[thom_nic]

> is this pressure from the gun manufacturing lobby

Definitely not, it's pressure from the anti-gun lobby that keeps pushing "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!"

These bills are being introduced in the states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime. But the lobby groups and candidates campaign and fundraise on the issue so they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

[sellmesoap]

Ironically the anti-gun lobby seems to drive a lot of gun sales, perhaps it is not what it says on the tin?

[delichon]

I have three guns. One I inherited, two I bought right before California turned up gun restrictions. Possibly the greatest time for gun makers was when Hilary Clinton had a clear lead in the race for president.

[dylan604]

A democratic governor/president is the greatest salesman for the gun industry. When a Dem is in office, the right wing comes out with all of the "they're coming for your guns" which is followed by a spike in gun sales.

[tracker1]

The latter doesn't make the former untrue. There are plenty of people that want to eliminate all private gun ownership altogether, even if their public speech is more moderate.

[tracker1]

I bought my three when I saw videos of the ATF under Biden start random "knock and talk" sessions for those who recently bought more than one firearm. They're all in a friend's gun safe as I have had bouts of depression, so I won't keep it in my home... I know it kind of defeats the purpose... but I'm very much a supporter of all of my civil rights, including and especially 2A.

I do some range days a couple times a year.

[nostromo]

No conspiracy required. There's a lot of money to be made lobbying against guns - in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year - regardless of efficacy.

[kube-system]

There are dumb arguments on both sides of this debate, but "one more bill that this time will actually change violent crime statistics, we promise!" is definitely one of the weaker arguments... pretty much all state-level gun control is worthless when there is no border control at state lines.

[FireBeyond]

> states that already have the most restrictive gun control already, yet to nobody's surprise, hasn't done much to curb violent crime

The "most restrictive gun control" states in the US would still be generally by far the least restrictive gun control states in the rest of the developed world (you know, where gun-related deaths are a small fraction of here?).

Your answer smacks of "well, they tried and surprise surprise it doesn't work so why are we doing it?", i.e. "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".

[lyu07282]

Its just a political wedge issue in the US, its not really "about" guns anyway

[pear01]

It is hard to police guns when there is free travel between the US states, yet only individual states can be relied upon to pass any reform. A broken federal government means guns are easily exported from red states with practically zero gun laws to blue states where they are used to commit crimes. States are often forced to recognize rights granted by other states because such an interstate jurisdictional question naturally bubbles up to the aforementioned dysfunctional federal system.

Similarly to how many (most?) guns used criminally in Mexico actually come from the United States.

Edit: I'm not surprised by the downvotes, but I am amused. These are objective facts. Any basic research will yield many studies (including from the American government) showing that the majority of guns used in crimes in Mexico are traced back to the States. Americans love the boogeyman of dangerous Mexican cartels so much they never seem to ask themselves where these guns come from in the first place. Hint: look in the mirror.

[Gormo]

> These are objective facts.

The characterization of the federal government as "broken" (at least in this capacity) and "dysfunctional" is a normative judgment you're making based on your own subjective value preferences.

Some -- perhaps most -- Americans regard the federal constitution's ability to restrain states from enacting policies that transgress against generally accepted individual rights as desirable, and working as intended.

[pear01]

That wasn't the objective fact in question, and I think you know that. A humorous one to contest anyway, given it is well known most Americans take a dim view of federal politics, especially when their favored party is out of power. This is a country where national elections are routinely decided by roughly a percentage point.

Are you willing to concede most guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States? That would be a question of fact, not characterization. And that, if it is easy enough to smuggle guns from red states into Mexico to commit crimes, it stands to reason it is even easier for red states to do the same to blue states? Or are you going to invent some other strawman to attack in your defense of your "individual rights"?

[Gormo]

> Are you willing to concede most guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States?

No -- nor am I willing to assert the opposite, because I have no knowledge of the topic. I will ask, though: why is the place of manufacturer of guns used by criminals is Mexico something worth worrying about?

> And that, if it is easy enough to smuggle guns from red states into Mexico to commit crimes, it stands to reason it is even easier for red states to do the same to blue states?

Well, yes, of course. But I assume that this will be the case regardless of any attempted policy at any level of government, because I do not believe suppressing the movement of firearms is an attainable goal at any scale in the first place.

[15155]

> A broken federal government means guns are easily exported from red states with practically zero gun laws to blue states where they are used to commit crimes

So why are the crime rates in most of these "red states" you are referring to often so much lower?

> Any basic research will yield many studies (including from the American government) showing that the majority of guns used in crimes in Mexico are traced back to the States

I couldn't give less of a fuck if this were true "research" or not: this isn't my problem, nor is it a valid reason to restrict my rights.

Also, please: a multi-billion-dollar criminal enterprise can't build or buy a machine shop and enslave or hire some machinists? They can build submarines and drones, but just couldn't possibly operate without US firearms? What reality do you live in?

[wat10000]

The 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2024 were: Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Maryland.

Not seeing this so much lower crime rate in red states here.

[Hikikomori]

>So why are the crime rates in most of these "red states" you are referring to often so much lower?

The welfare states have higher murder rates.

[mullingitover]

> hasn't done much to curb violent crime.

> they have to keep the boogeyman alive rather than admit that the policies have been a failure.

It's a documented, empirical fact that there is a marked correlation between common-sense gun laws and reduced rates of gun deaths.[1]

[1] https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

[tracker1]

Until knife killings start to rise (UK). Beyond this, I've seen several interventions of armed citizens stopping a crime in progress, when the police are still in route. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

My dad was ex-army, retired PD (detective, undercover) and a heavy 2A advocate. I grew up with guns around so it wasn't some weird, scary thing to see. I have many friends who also are heavy 2A who also grew up with guns in the home. It's first a matter of familiarity and second a matter of civil defense. I'm not a fan of "must flea" laws, and not a fan of restricting gun rights at all.

And yeah, if you can afford a tank and the ammo for it, as far as I'm concerned, you should be able to own and operate it. I would draw the line at nuclear weapons and materials.

[grantith]

I was with you until the whole tank thing.

Where's the line you're drawing between tanks + everything else up until nuclear weapons?

[maxlybbert]

It is, in fact, legal (but very expensive) to own a tank ( https://www.drivetanks.com/ , yes, that's a company, but a rich enough motivated person could fill out the same paperwork). Apparently each exploding shell is a NFA taxed destructive device ( https://youtu.be/GW2U0qORdLE ).

[tracker1]

Who do you think makes the tanks? It's typically corporations, but could just as easily be a person... It isn't a socialist/communist company doing the work.

It's pretty much already the case that people can have access to these weapons, I'm just being explicit.

[MostlyStable]

"documented, empirical fact"

I won't try to make as strong a claim as the person you are responding to, but unfortunately, the politicized nature of the topic makes research on gun violence, especially as it relates to gun laws in the US, extremely fraught. The vast majority of research articles are plagued with issues. One should not just blanket trust the research (in either direction, and there are definitely peer reviewed journal articles pointing in different directions).

The claim you responded to was too strong, but for similar reasons, yours is also far far too confident.

[ottah]

Same thing with anything in regards to drug use in the United States. Dr Carl Hart talks about how hard it is to get anything that doesn't show harm published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hart

[mullingitover]

I'm responding to someone making assertions with zero cites, and I cite a source. If anyone has a cite showing that loose gun policies results in lower rates of gun deaths, they're free to present that.

[MostlyStable]

I'm impugning the entire field of research, why would I then provide an opposing citation? My own claim should lead you to not trust it. I'm also not making any particular directional claim that would require such a citation.

I'm arguing that your statement, citation supported or otherwise, was stronger than I believe is warranted. You (correctly) criticized the original comment for making a stronger claim than they were able to support. You then technically did a better job in supporting your own claim (in the sense that you made any attempt to support it at all), but, in my opinion, you still made the same mistake of making a claim that was much stronger than warranted.

[antonvs]

> My own claim should lead you to not trust it.

Your own completely unsupported claim?

No, that's not how it works.

[MostlyStable]

I didn't say it was strong evidence or that one should just accept my claim, but regardless you have to agree it would be weird for me to say "the entire field is untrustworthy....but here is a paper anyways".

[AngryData]

I would dispute your source just by look at my own state, which has incredibly open gun laws, including free open carry and having had these laws since before anyone here was born, and a massive hunting population, and yet is claimed to be in the top half of strong gun laws. It is ranked significantly above Texas, and yet I know for a fact that my state has way more permissible gun laws than Texas, both historically and currently.

So I already know they are fudging the numbers, presumably because my state usually votes democrat and they want us to look good.

Hell its got Vermont as #17, but it has some of the highest gun ownership rates and most permissive gun laws in the nation.

[15155]

"a source" - You "cited" the most left-leaning, well-funded anti-gun lobby in the United States. Is that who passes for a "source" these days?

[mullingitover]

Attack the source as much as you like, it's not refuting the point in any way.

[ottah]

Isn't the validity and credibility of the source critical to it being supportive of your argument? Seems like a reasonable counter-argument in my opinion.

[Brian_K_White]

Not only the source, but the specific repoprting has been refuted already by others.

So you have failed to present an argument, and then continued to fail to support it. So all you have done is express an opinion. Those are fine and allowed, but of no significance to anyone else.

[bigbuppo]

Do you have a source that isn't the anti-pickle alliance's statistics on anti-pickle laws proving why you should implement their anti-pickle laws?

[themafia]

"gun deaths."

You ever wonder _why_ they state the problem in such an abstract way?

It's because that statistic is an abstract itself. It combines, in my view inappropriately, suicide, murders, and accidental injuries.

There are 2x as many suicides every year over murders.

Anyone bandying about the "gun deaths" statistic has either been misled or is attempting to mislead others.

[tracker1]

Not only that, the vast majority of gun related killings are with handguns, but they keep trying to outlaw the "scary" rifles.

[bombcar]

The most common gun death is suicide so that tracks pretty well.

But I doubt most people count suicide as “violent crime”.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They do get included by anti-gun people who want to pump up the numbers. You can't trust anything but the government statistics broken out by type of death.

[mulmen]

“Common sense” is a red flag for me. Obama (who I voted for twice, don’t come at me) pitched revoking second amendment rights for people on the Do Not Fly list as “common sense”. My common sense says we shouldn’t use a secret, extrajudicial government watch list with documented problems with false positives to revoke constitutional rights.

[15155]

"Common sense" is an oft-used tactic in this space: if what I am pushing is common sense, whatever you are pushing is senseless.

[wagwang]

Garbage methodology, state by state policies need to use something like a difference in difference study measure actual effect sizing

[delaminator]

It's also a documented empirical fact that arresting the criminals in DC has reduced shootings to virtually zero.

[noosphr]

https://www.criminalattorneycincinnati.com/comparing-gun-con...

Yet another lie by ommision. Violent deaths by guns have no relation to strength of gun laws. What your link measures is the number of accidental deaths by guns. If gun owners want to kill themselves it's not my job to keep them safe.

[mullingitover]

> If gun owners want to kill themselves it's not my job to keep them safe.

Not so fun fact, the person most likely to be killed by a gun in your home is you.

Some places deal with that reality head on, and it has an outcome that a lot of people are okay with.

[tracker1]

Well, Canada is trying to keep guns away from you but is also perfectly willing to help you kill yourself.

[15155]

> Not so fun fact, the person most likely to be killed by a gun in your home is you.

No shit: people commit suicide (which your "statistic" you lifted from Everytown, Giffords, or VPC - anti-gun lobbies includes.)

Suicidal people aren't a valid reason for my rights to be restricted, sorry.

[mullingitover]

> Suicidal people aren't a valid reason for my rights to be restricted, sorry.

You also have a right to travel around the country, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to drink and drive. There are plenty of valid, constitutional reasons for firearm ownership to be restricted to qualified individuals. When these restrictions are in place, many fewer people die. It is what it is.

[tracker1]

According to the first militia act, every able bodied male over 18 is what defines a qualified individual. Beyond that, you're actually required to own a firearm in that case.

[15155]

Can you show me where the right to drive a car is Constitutionally-protected?

Also, what a shitty analogy: suicide is by definition a self-harmful act, DUI is almost always a socially-harmful act on its own.

(And in many states, you can DUI on private property, by the way.)

[tadfisher]

On the other hand, no one from the pro-gun camp is involved with or wants to involve themselves with drafting common-sense gun regulations to reduce the impact of mass shootings while respecting Constitutional rights. Everything from that side seems to revolve around arming schoolteachers and permitting more guns in more spaces.

So of course you're going to have wildly-overreaching proposals making it through committees and put to the vote, because no one from the other side is there to compromise with. Americans prefer to debate on the news circuit instead of the committee floor.

[maxlybbert]

If somebody has a really stupid proposal -- such as "make all 3D printers refuse to print guns" -- I don't see why I have any obligation to "compromise" with them. Or to talk with them at all. Other than, perhaps, explain that they ought to learn about the things they want to regulate before they start making proposals. The fact that they have an incredibly long track record of bad proposals, and many strongly-held opinions based mostly in ignorance, is just entertaining.

[ottah]

You don't cooperate with abolitionists using compromise. You will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties. By definition it is impossible.

Interests are also not always clear, any movement that wants to restrict activities using the law, is going to attract opportunistic power-seeking individuals. There's always crazy carve out exceptions in these proposals that allow the wealthy and the powerful to use and possess firearms that regular people cannot reasonably expect to have. It's laws to protect the powerful from the everyone else. Billionaires are creating armed doomsday compounds in countries like New Zealand, while supporting legislation that makes it harder to own a gun for self defense.

Also mass shootings are statistically the least likely cause of a gun related death. They are in the news because they are novel, not because they are likely to happen to most people.

[tadfisher]

I have an inalienable right to not be shot in public. So do my kids. The right to live should be paramount, far and above any excuses one might make about billionaires controlling all the guns.

Maybe we should enshrine that right in the Constitution as the Zeroth Amendment, because it is seriously being trampled as of late.

[ottah]

Unfortunately the constitution has never been the reason or means for protecting our rights. It is only an after the fact acknowledgement of them. It doesn't secure them, we do.

[mothballed]

Indeed. Liberia had almost the same constitution.

Give a different or changing culture the same constitution, they can turn things into/remain a shithole very quickly.

[AngryData]

Define "common-sense gun regulations", because every time someone tries explaining what that means it is almost always the exact opposite of common sense. Is restricting suppressors common sense? Because some of the nations with the most restrictive gun laws advocate for the usage of suppressors. Or bans on the scary AR-15, which is less powerful than most 60 year rifles which nobody cares about, especially when the vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns. How about bans on gun accessories like types of stocks, slings, or bayonet lugs? How about sawed off shotguns which are less powerful than many "pistols" that shoot rifle rounds? Or shotgun/rifle combinations which were once a popular hunting combination for small game.

Either we should be allowed whatever semi-auto gun, or we should be allowed zero. Everything in between is a complete waste of time and effort and just leads to fucking over poor people for judicial profit because they can't afford $10,000+ lawyer that gets everybody with any money off of such charges.

[OkayPhysicist]

Calling anything about gun control laws "common sense" is disingenuous at best. I'm coming at this from the "you go left enough and you get your guns back" side of the whole debate, but it's extremely difficult to solve a problem that consists of "tool used for its intended purpose, but in the wrong context".

Guns kill things. That's their primary purpose, it's why they exist. The people who aren't interested in guns for that purpose are easy to please: they don't really care about gun laws except in so much as they stop them from buying fun toys. They'd probably be fine with wildly invasive processes (being put on lists, biometric safeties, whatever), so long as they were given something in return. Something like, "You can have machine guns, but they need to be kept locked up at a licensed gun range".

People who just want guns for hunting are likewise easy to please. I'm not aware of any gun laws that have seriously effected the people who just want to shoot deer, because the tool you use to shoot an animal that isn't even aware you're there is pretty fundamentally different than those you to shoot someone who doesn't want to be shot.

The problem is people who want guns because of their utility against people, whether that means self defense, community defense, or national defense, fundamentally need the same things ( a need that is very expressly protected by the second amendment) as the person who wants to shoot a bunch of innocents. The militia folk might be fine with restrictions on handguns, but handguns are bar none the best choice for the self defense folk. The self defense folk might be fine with the existing machine gun ban, or other restrictions on long guns, but the militia folk need those for their purposes. The self dense folk are probably fine with being put on a list, but the militia folk who are concerned about the holders of that list are rightfully opposed to that.

IMO, the most effective gun law that isn't a complete non-starter to any legitimate groups of gun owners is the waiting period. It's an effective policy that substantially reduces suicide. That's a good thing. Requiring sellers to not sell to people under 18, or those who are obviously a threat to themselves and others is also largely unobjectionable. Punishing parents who fail to secure their weapons from their children, also a good thing.

No one's in favor of mass shootings, but it's not anywhere as simple as saying "common sense gun regulations".

[tracker1]

Regarding your statement about the guns used against animals being different than the ones used against people is just wrong. The AR-15 is about the perfect choice against wolves or wild boar, just as a single example.

As far as the waiting period, there's a perfectly valid reason against that as well... if you are under eminent threat of violence from someone and want to be able to defend yourself/family/home today... it stops you from being able to do so.

I am okay with the (relatively quick) background check... when I bought my first guns a few years ago, I had to wait about an hour in the store for the results to come back (Phoenix). Even then, I'm not okay with secondary offense restrictions (weed, etc) as a restriction.

[15155]

> IMO, the most effective gun law that isn't a complete non-starter to any legitimate groups of gun owners is the waiting period. It's an effective policy that substantially reduces suicide

If I own many firearms already, what exactly does a waiting period do besides infringe upon my rights?

[OkayPhysicist]

If you own many firearms already, how is a 30 day wait preventing you from bearing them?

But yeah, the benefit does mostly arise for first time gun buyers. But that would require a master list of all gun owners. I'd prefer the wait per gun.

[15155]

"A right delayed is a right denied" (*except when it's a right protected by the Second Amendment, I guess.)

[Hikikomori]

"doesn't matter how many schoolchildren die if I can't buy my weapon right away"

[tracker1]

Would you be okay with a 30 day waiting period for posing a news article, that included strict penalties for misinformation/disinformation? Since you have to wait to publish, you have less reason to get things wrong.

[RoddaWallPro]

A 30 day waiting period on news articles doesn't meaningfully reduce actual suicides. One on guns _does_, without a corresponding harm to the buyer.

[ggreer]

> I'm not aware of any gun laws that have seriously effected the people who just want to shoot deer, because the tool you use to shoot an animal that isn't even aware you're there is pretty fundamentally different than those you to shoot someone who doesn't want to be shot.

If you talk to hunters, they'll give you a long list of annoying laws.

California requires a background check to buy ammunition and prohibits state residents from importing ammunition. If you are a non-resident, you can bring ammunition in, but you cannot give it to your hunting buddies and you cannot buy ammunition in California. This is such a common problem that many hunting organizations have guides explaining the issue.[1] When I lived in California, I was unable to buy ammunition despite legally buying several firearms. Around 1 in 6 legal gun owners in California are incorrectly denied when purchasing ammunition.

California (along with several other states) bans civilian ownership of silencers. Hunters need to be able to hear when searching for game, and they rarely have time to don hearing protection before taking a shot. So the net effect of this restriction is to give hunters hearing damage and create more noise pollution. It's also a problem for anyone in rural areas who wants to dispatch pests, as gunshots annoy neighbors and can even result in the police being called.

California requires that long guns be unloaded when transported, but the definition of "unloaded" states that ammunition be stored separately. If ammunition is readily available near the firearm, California counts that as loaded, and you are committing a crime. If you have cartridge holder loops on your rifle's stock, they must be empty during transport even if the firearm is in a locked case.

California requires that hunters use lead-free ammunition. Lead-free ammo is more expensive and less available than typical lead ammunition, especially if you're not hunting with a common caliber. Many hunters zero their rifle using leaded practice ammo, and are generally less experienced with their hunting ammo. This makes hunters more likely to miss an animal's vitals, prolonging its suffering. Lead-free birdshot makes sense, but considering how few rifle rounds are expended while hunting, and how it's legal to use leaded ammo for target shooting in the wilderness, the lead restriction on rifle ammo serves no useful purpose.

It's been years since I lived in California, so I'm probably forgetting some other laws that annoy hunters. But believe me: hunters are not happy with the current laws.

1. https://calwaterfowl.org/navigating-californias-new-ammuniti...