[squigz]

The problem is it's difficult to have one without the other. If the cost of reducing gun violence is that hobbyists can't collect guns... that's a cost I think society can stomach.

I'm not blaming hobbyists for gun violence or anything, obviously, but these ideas are not unconnected.

[Hasz]

We know where gun violence comes from, and it's not dudes collecting vintage rifle prototypes from Yugoslavia.

about 2/3 of gun deaths in 2022 are suicides. Of homicides, it's mostly young black men. Suicide rates are highest for old white men.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-09/202...

We are failing specific people at specific stages of their lives by not offering them opportunity and hope for the future, resulting in gun violence and suicide. Even if you could round up all the guns, the hopelessness and violence will remain without some structural changes.

If you're a US citizen, gun control is an infringement on your civil rights and a weak topical solution for systematic flaws.

[jonathanlb]

I agree with everything you said, except your last sentence.

As a parent, and as a gun owner, I'm fine with there being gun control that leads to no more school shootings. And no, you can't depend on a "good guy with a gun" (Uvalde, Parkland). I don't know what the solution is, to be honest, but other countries don't have the school shooting problem the US has.

[Hasz]

There is no gun control that leads to no school shootings. It is simply not possible.

The best thing we can do is to address the root cause, and react as quickly as possible when there is a problem. We have police presence at basically every single public arena -- government buildings, hospitals, stadiums, malls, etc; we should have police presence at schools too, along with the training to do their jobs effectively.

The harsh reality is that school shootings make up a vanishingly small number of students who will die of gun violence, let along those that die from any cause.

[The FBI says 105 people](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...), excluding shooters, died in mass shootings in 2023, of which a subset will be students. Even if we assumed every mass shooting victim in 2023 was a student, something like 10x the number of students will die from poisoning, another 10x from suffocation, another 22x from motor vehicle collisions, etc.

I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.

[aja12]

First of all, I'm not a gun control activist, and I do agree with some of your views.

However:

> I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.

- increased wealth should be correlated with a reduction in shootings,

- population diversity is not a unique feature of the USA, it is comparable, or arguably lower, than most European countries,

- same for rights: the rights of a USA citizen are comparable to the average EU citizen. Many EU countries allow the possession of guns (although most forbid taking arms out of one's home unless it's for transport, e.g., to the firing range, and most EU states vehemently forbid concealed carry). There are some differences regarding Free Speech, however, where most EU countries allow it largely, but restrict hate speech more.

It's true that shootings are a somewhat unique USA problem, but I'd look more into cultural differences than into rights and demographics.

[Animats]

> There is no gun control that leads to no school shootings. It is simply not possible.

Outside the US, it is.[1]

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-sh...

[squigz]

> I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.

Other than the "right to bear arms", what rights do Americans have that sets them apart?

[squigz]

> We know where gun violence comes from, and it's not dudes collecting vintage rifle prototypes from Yugoslavia.

I literally said "I'm not blaming gun hobbyists for violence." Thank you for starting off with a terribly bad faith reading of my comment.

> If you're a US citizen, gun control is an infringement on your civil rights

And this is what I mean by them being connected. Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights", which just makes it harder to make any changes that might actually reduce gun violence.

> Even if you could round up all the guns, the ... violence will remain without some structural changes.

It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same. Is there any evidence to support this theory? I've never seen any, but I have seen data suggesting that countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have less murders.

> gun control is an infringement on your civil rights

Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...

> the hopelessness ... will remain without some structural changes.

I don't disagree that hopelessness is the core issue here, but I think it's blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill, and tell them that owning that weapon (and using it when necessary...) is a fundamental part of their identity... that it won't result in more and more intense violence.

Like with many widespread societal issues, you can't just ignore the symptoms and try to cure the actual problem - and certainly nor can you do the opposite, as you say - you need to fix both.

[Hasz]

> I literally said "I'm not blaming gun hobbyists for violence." Thank you for starting off with a terribly bad faith reading of my comment.

I agree with you, this is not the problem. No bad faith intended.

> Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights"..."

No quotes on rights. If you don't care about rights or are happy to cede them, then there are all kinds of societal improvements you could make -- say, banning hate speech, lowering or eliminating a presumption of innocence, banning private firearm ownership, etc. However, this is antithetical to how the US is setup and its system of laws. The same arguments used to attack gun control can just as easily be turned on other rights, such as the freedom of speech.

> It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same

It's difficult to run a proper experiment for many reasons. However, I would argue that the concern from voters is not about routine violence (eg gang violence localized to a specific community) but mass killings like Uvalde or Parkland. As we can see in Europe (or even in the US, in New Orleans), you can kill plenty of people with a car, a bomb, a knife, etc. Killing lots of people quickly is not an attribute unique to firearms.

> Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...

Yes, this is a systematic attack and many Americans see it this way. Governments have only ever moved one direction on gun control -- once the right is eroded, it is gone forever.

> blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill...

Again, the second amendment for everyone. We do not gate rights behind fees, tests, or onerous restrictions. I am interested in preserving (and expanding!) civil liberties for all, while addressing the root causes of gun violence.

[squigz]

I thank you for once again making my point for me. Good luck.

[875368945]

I think the issue is less stopping gun collectors. The issue is preventing self-defense. If there were a magic weapon which can only be used to defend yourself, and not for offensive purposes, then sure! Ban guns! But in today’s world, a firearm is the most effective self-defense tool (tho owning a gun isn’t going to magically make you safer).

I grew up supporting gun control, but I think that’s because of my background. I grew up trusting the police, not only to protect me from any would-be ne'er-do-wells, but also that I wouldn’t be antagonized by the state.

If you live in a rural area, where the response time for the local sheriff is half an hour, then having a gun can be vital. Or if you live in an area where the cops simply won’t show up when called.

I don’t want to have to fully rely on the state for my personal safety, and in particular this current government.

[squigz]

> If there were a magic weapon

Ah yes, paint the issue as only solvable by a "magic" item... Of course, trying to make the other side seem fundamentally silly is a primary tactic of the pro-gun crowd

> only be used to defend yourself, and not for offensive purposes, then sure!

Of course not, but the question is more the damage one can do when used for offensive purposes.

Anyway, here's your magic solutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_lethal_weapon

[875368945]

> Of course, trying to make the other side seem fundamentally silly is a primary tactic of the pro-gun crowd

I don't think "the other side" is fundamentally silly--that's just the way I write. I take "the other side" extremely seriously because, like I mentioned, I've been to pro gun control protests, and while I now disagree with some of those positions, I have genuine respect for where you're coming from.

In terms of less-lethal weapons, anyone who's serious about self defense should carry pepper spray (though pepper spray is non-lethal, rather than less-lethal). Full stop. If you want to carry a gun, too, that makes sense in some situations. But for myself and anyone who's serious about self-defense, we first of all hope to never have to use any of these tools ever. But if something did happen, I'd much much much rather use pepper spray than something that's more harmful.

The problem with _only_ having pepper spray is that it has limited efficacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItJAeJz43ts is a trans youtuber who posts a lot of gun content who is talking here about pepper spray. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWUq-OEYpiI is Massad Ayoob talking about the efficacy of pepper spray.

[squigz]

If you didn't mean it like that, I apologize. It's just a very common tactic of gun people, and I'm frustrated. Thank you for the links.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>that's a cost I think society can stomach.

Society believes it can stomach that cost because it is largely irrational, incapable of long-term or worst-case thinking, and utterly oblivious to ground-state reality.

[Ancapistani]

Correct.

I always feel the need to preface this statement when I make it here, so here we go: this is in no way meant as a threat or even a statement of my own political beliefs. It is my belief based on being a member of these communities for decades.

Any attempt to ban firearms in the United States would result in more death and injury than the problems it is intended to solve. The American people will not give up their arms without bloodshed.

[squigz]

I love this argument. Your little cache of weapons isn't going to do anything against trained soldiers.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your argument is absurd... we have real world counter-examples. When people were complaining about the recent Iraq conflict (and Afghanistan too), the complaints were always "not enough boots on the ground". Turns out that what wins wars is men with rifles. Not tanks, battleships, or next generation fighter jets.

Worse than the logic of your argument, is the morality of it. If trained soldiers are oppressing people, then not only is it rational to retain the means to fight back against them, but it's a moral imperative. Stupidity might be forgiven, you can't will yourself to be smarter than you were born. Moral cowardice is a choice, a disgusting one.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>Any attempt to ban firearms in the United States would result in more death and injury than the problems it is intended to solve.

This is a very generous assumption. I instead assume that the problem that it intends to solve is "how does a government crank down hard on its citizens so that they become some sort of Stalinesque serfs who have no power and those which survive mindlessly obey"... in that scenario, gun prohibition isn't just a good idea but probably a necessary precondition.

For obvious reasons, even if gun control advocates are privy to that reasoning, public relations demands that they not say that part out loud.

[gadders]

Do you think most gun violence is done by law-abiding hobbyists that collect guns, or gang members in the inner cities?