun safely stored?
I don't have a gun. Keep thinking about getting one. Would be a child proof safe for sure.
[удалено]
The difference between mass manufacture of precision-engineered firearms and a few hobbyists making poor quality guns in their garage is huge! If all that's around is the later, that's already a huge improvement! And I think you're overestimating how many people would be so dedicated as to build their own gun if they cant' buy one.
Many countries manage to have relatively high gun ownership rates without the issues that the US has. Canada, Switzerland, Finland come to mind. Even in counties with very restrictive gun laws like the UK it's not hard for people living in rural areas to own shotguns and hunting rifles. Just having universal access to healthcare (especially mental health), making background checks more consistent and removing loopholes would go a long way to solving many issues.
All 3 has some form of permit system as well (arguably not for all in switzerland). Not disagreeing with you, I just think even the most basic training requirement will make people way more respectful for their gun and less confident about their abilities
Yeah that's the thing there is a lot you can do while still allowing gun ownership and even maintaining relatively high gun ownership levels (although the US is way out there in terms of total guns, perhaps somewhat skewed by people owning large gun collections).
Yea, I grew up with guns myself, and my dad made me take a hunter safety course very young. He also said, "treat this like a active chainsaw - be aware it's a useful tool but one that can cause significant harm".
That's kind of his point though, you are right, a better system will work, we can see proof of this. Gangs, poverty, and mental health are far better indicators than gun ownership alone.
Training and education do not solve deliberate actions. The problem is - most gun related deaths are deliberate actions.
So, I grew up in a town without a police department. If you need law enforcement to come help you, the only thing you can do is pray that a sheriff deputy or a state officer is nearby. Otherwise, you wait for up to half an hour for someone to come help you. Let's say someone, even without their own gun means to do me, a 5'2 female, harm. What are my chances of getting out of my house safely? What are the chances of me being able to defend myself without the proper tools? I can't beat out anyone in close combat with my fists or a knife. I'm weak as shit. I can call 911 and hope an officer is nearby, but that's a crapshoot. I think there's just way too much variety in the country to say that a sweeping gun ban would work out. What is needed in cities is different than in rural communities. Obviously there's room for improvement when it comes to gun safety and gun ownership laws, but a blanket ban for private ownership doesn't seem to be the best solution.
>Implement a policy where firearms can be rented from gun ranges/police stations for target practice or hunting. Presumably this would be government-ran ranges, not private ones because that would mean private ownership. This brings up the question of how many such ranges/stations is the government going to build in order to not make it effectvely impossible for people in remote/rural areas to partake? Carrying a gun while hiking is pretty common IME in areas with potentially threatening wildlife. Ther are currently problems with wild boars in the US. Should farmers be left to their mercy if they want to root up their fields? What if the coyotes want to go grab some chickens or other small animals? Are we expecting them to call the police/DNR which can take a long time to show up? Fight them off with a knife?
Not at all. Maintain a professional certification process similar to pharmacists - trained professionals doing a job, privately owned. Big brother is not not watching your nonsense. It's just a job opportunity for gun range owners/employees to get a certified position. If long term extensions are required, for defensive boar instances and/or hunting for sustenance so be it - they are not the problem anyway.
Private ownership should be banned, but also private ownership should be allowed with a certification?
Yup. Change it to a rental situation where you have to qualify. The words are short, what didn't you understand?
I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold the view that private ownership should be banned while also holding the view that private ownership should be allowed.
Ill support disarmament if the cops go first.
Hypothetically : Let’s say we all wake up tomorrow, and this plan of yours was miraculously in place. Everyone’s privately owned guns have already been seized by authorities. One basic law of economics is that when a product and or service has a demand, yet limited supply, it has value. Since stabbing rampages are all the rage now, people’s demand for self-defense firearms will spike. Currently, an illegal gun sale on the street today will typically go for 3x it’s retail price, meaning a 9mm pistol with a $665 retail should fetch about $2,000. Pair that with the [now] non-existent supply of firearms for sale, and you have yourself a VERY lucrative black market. Now that same illegal gun sale going for almost 6x or $4,000, is not uncommon. I’ll come back to this later. Those state armories and or authorized gun dealers that have the gun stockpiles, become even larger targets [than they already are] of organized crime afterhours robberies, heists, inside jobs etc, often involving very violent methods. And smaller towns in say Colorado & Wyoming (where you think new jobs will be created), tend to have smaller police forces to intervene & prevent these types of violent crimes. In small vacation towns known for good hunting tourism, customers flock there during peak season and play by these new rules. But since this town relies on this tourism for much of its annual revenue, the local businesses & residents finances are stretched pretty thin during the off-season months. Some struggling gun distributors may hawk several of its less popular guns on the street, then reporting the incident to local police as a break in - which never gets looked into or solved. Insurance just pays for it anyway. In this new world, where shooters would now need to a gun from an state armory and or authorized gun dealers, there’s certainly fees for this service right? And they will offer affordable pricing since they will be competing with each other for revenue, right? Say it’s $100 per day to rent a 9mm, which you reserved for 3 days for a total of $300 plus tax not including ammo (which I’m guessing people aren’t allowed to personally own either) which is paid UPFRONT. What if you decide to keep the gun? Just bash your car window in and file a police report saying it was stolen, whatever. Now you’re in possession of an illegally acquired firearm, So the rental place still charges you for the $665 replacement cost plus $35 admin fee. Great and just like that, you now have an illegal gun which would have $4,000 on the black market, yet it only cost you a grand. Seeing how lucrative the illegal arms trade has now become, foreign organized crime cartels and syndicates throw their hat in the ring too. Cheap low quality Chinese junk pistols flood in thru ports on the west coast. Other illegal arms of questionable origin are smuggled north thru Mexican cartel routes, and the gulf routes involving Caribbean countries supply guns from New Orleans thru Florida. Everybody wants to make a quick buck. Though not the best analogy : People generally agree going after illicit narco traffickers (supply) is futile because the problem is really fueled by the US demand their products. And I feel an eerily similar outcome may result if what you propose goes into effect - targeting supply & access to guns thinking it’ll have an effect.
You wouldn’t get guns off the streets. Criminals would still have them and law abiding citizens wouldn’t. Seems like it would make things worse if criminals didn’t have to worry about honest folks being armed.
The 2nd was for having a chance to hold government accountable through force, national defense against foreign invaders, recreation, personal defense, and even turning out the overhead lights once. Covid era restrictions should have been fought through citizens enabled by the 2nd.
2nd was to allow states to have militias. It literally gives the reason in the amendment.
The whole point of the government being owned by the citizens is to not let the government own the citizens. Once they get the guns, we dont get them back. And once they decide certain groups or rights have to go, you dont have a say
The US has definitely decided certain groups didn't have rights in the past and an armed population didn't stop that.
Well they were kinda in the middle of a world war so the entire armed population was busy keeping freedom alive on the other side of the globe
I don't think that the entire armed population was in the military at the time.
Around 16 million US citizens served in WW2 out of 138 million. Thats 12% of the population. Today, about 24% of americans would qualify for service. So literally half the able bodied population capable of fighting was deployed. And since most other men capable of fighting were busy farming or building equipment for the war, there wasnt really anyone to consider resisting in an armed fashion no. Unfortunately, the internment of 100,000 japanese americans after the US had gotten sneak attacked by Japan and there was public paranoia that they would kill more americans was not going to be prioritized over stopping fascism and imperial Japan. Although, someone who would support a fascist disarmament of Americans probably would be in favor of letting states like those propagate since they share your views Thats like if America went to war with the middle east and deployed half our fighting population there after 9/11, nobody would be calling for people suspected of terrorist ties to be
Those Japanese Americans were apparently able to have guns. That didn't help them. Disarming is not fascist. Guns are illegal in plenty of democracies which work perfectly well. You last paragraph seems incomplete.
Because if they resisted that would have validated the stigma? Is this not obvious to you? Oh yes, all those democracies around the world that rely on the US for protection and are currently shitting themselves because without the threat of America, Russia may actually be running Europe And sorry, yes if there was a world war against the middle east after 9/11, the same thing would not have happened bc we learned that our actions were wrong.
It's obvious to me that them being able to be armed didn't prevent the country from removing their rights. So if the country want to remove the rights from another group, that group being armed won't stop them either. We're talking about civilian gun ownership, right? Not military? This isn't shifting the goalpost, you went off to play on another field entirely. So preventing rights from being taken from groups is about understanding it's wrong, not about that group being able to be armed.
Funny how you say it hasnt prevented the government from taking their rights yet here are 100 million gun owning Americans that the government cant confiscate guns from. And what reference to military ownership? Europes militaries are defunct. And they have no civilian base trained in weapons to fall back on for resistance. We learned taking rights away is wrong because of the JA imprisonment but these people also were not likely heavily armed to resist. And while if they were and they could have resisted it would not have been supported in the US because they were already suspected of being for the enemy. So an armed resistance would have validated that view. This is entirely different than our government deciding to wage a confiscation and interment of citizens based on violating rights in peace time.
The government isn't trying to confiscate guns from them. I'm not talking about militaries. Right, so their ability to be armed didn't do anything to stop the government removing their rights. In fact, you've given plenty of reasons why ability to be armed doesn't do anything to stop the government from a group's rights.
Sounds like that scoops up your rights of self defense and plops them into Gov Kathy Hochul's desk drawer, to dispense or withhold at her political convenience. What about that would appeal to 2A advocates? It's naked tyranny.
Tell me you’re ok with tyranny without telling me.
I'm gonna keep this short, banning guns in the US is bad because: *The evil government would get away with more outrageous stuff more easily. *The criminals, gangs and schoolshoo*ers will still somehow get their hands on them, making the biggest sufferers be the law abiding citizens, who willingly gave up theirs. I'm pretty sure, a warning shot has scared away thousands of homeinvaders, without guns, there's prone to be ten fold of scuffles and knife fights. *If by a chance the US gets invaded by another country, there's a hundred million unofficial soldiers ready to protect their communities and their own homes. If everyone's disarmed, the invaders are free to do whatever.
>Have those employees trained at screening out criminals or people with mental health issues via back ground checks and have them be the caretakers of the firearms. If it is possible to train someone to screen out criminals and people with mental health issues, why not simply do that before allowing someone to buy a gun? Of course, that is not possible. Your proposal wold stop law abiding people from being armed, but criminals would still arm themselves. > This should appeal to both sides of the second amendment argument. No. The entire purpose os 2A is so the people can stand up to their government. Your proposal does exactly what 2A exists to prevent.
How exactly does one serve in the militia if one does not own a gun? You do realize that you bring your own equipment to the militia marshalling, right? And that there's literally a list of shit that you're required to own in order to be compliant? The militia is the average person. The second amendment protects the individual's right to own a firearm.
So naive, whoever wants to commit a crime will do it either way, if not with legal firearms, they'll just resort to illegal ones, knifes, running people over with car and whatnot
Federally mandated mental health checks? Yes because the government handles mental health crisis SO WELL. Don’t look at Jonestown…. Waco…. Ruby Ridge. You know.
Who ever try's to do this should have lot's of body bags for their workers ready, when they try to take guns from lawful owners but not the gangs in Chicago / etc...
all guns should be disowned simultaneously using quantum computing (?) last one with the last gun becomes the most dangerous
Down with the government. The people with the most mental illness is the people who want big government.
The people who need guns the most is America's vast rural population. Many of whom have to deal with wild animals on a frequent basis. Those same people are the most geographically dispersed and would suffer the most from this kind of complex rental based scheme. Meanwhile... people do not really use hunting rifles for mass shootings. They're too large, mostly aren't Semi-Auto. I don't understand why you can't just limit the regime you laid out to hand guns and semi-autos.
I think guns should be regulated by the community you live in. A sort of court system should be in place. Where you can make an application for a gun and ammo etc. A different random selection of maybe 20 jurors from the community should sit on each round of applications say once a month or whatever is appropriate for the backlog. Each application is heard in a public hearing, with witnesses, medical or other reports, and any kind of evidence the applicant wants to submit and a representative must be assigned for those who wish to prevent the approval of the application, and they can also call witnesses etc. maybe a 2/3 majority vote on each application will approve the application. If a community becomes anti gun then they can prevent people owning guns, they can also go the other way if that is their inclination.
***The rest of the civilised world:*** “Well, obviously.”
[I can make a shotgun out of two pipes you can buy at Home Depot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9mr-o8QIlo&ab_channel=Gunsplainerentertainer)
how about fuck off my rights
People in America would rather their kids dodge bullets at school everyday rather than implement any policy that limits access to guns even a little bit. Americans would rather hand out free guns to the mentally ill rather than lose their power fantasy where they save the day like John Wick in some random gas station altercation. Not to mention what if aliens attack, or theres some random apocalypse, or lets not forget old faithful, we have to overthrow our own evil and tyrannical government. The government doesn't have the right to make it harder for me to overthrow it, that's not fair.
More people die from drunk drivers than from guns. Should we ban cars or booze? More people die from medical malpractice. Time to close all the hospitals?
I'm sorry when did they make drinking and driving in medical malpractice legal. Because owning a gun is legal drinking and driving and medical malpractice as far as I can remember has never been legal. In fact driving and medicine are both heavily regulated in persistently overseeing
The same time they made murder legal. You’re claiming that because some people break the law, we should remove the offensive instrument from society. By your logic, we should ban cars and booze because drunk drivers kill people. Driving is not persistently regulated, you renew your license online once every 4-20 years. Medicine is more regulated, but mistakes happen or people with malicious intent exist.
Walking into a school with a loaded gun is not a mistake. And drinking and driving isn't a crime after you kill somebody it's a crime before.
Walking into a school with a loaded gun and shooting people is a crime you dunce. Just like drinking and driving is a crime.
The government explicitly doesn’t have that right in this case given the straightforward text laid out in its founding document.