Gun Control and Regulations

As we’ve gone off topic I’ve responded in the Law Enforcement thread rather than here.

I would like to re-post this from three years ago:

A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works: "A federal license for possession of semi-automatic firearms could make Americans safer—and more free."

Later in the article: "...The framework I’m proposing is essentially a grand bargain: The gun control side gives up the possibility of a federal gun registry, specific states abandon their weapon bans and long gun registries, and in exchange the gun rights side accepts a brand new federal licensing scheme with real teeth."

I think the idea of regulating gun owners instead of guns has merit, and could lead to a rational streamlining of gun regulations. Combined with red flag laws, this could make US society safer.

This is by far the best solution I've ever seen. It brings gun control-sympathetic gun owners back to our side with the concessions on long arms which will be a plus long term, and puts in place a regulatory scheme that we already know will be effective.

That's a step in the right direction, for sure.

I do like the idea of a gun registry as well, because negligent discharges are a much greater danger than gun crime, and I like the idea that someone is responsible for every firearm at all times. But a shall-issue federal license that also takes care of background checks and covers all 50 states? That's a simple, unrestrictive tool for protecting the public.

What would be the difference between a gun registry and federal licensing?

I'm also not sure why civilians need the right to own semi-automatic weapons. What are they going to use them for?

It’s a pretty simple and reasonable regulatory idea, but I’ve no idea why the author thinks it’s politically viable. It’s very clear that the anti-regulation crowd (by which I mean the NRA and associates) will accept nothing but full victory and a total end of regulation, they’d never support a licence holder database.

Now, it’d be great if it could pass, you could even roll in some of the licensing for automatics into such a system, the same way your driving licence displays if you’re authorised to drive a HGV.

One lists guns and who owns them, the other lists people who it’s okay to have guns. There’s very little difference in practical terms.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 4th 2022 at 8:41:44 PM

I think he's trying to talk to the people who aren't the NRA and who have an interest in reasonable gun regulation. Get his ideas into the political conversation.

Yeah, that's important too, to give visibility to alternatives.

This is from the 2019 National Lawful Use of Guns survey. [1]

Most gun owners are just regular people, at the end of the day.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 4th 2022 at 11:03:20 AM

"I'm also not sure why civilians need the right to own semi-automatic weapons. What are they going to use them for?"

Almost no one needs to own any guns at all. Almost no one needs to drink alcohol, drive to the grocery store, or eat junk food. In the end, it's all about life choices and self expression.

I mean, there are countless avenues of self-expression that aren't deadly weapons.

Maybe I just don't get guns because I'm not 'Murican.

Edited by Perseus on Feb 5th 2022 at 1:00:06 AM

You don't need a semi-automatic for self-defence, and you don't need one for hunting either, which are the only two legitimate reasons to own a gun. Just owning guns for their own sake is not a good idea.

Target shooting's an option, and semi-automatics are good for that. They're also useful beginner weapons - the reason the AR-15 is so popular isn't just because it's a "cool military-style weapon," it's because a complete neophyte can pick it up, point it down-range and pull the trigger with a reasonable chance of getting a bullet into the target.

More to the point, you're not 'Murican. People in 'Murica want our guns and we aren't okay with the idea that you need a reason to own one. The best you're likely to get is "prove that you're safe to trust with a firearm."

Yes, my blatant un-Americanism is shown again.

Okay, I can see target shooting, I suppose. But I still believe people should have valid reasons to own guns (which is part of the law on gun ownership in my country, as I pointed out earlier).

Just to be clear, is this meant to be a general gun control thread, or just for the US?

Edited by Redmess on Feb 5th 2022 at 11:06:56 AM

So, there was a shooting near where I live last night. Apparently gang violence, someone opened fire into a bar, others came out to attack, one arrested near by, one arrested after flooring 100 mph, three more walked a mile to steal a car at my apartment complex before getting chased and caught. Five or six shot, one dead.

I think pretty much everyone believes this, it’s just that different cultures have different ideas about what’s valid.

I’ll also add that if you’re going to defend yourself with a gun, it should probably be a semi-automatic. Single-action revolvers and manual action rifles and shotguns are poor defensive weapons.

For target shooting, anything goes.

It doesn't seem to be US-exclusive, it's just that most of the fighting over regulations is in the US, because most of the rest of the world has some kind of consensus.

As I understand it, shotguns are the weapon to use for home defense. Concealed-carry self-defense, yeah, you want a semi-automatic pistol (if your locale thinks carrying a pistol for self-defense is reasonable, which is obviously not universal).

If you're outside your home, the best ways to defend yourself are situational awareness, verbal de-escalation skills and, if it comes down to it, a fast pair of legs. The first one above all else: someone who's intent on mugging you with a weapon isn't going to be polite enough to approach you from obvious angles so you can pull a gun on them before they're on your throat.

If you're at home, you can invest in deadbolts, barred windows, various flavours of alarms both manually and automatically-triggered and maybe a panic room before you opt for a lethal weapon. All of which are much less likely to get stolen or saddle you with legal liabilities.

And whatever you do, don't set booby traps. Those are actually illegal, even in the US.

See in the UK (well, Britain) a self/home-defence is specifically noted as an invalid reason to own a gun, because our society is judged to be safe and lawful enough that such a need isn’t a reasonable one to claim.

Hunting, animal management and recreational shooting are all valid reasons, but defence isn’t. Though, we have also completely outlawed handguns for private ownership. As in our Olympic handgun team practise in Switzerland and we had to be a legal exemption for the actual Olympics to be allowed to happen.

Self-defence isn't a valid reason in Australia, either. The only types of handguns legally available are .22 calibre target pistols and .177 pellet air pistols, and you'd need to be registered to a sport shooting club for several months (depending on the state) before you can apply for an ownership licence. And you cannot keep yours at home: you must store it in a secure locker at the shooting range.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Feb 5th 2022 at 4:53:17 AM

This is one of those Old Guy gun legends, like racking the slide to scare off an intruder. Shotgun rounds over-penetrate like crazy, even more than most rifle rounds. They also require much more skill to operate, especially in confined spaces, are on the heavier side and have a lot of recoil which limits their utility for people who aren’t physically very strong, and are more easily snatched by an assailant in an up-close situation. Finally, they can’t be operated with one hand, which means you can’t open and close doors, use a phone, or do any number of things very readily.

Aside from the prohibitive expense of things like a panic room for most people, none of those will protect you from the most common type of assault in the home, which is an assault by someone you know. Conservatives don’t like to mention this but the majority of defensive gun usage in the US is done by women, usually against a partner or someone else who was able to legally gain access to their home.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 5th 2022 at 5:15:11 AM

Yep. Conservatives are all for the right to bear arms for self-defence as long as its white men bearing arms. California's restrictive gun laws are the work of Ronald Reagan in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves

Okay, I'm not familiar with the statistics on defensive gun use (feel free to cite sources); but a 2016 paper by UPenn researchers (mirror here) estimated that over 4.5 million women in the US had been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner, and one million had been shot.

If abuse victims have access to firearms for self-defence, then so do their abusers. If they're living with someone, then there's a more than even chance that the person has a decent idea of how to access their firearm. If we're talking about costs, then someone who can't afford deadbolts and barred windows probably isn't going to be able to afford a secure gun locker, either.

Like, I get it from a short-sighted individual perspective. Owning a gun is a decently affordable way to feel like you have agency — though I believe you can get a decent security door in most places for the US market price of an AR, minus ammo, training and storage. You (meaning most everyone who isn't a Card-Carrying Villain) probably don't think that you're going to abuse someone or physically threaten them without justification. But owning a gun makes it possible for you to do those things with a gun. You probably think that you're a responsible gun owner who isn't going to let their gun get stolen. But owning a gun in the first place makes it possible for your gun to be stolen and used against you or someone else — especially if we're talking about the kinds of buyers who didn't have the means to afford secure storage in the first place.

Having a lethal weapon makes you a risk factor to society and yourself, period. I'm sure most civilian gun owners are morally decent people; but everyone has a non-trivial capacity for aggression, abuse and catastrophic misjudgment. Having a firearm makes those things far more potentially lethal, to an extent that I doubt is justified by DGU statistics (again, feel free to cite any sources that say otherwise). As a DV survivor living with resulting trauma disorders, I'm personally happy enough to have grown up in a society where firearms rarely factor into abuse scenarios.

And the collective risk adds up. Freedom to bear arms ain't free: it's paid for in the billions of dollars that schools and houses of worship invest into physical security every year. It's paid for in the growing numbers of legally-acquired guns trickling into crime and, as you pointed out yourself, the escalated risk of police-civilian interactions in the US compared to other developed countries.

This is a classic case of a tragedy of the commons — and while I see your point on the appeal for at-risk individuals, you're not going to stop gun violence by keeping the barriers low.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Feb 5th 2022 at 6:07:00 AM