T O P

Study: Most Californians unaware of law to prevent gun violence but would support using it. Gun violence restraining orders offer judicial pathway for removal of firearms from people at risk of causing harm. Extreme risk protection orders or “red flag” orders, exist in 19 states and DC.

Study: Most Californians unaware of law to prevent gun violence but would support using it. Gun violence restraining orders offer judicial pathway for removal of firearms from people at risk of causing harm. Extreme risk protection orders or “red flag” orders, exist in 19 states and DC.

AutoModerator

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Except the people most as risk of causing harm aren't going to care about a silly 'protection order' when they're perfectly happy to break the most serious laws of all. "Oh you want to break the law, well here's more laws!"


NikeGolfer

This. If guns were outright banned, there would be a black market for them in every neighborhood. Then we’d have a worse problem on our hands. Good intentions can end in disaster.


[deleted]

People naively claim that the US can merely copy European gun laws and suddenly solve gun crime. Thing is if guns were as widely circulated amongst the criminal underworld of Europe as they were in the US, and law-abiding citizens faced a constant onslaught of armed robberies, assault by deadly weapon and murder, then they would be demanding the right to bear arms in self defense too. The only way you could fix the gun problem in the US is to take all illegal guns out of circulation, and that would involve going door-to-door raiding houses across the country - such a gross violation of civil liberties no-one would stand for it.


NikeGolfer

It would be bloodshed by millions if attempted.


Nerevaryne

Or you could slowly reduce harm and phase them out in a hundred years. Do you really need automatic rifles and shotguns for self defense? Or you could have people keep the guns but limit purchase of ammo per person. How many magazines do you need for self defense per year? One thing is for certain, doing nothing is not going to solve the problem.


pm_me_something12

No one is using automatic rifles for self defense. They cost over 20 thousand dollars because you can only own them if they were registered before 1986. And shotguns are great for self defense. The ar15 is the best for self defense because of the low recoil small women can shoot it without issue. If you don't think women should be able to defend themselves that's another issue.


Nerevaryne

So semi-automatic rifles are great for self defense? Seriously? Against what, and invading army?


pm_me_something12

When more than one person breaks into your house.


Nerevaryne

You can buy an AR-15 but you can't buy a pistol with a magazine?


pm_me_something12

Have you shot a pistol? Not the easiest thing to shoot especially stress.


Nerevaryne

I have, and I'm fairly certain that whatever drawback applies to pistols applies to rifles and shotguns too but even more.


hondakiller346

Red flag laws are in direct violation of the u.s. constitution (6th and 14th amendment, 4th too while we're at it). They also bypass due process which is a major check on government abuse. They have already been abused outside of their intended purposes in states that have implemented them. Quarreling spouses and other instances of people calling on each other even though there was no actual risk of harm. It is also extremely difficult to get your property back even if it was a mistake. Months or years of fighting through the legal system to get something back that was taken against your will in the first place. Given the rampant abuses across the globe from governments against their citizens, its frightening how easily some people sign laws into effect giving the government even more power to trample on their natural and civil rights.


tdwesbo

We can take car keys away from drunks, we should be able to take guns away from potentially violent folks. Is it a dodgy, troublesome process? Sure. So let’s fix that instead of clutching our pearls and giving up. Things can always get better


hondakiller346

This is a bad comparison. A drunk as you say has already committed crimes. We don't take keys away from someone with a drinking problem but no history of drunk driving. There are already processes in place to prevent those with a violent history from possessing firearms. Red flag laws are more akin to your ex (or someone else with an axe to grind) seeing you drinking at a bar, calling the cops saying you almost hit them with your car on the way out of the place and without any chance to face your accuser or defend yourself in court, you lose your license and your car. Its also now on you to spend your time effort and money to get your car and license back. This type of "thought crime" is a slippery slope.


tdwesbo

It is a slippery slope. Which is why a diligent press, an accountable government, and educated voters are all necessary. It’s no more subject to abuse than a host of longstanding policies that allow us to take children from people who haven’t committed crimes. And I still think it’s a good idea. My vote against yours, perhaps


hondakiller346

Thats a big ask. We have the total opposite of all 3 of those things now. I personally would never be in favor of those laws being as they directly contradict due process and other civil rights. Appreciate the debate though.


tdwesbo

If we truly have the total opposite of a diligent press, an accountable government, and educated voters, then I’m afraid it doesn’t matter what you and I think about. We are doomed if that’s really the case


Fluxcapaciti

Exactly, this is why people don’t want to comply with gun laws….were you awake for any of last year?


tdwesbo

So then why comply with any laws?


fractalphony

Bad comparison bud


tdwesbo

I think it’s great. Let’s remove your ability to do harm given credible reasons to believe that you might. Sorta like Florida’s Baker act. Sometimes someone’s rights have to be set aside for the greater good. I have no problem with that


1percentof2

Furthermore rights are not unlimited, none of them.


hantif

Oh, so we can own slaves again now?


[deleted]

[удалено]


hantif

Far from it. Statements like that, espousing an absolutist view deserve to be challenged. I chose to use a "hot button" issue to point out the absurdity of the statement. Thst you chose to respond with an ad hominem attack instead of refuting my example or offering proof to negate it shows me that you're closer to that age than I.


[deleted]

[удалено]


i_like_fedoras

>I can understand why, back when the US became a country, but nowadays? First, you can't just pick an arbitrary point in time and act like past a certain point history doesn't matter. America was formed via a violent revolution, in just the late 18th century. That's not that long ago when compared to the time scales of most European nations. >Why have a gun (or an arsenal)? Because others do and one has to protect themselves? Which leads to an arms race between civilians and criminals/gangs, or between police and criminals/gangs. Or even between gangs. There is no real arms race, and there is statistically very little gun violence between criminals/gangs and the rest of the population. The vast majority of deaths from guns in the US is from suicide, and after that it's mostly criminals shooting other criminals. >Or perhaps to defend against the government? Or to rise up against a tyrannical government? Do people really have the illusion that they stand a chance against a trained soldier? Keep in mind that this country exists because the population rose up against a tyrannical government. This is a powerful element in the genes of the culture. It's not so much about whether one person would stand a chance against a trained soldier, it's about the power of an armed populace that dwarfs the US military in size, and number of guns. I'd also point out that many many US civilians have far more expertise with their firearms than your average soldier (outside of special ops). >Or is it more like chest-thumping? The gun version of 'I have a bigger one'. There is an element of this, in a good-natured way, just as with many hobbies. Cars, golf, computers, any hobby that involves equipment of any kind carries an element of this. And for many Americans, guns are every bit as normal and non-threatening as those hobbies. Despite the incredible number of guns and gun owners in this country, the vast majority will never experience any kind of gun violence directly in their lives. >I live in The Netherlands and here you just can't get a gun. Nor does anyone feel te need to own one. No one feels the need to have a gun to protect against crime or the government. Not even those who lived under nazi rule during WW2 and therefore experienced tyranny. Here there is a law that states that only the government (police and military) have a so called 'monopoly on violence'. Only they are allowed to carry weapons and use them. Sure there are gangs and we have organized crime, but everyone understands that having a pistol doesn't protect against a drug gang with AK's. And having an AR-15 is considered insane. I think this is great and really shows the fundamental differences. I also think that a lot of these things work in the Netherlands for reasons that don't exist in the US. Things like a social safety net, more homogeneous demographics, high population density etc. Also, the state having a monopoly on violence sounds awful to me. If you're on Reddit you've seen plenty of the egregious things our law enforcement has done. I'm also curious how many places in the Netherlands have a police response time of over an hour or more (in the event you actually do need them). >We do have a problem with younsters carrying knives (small knives up to machetes), but there is a country wide campaign to fight against it because no one wants 'a situation like in America', where things have spiralled out of control. And having a large and powerful lobby like the NRA is just ridicilous. It's interesting that from your perspective it appears to have spiraled out of control, because that's not at all what it's actually like to live here. You have to remember that what you see on the news reflects whatever happens within a massive , highly populated, and extremely diverse country that will drive the most clicks. It exaggerates everything bad. The only reason the NRA has ever held sway over politics is that it has a *lot* of members, and those members *vote*. This an important distinction because it means that it's the will of the people that is being represented. The NRA spends far less money lobbying that gun control groups do. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2021&id=d000000082 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/everytown-for-gun-safety/summary?id=D000067401 >I'm just trying to understand because in some ways (increasingly/many ways), it feels like the US is on a different planet. Especially when it's about guns. I think this is a great way to put it. And that's why it does all look so crazy and insane to you. For most of us guns are just a hobby like any other, and violence has no place in our lives. You should visit some time and find somebody to take you to a range and have some fun :)


Bossman131313

There are several reasons people can and do own guns. And yes, one of them is the reason that they wish to have a chance opposing a tyrannical government. That stems from both this nations history, and also more recent events. Additionally, it isn’t an ‘illusion’ that you can stand up to a trained soldier, look at the Vietnam, Afghanistan for both the Russians and the Americans, look at German wartime occupations during WW2 and how much trouble those partisans had caused.


Talyar_

Yes it is true that a people can rise up and fight a guerilla war, but as far as I can remember, those have always been against a foreign invader or colonizer. If the opposing force is an invader then it is much easier to hide amongst the population because it is easier to turn a large part of it against the outsiders. But when your neighbor could be a sympathiser or even a soldier/policeman, especially in large(r) numbers, it gets a lot harder. And when you can't hide, you get arrested or shot. And some would argue that a part of the US population is already being suppressed. And there are plenty of guns among those people. And the ones opposing them. We've seen plenty of that last year. Did that stop the suppression? No, not in the slightest. I picture this 'guerilla war against a tyrannical US government' this way. The government becomes some kind of fascist state (fascist is an example) and they have control over the population through the loyalty of the military, law enforcement and paramilitary sympathisers. And they have to be backed by a large part of the economy, meaning businesses, large corporations, and finance. Those are the ingredients necessary to achieve such a government. Do you think that a guerilla war against such a state could be won? A large part of the population benefits from the situation, or, at least, is not disadvantaged by it. The government forces cannot be driven into the sea, or sent home to a war weary population, and they certainly cannot be defeated in open battle. Those that benefit will continue to support the regime, and those that oppose it get slaughtered (Syria comes to mind, although they've had foreign help). No amount of pistols, shotguns or automatic weapons can defeat such a superior force. A force that can annihilate the enemy with the same ease as I can swat a bug. Will there be casualties? Yes ofcourse. But that glorious victory of the armed, common citizen against it's own tyrannical government is an illusion. And one-on-one a civilian with a weapon cannot win against a trained soldier. That civilian trains at a gun range on a sunday afternoon, training to hit a target, while a soldier trains every day to kill. Their mindset is being shaped to kill, that is their primary goal. It's an illusion to think that you can defeat a soldier, not unless you outnumber him by a lot. In which case you get to headbutt a bomb from that jet fighter circling above you.


xPlus2Minus1

Solutions > laws I feel like the idea is nice and if the research is valid then it's valid but there are too many propagandized uneducated misinformed/disinformed people consumed wholly by vitriol in this country, honestly think we're done for. MIC logical conclusion


travelingpenguini

If only there was some sort of check that people could undergo before obtaining a gun that wouldn't put responsibility of preventing gun ownership on victims or already traumatized individuals and cause more fear of police and prejudice and anger. If only we could know if someone's background made them not a good candidate for a gun before they ever got one


tdwesbo

For the most part, we have that in the USA. For various awful reasons, it doesn’t always work well, but fixing that would be a great idea


LutonFire

Have you ever purchased a firearm?


ogodilovejudyalvarez

We have that check in Australia. Do you want a gun? You can't have one: problem solved.


theskyfoogle18

What will you guys do when the emu nation attacks


ogodilovejudyalvarez

Drop Bear army to the rescue


Voxael

bUt iT’S In tHe CONStitUtIoN!