Do you have “naturally dangerous” areas in your country? I’m a gun-control-but-not-ban Progressive, and my reasoning is that most of the towns I’ve lived have had wildlife issues that are only reasonable resolved by firearms. Our coyote breeds attack large pets, small children, and (rarely) adults. We are a free-range-chicken state (chickens must be allowed to run free). My last road, coyotes ran rampant hospitalizing my next door neighbors 100lb+ lab (he was huge). It’s not safe to be out alone or in your woods at certain times of year. Not to mention the occasional black bear who usually runs away but sometimes charges… A coyote charged my wife once and her german shepherd fortunately scared it off without bloodshed.
In the last town I lived, we didn’t have police, only mutual aid contracts. The mutual-aid department didn’t have animal control. Their standard answer to a dangerous predator running amok was “shoot it”.
Now… I firmly believe our police is way over-financed, and think the last thing we need is MORE police officers. ACAB and all that jazz. Being honest, I have little respect for police in general, if marginally more than some on my side. So assuming you have areas likes that, how do you resolve it? The last answer I was given was “everyone should move to cities”. Needless to say, I was not amused.
I’d love to be convinced that zero-guns-allowed-for-nonhunters at the national level is physically possible in the US, but I just can’t.
NZ has strict gun controls but guns are allowed for pest control and hunting. There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
The person I was responding to was talking about 100% total gun bans. Just want to make sure you realize this. Nothing you said disagrees with my take on gun control. If you intended to agree, that’s cool (but rare online ;) )
Looking at this wiki page, NZ seems to have the same kind of gun laws my home state has, with a fairly similar ownership rate (and it looks like NZ averages 5 guns per owner?). As a general rule, I wouldn’t use the term “strict gun controls” if a country’s laws match any US state. We get a little crazy here with our Second Amendment.
There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
100%, except I’m not sure why everyone is so obsessed with AR-15s. People keep trying to ban them in the US while deadlier weapons get a pass. And concealed carry is sorta funny. In my state, all carry is concealed carry because open carry scares non-gun-owners. You can basically have your gun license challenged in my state if you open carry because it can be used to argue you’re not in the right mind to own a gun if you carry openly knowing it’ll scare people.
How about zero guns in populated areas? How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons? How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios? How about requiring a reason to own? How about fewer places to get them? How about more expensive ammo? How about just an order of magnitude less?
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
I’ve argued for that before, differentiation of regions. It went over like a fart in church with literally everyone. The gun control crowd seem to think “rednecks will figure it out or should move to the city”, and the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”. I’ve seen knife restrictions in big cities, so firearm restrictions seem more reasonable. Many countries require guns to be locked in cases instead of worn on the person. In cities, that seems pretty reasonable.
How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons?
I’ve always fought for that. But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about. Most of your suggestions are not “no guns at all” and seem worthy of discussion.
How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios?
For me, this is a nonstarter. If someone is at their house and dealing with a coyote attacking family or pets, a semiautomatic rifle is the best tool. If they are using their firearm preventatively, that would be a shotgun. If they need a firearm while travelling and not hunting or anything, semi-automatic pistol. I just named basically every kind of gun somebody wants to ban. Well, that and guns that look especially scary, which I think is stupid. We already limit the guns types to what is useful, and I’ll be the first to fight for keeping machineguns out of civilian hands.
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
How about fewer places to get them?
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get. Should the Fed try to mimic our laws and policies? That doesn’t really seem to be the problem to me, though. If people want firearms and they’re legal to purchase, they’ll get them whether there’s 1 store in their county or Walmart sells them.
How about more expensive ammo?
That seems worth discussing. I have some concerns; unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm. A person with a gun and no regular practice/training is like a dull knife. It sounds less dangerous for all of 5 seconds before it leads to some accidental tragedy. I’m actually a believer in requiring con-ed including target-shooting for someone who wants to own a gun. A gun that shoots its target can be horrible. A gun that misses its target IS horrible.
How about just an order of magnitude less?
An order of magnitude less what? Less ammo? How does that reduce gun violence? A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that? I do think there’s way too many guns in the US. And I think a lot of people own guns that shouldn’t, regardless of the gun. I’m a strong believer in background check and psych check to own a gun.
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way. My not liking cops is why I do like access to firearms. They’re simply not qualified or trustworthy in many real-world cases where a firearm solves a problem without ever being pointed at a human being.
the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”.
Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok. Even for people who believe they’re a “good guy with a gun”, the reality is they’re making things worse
But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about.
This has to be part of it. Anti-regulation people will always claim gun control can’t work because of the huge number of guns already there, legal or not. But you can make things better than before, you can make more serious consequences even for illegal weapons
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number. A bump stock makes it easier to shoot faster, a larger magazine makes it easier to shoot more. Both make it harder for a potential additional victim to find an escape.
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get.
It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership. However there’s only so much you can do at a state level when someone can visit a Walmart over the border. My state also has regulations on alcohol, where they limit the number of store that can sell. Why is alcohol more regulated than deadly weapons?
How about more expensive ammo?
unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm.
True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t
A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that?
That’s a damn good question, but you can’t give up without trying. This really turns into a long term issue: are current controls increasing the number out there or decreasing them? iF we make new guns harder to get in fewer places more expensive to use and with more serious consequences for recklessly endangering people, maybe that reduces the number of weapons continually added. Maybe that will make a difference over time
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way.
I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do. For all the news about police brutality and racism, almost all are normal people trying to do their best. At least some police environments seem to bring out the worst in people rather than the best. That’s what needs to change.
Of the people I know who are cops, I would definitely trust them to help. We can change things to encourage those people, encourage professionalism, ensure they can use tools other than their weapon , ensure they are mentally healthy enough to handle the responsibility. Yes, I definitely blame unions but maybe differently than some: I do actually like that police unions stand up for the rights of accused officers, if justice is upheld. But where’s the outrage for the damage a bad cop does to the entire profession? But I never hear about a focus on professionalism and safety like other unions do. Where is the police union on encouraging training, professional development, workshops on judgement and de escalation? Where is the focus on better serving your “customers”? Police can become a trusted authority that improve public safety, and that will help more people than “every one for themselves”
Maybe I’m an optimist because I think they can be a good guy. I’ve met several idealistic candidates start their career and believe they did start as good guys. My variation is more that it’s a screwed up system with contradicting requirements, an us vs them environmen t and a large population of disillusioned officers reinforcing their own worst habits. It seems difficult to remain a good guy.
But I’m an optimist who thinks even the current system could be fixed.
Even look at the hierarchy of professionalism: we read stories about local sheriffs with little standards and background, but state troopers have higher standards, higher training, pride that they’re a cut above. Then you have the FBI with yet higher standards, higher pride in their professionalism, and fewer stories of corruption. We have examples right here that there can be well trained officers. Every characteristic that has gone wrong has a potentially positive variation.
Do you have “naturally dangerous” areas in your country? I’m a gun-control-but-not-ban Progressive, and my reasoning is that most of the towns I’ve lived have had wildlife issues that are only reasonable resolved by firearms. Our coyote breeds attack large pets, small children, and (rarely) adults. We are a free-range-chicken state (chickens must be allowed to run free). My last road, coyotes ran rampant hospitalizing my next door neighbors 100lb+ lab (he was huge). It’s not safe to be out alone or in your woods at certain times of year. Not to mention the occasional black bear who usually runs away but sometimes charges… A coyote charged my wife once and her german shepherd fortunately scared it off without bloodshed.
In the last town I lived, we didn’t have police, only mutual aid contracts. The mutual-aid department didn’t have animal control. Their standard answer to a dangerous predator running amok was “shoot it”.
Now… I firmly believe our police is way over-financed, and think the last thing we need is MORE police officers. ACAB and all that jazz. Being honest, I have little respect for police in general, if marginally more than some on my side. So assuming you have areas likes that, how do you resolve it? The last answer I was given was “everyone should move to cities”. Needless to say, I was not amused.
I’d love to be convinced that zero-guns-allowed-for-nonhunters at the national level is physically possible in the US, but I just can’t.
NZ has strict gun controls but guns are allowed for pest control and hunting. There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.
The person I was responding to was talking about 100% total gun bans. Just want to make sure you realize this. Nothing you said disagrees with my take on gun control. If you intended to agree, that’s cool (but rare online ;) )
Looking at this wiki page, NZ seems to have the same kind of gun laws my home state has, with a fairly similar ownership rate (and it looks like NZ averages 5 guns per owner?). As a general rule, I wouldn’t use the term “strict gun controls” if a country’s laws match any US state. We get a little crazy here with our Second Amendment.
100%, except I’m not sure why everyone is so obsessed with AR-15s. People keep trying to ban them in the US while deadlier weapons get a pass. And concealed carry is sorta funny. In my state, all carry is concealed carry because open carry scares non-gun-owners. You can basically have your gun license challenged in my state if you open carry because it can be used to argue you’re not in the right mind to own a gun if you carry openly knowing it’ll scare people.
Sorry, just assumed you were arguing a stricter line on gun control. My fault for not being more careful. I agree with you about
How about zero guns in populated areas? How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons? How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios? How about requiring a reason to own? How about fewer places to get them? How about more expensive ammo? How about just an order of magnitude less?
And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.
I’ve argued for that before, differentiation of regions. It went over like a fart in church with literally everyone. The gun control crowd seem to think “rednecks will figure it out or should move to the city”, and the gun rights crowd thinks “cities are more dangerous than the country”. I’ve seen knife restrictions in big cities, so firearm restrictions seem more reasonable. Many countries require guns to be locked in cases instead of worn on the person. In cities, that seems pretty reasonable.
I’ve always fought for that. But this isn’t “no guns at all”, which is what I was asking about. Most of your suggestions are not “no guns at all” and seem worthy of discussion.
For me, this is a nonstarter. If someone is at their house and dealing with a coyote attacking family or pets, a semiautomatic rifle is the best tool. If they are using their firearm preventatively, that would be a shotgun. If they need a firearm while travelling and not hunting or anything, semi-automatic pistol. I just named basically every kind of gun somebody wants to ban. Well, that and guns that look especially scary, which I think is stupid. We already limit the guns types to what is useful, and I’ll be the first to fight for keeping machineguns out of civilian hands.
I’m also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren’t contributors to gun violence.
Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they’re fairly difficult to get. Should the Fed try to mimic our laws and policies? That doesn’t really seem to be the problem to me, though. If people want firearms and they’re legal to purchase, they’ll get them whether there’s 1 store in their county or Walmart sells them.
That seems worth discussing. I have some concerns; unless there’s a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm. A person with a gun and no regular practice/training is like a dull knife. It sounds less dangerous for all of 5 seconds before it leads to some accidental tragedy. I’m actually a believer in requiring con-ed including target-shooting for someone who wants to own a gun. A gun that shoots its target can be horrible. A gun that misses its target IS horrible.
An order of magnitude less what? Less ammo? How does that reduce gun violence? A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that? I do think there’s way too many guns in the US. And I think a lot of people own guns that shouldn’t, regardless of the gun. I’m a strong believer in background check and psych check to own a gun.
We don’t have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way. My not liking cops is why I do like access to firearms. They’re simply not qualified or trustworthy in many real-world cases where a firearm solves a problem without ever being pointed at a human being.
Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok. Even for people who believe they’re a “good guy with a gun”, the reality is they’re making things worse
This has to be part of it. Anti-regulation people will always claim gun control can’t work because of the huge number of guns already there, legal or not. But you can make things better than before, you can make more serious consequences even for illegal weapons
But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number. A bump stock makes it easier to shoot faster, a larger magazine makes it easier to shoot more. Both make it harder for a potential additional victim to find an escape.
It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership. However there’s only so much you can do at a state level when someone can visit a Walmart over the border. My state also has regulations on alcohol, where they limit the number of store that can sell. Why is alcohol more regulated than deadly weapons?
True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t
That’s a damn good question, but you can’t give up without trying. This really turns into a long term issue: are current controls increasing the number out there or decreasing them? iF we make new guns harder to get in fewer places more expensive to use and with more serious consequences for recklessly endangering people, maybe that reduces the number of weapons continually added. Maybe that will make a difference over time
I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do. For all the news about police brutality and racism, almost all are normal people trying to do their best. At least some police environments seem to bring out the worst in people rather than the best. That’s what needs to change.
Of the people I know who are cops, I would definitely trust them to help. We can change things to encourage those people, encourage professionalism, ensure they can use tools other than their weapon , ensure they are mentally healthy enough to handle the responsibility. Yes, I definitely blame unions but maybe differently than some: I do actually like that police unions stand up for the rights of accused officers, if justice is upheld. But where’s the outrage for the damage a bad cop does to the entire profession? But I never hear about a focus on professionalism and safety like other unions do. Where is the police union on encouraging training, professional development, workshops on judgement and de escalation? Where is the focus on better serving your “customers”? Police can become a trusted authority that improve public safety, and that will help more people than “every one for themselves”
Do you think a cop is any more a “good guy with a gun”?
Maybe I’m an optimist because I think they can be a good guy. I’ve met several idealistic candidates start their career and believe they did start as good guys. My variation is more that it’s a screwed up system with contradicting requirements, an us vs them environmen t and a large population of disillusioned officers reinforcing their own worst habits. It seems difficult to remain a good guy.
But I’m an optimist who thinks even the current system could be fixed.
Even look at the hierarchy of professionalism: we read stories about local sheriffs with little standards and background, but state troopers have higher standards, higher training, pride that they’re a cut above. Then you have the FBI with yet higher standards, higher pride in their professionalism, and fewer stories of corruption. We have examples right here that there can be well trained officers. Every characteristic that has gone wrong has a potentially positive variation.