Other Gun Control

[The Great Sage]

So I just watched a video where a kid takes his dad's shotgun out of an unlocked gun safe, racks it and 'pretends' to shoot it. I say pretends, because that's clearly what the kid was going for - but in actuality he blasts a shell full of something into the wall.

In Canada, there are three-ish laws being broken in that sentence, and any one of them could land a guy in super hot water.

I wonder: Are the people here generally pro or anti gun ownership? What sort of safeguards or restrictions do you think there should be?

 

[Prince Lutin]

I live in the United States, where gun control is more of an issue than anywhere else on earth. Here it's practically impossible to pass legislation for tighter gun control because of the pro-gun lobby who use and abuse the 2nd Amendment. Whenever there's a mass shooting (and because this is America, there's tons of them) it always boils down to gun control. Sadly, gun culture is deeply entrenched in American culture, what with the NRA and many gun owners owning guns that should be used only by the military and not civilians. And then there's the hypocrisy and double standards: a black kid with a toy gun is labeled a "threat", but a white adult with a bunch of real guns is considered a "patriot". I do think people should be allowed to own guns, but I think that at this point we need tighter gun legislation to protect people from mass shootings.

In the US. it usually depends on where you live and what party you belong to. I live in a fairly liberal part of the US, so people here are more likely to be in favor of gun control. In more conservative parts of the country, you'll see plenty of people who are pro-gun. Democrats tend to favor gun control while Republicans tend to oppose it. With people who belong to neither party (like me), it can go either way.

 

[Sir Basilisk]

Sort of agree with what Lutin says about areas of the US having different views of gun control and differing political parties having various stances on the issue.

Personally, I am generally pro-gun but am more on board with licensing than I would assume some other pro-gun individuals are. I think that weapons up to and including semi-auto longguns (rifles and shotguns that shoot one round per pull of the trigger without having to pull/pump/manipulate any action) are generally okay for the general public to own. The US isn't the only country that feels this way, either; several European countries allow the ownership of semi-auto longguns for sport, collection, and hunting should the person wanting to own them obtains them through the legal steps the country in question provides.

In terms of carrying handguns for self-defense, this is something else I am generally okay with if the person is licenced and has taken a written and practical test. Again, the US isn't the only country that thinks this way. The Czech Republic and Austria both allow for the keeping of handguns for self-defense and the Czech Republic allows for the handgun to be carried if the correct license is obtained (Austria may allow carry as well, but I am not 100% on it).

In terms of storage, while I don't think that people should be forced to do much of anything, I find that it is common sense to put your weapons in a secure, locked container when not in use. Having experience with firearms and those who used them, I would say that a great number of people that own guns feel similarly.

I'm not the biggest fan of capacity restrictions because I think that they're ultimately somewhat asenine.

In terms of the legal ownership of machine guns, I kind of think the US has done a good job of keeping that to a minimum. Contrary to what some may believe, machine guns are far from a common occurrence in the States. People who want a machine gun must obtain a Class III lisence, are unable to purchase any machine gun made after the year 1986, and will be subject to prohibitively high prices if they want to purchase one (we're talking tens of thousands of dollars in some cases). In effect, this combined makes machine gun ownership a pretty rare thing. No gun store I have ever visited has had machine guns for sale.

 

[The Great Sage]

I find myself agreeing with most of what has been said so far. One thing nobody has touched on is appropriate punishments for people who abuse or misuse their privilege of gun ownership.

I mentioned in my first post seeing a video of a kid who had snuck into what looked like his father's room and had taken a shotgun out of an unlocked cabinet. He racks the weapon once and fires it (I expect he thought it would dry-fire) into a nearby wall.

In Canada, this type of thing would at minimum get a guy sent to jail for a couple years. Thoughts?

 

[Sir Basilisk]

While I don't agree necessarily with the length of the sentence, I definitely think that something of that nature should be punished, especially if that individual lived in the suburbs/an urban area. For me, I would be fine with a hefty fine (let's say, for argument's sake, five grand) and/or up to a year in prison, depending on the judge's decision. If someone was injured due to the neglect demonstrated in the scenario, then adjust the jail time accordingly.

If someone were to die from such an act, then that's another situation altogether, as many countries already have laws already on the books about manslaughter.

In the US, there is an extra layer of complexity to this sort of thing, though, as many people in the US (myself included), view gun ownership within the US as a right and not a privilege. However, if someone commits a crime with a firearm, I'm totally fine with punishments coming down. Again, I am of the opinion that most gun owners would be, too.

Stuff like negligence, as said earlier, is reserved for fines and minor jail time in my opinion. Something that should be taken into account, as well, is that people considered to be felons in the US are usually stripped of the right to own firearms. An appeals process is possible (tax fraud or possession of marijuana doesn't necessarily equate to "man that should not have a gun"), but it can still be rejected.

Punishments for things like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, manslaughter, and murder already have punishments and I'm fine with them as they are.

 

[Prince Lutin]

I'm also really worried about school shootings in particular, and this one kinda has personal resonance with me because my mom works in a school and I want her to be safe. Remember, not just students die in school shootings - sometimes school staff do too. Despite living in a relatively safe area, I'm actually quite afraid of violence in general - last night I had a bad dream that a woman broke into my house and tried to kill me and my parents. She didn't have a gun on hand, but it was still terrifying enough that I actually woke up from the dream (which I rarely do, even during bad dreams).

 

[The Great Sage]

I'm also really worried about school shootings in particular, and this one kinda has personal resonance with me because my mom works in a school and I want her to be safe. Remember, not just students die in school shootings - sometimes school staff do too. Despite living in a relatively safe area, I'm actually quite afraid of violence in general - last night I had a bad dream that a woman broke into my house and tried to kill me and my parents. She didn't have a gun on hand, but it was still terrifying enough that I actually woke up from the dream (which I rarely do, even during bad dreams).

I think that it's wise to be afraid of random acts of violence. People can be horrifyingly savage for no particular reason, and while you're statistically unlikely to ever find yourself in a fight-or-die situation, I would argue that all people, male or female, big or small should spend at least a few months in a gym somewhere learning how to both give and take a punch.

I had a discussion recently where someone called firearms to a 'great equalizer'. Do you agree?

 

[Sir Basilisk]

To an extent, yes, I do. I think that a gun in the right hands can do a lot of good to stop a random act of violence. For instance: little old lady vs. brawny mugger with a bat. No way is the little old lady going to be able to "put up her dukes" and fight the mugger and she may not even be able get away. A gun in that woman's hand does a lot to even the odds.

On the topic of random mass shootings, I understand that they are horrifying and I would never discredit someone who is worried about them, but I'm not really all that worried about those sort of events in particular. My mom is a sixth grade teacher, as well, but I really don't feel that there is much of a chance that a random intruder coming into the building and killing people inside. I'm much more concerned about robbery or assault.

To an extent, I suppose your view on guns comes down to everyone's unique perspective.

 

[GojiBean]

I live in the US as well, and I am indeed pro gun-ownership. But I'm also pro-gun control because the word "control" does not translate to "confiscation" or "repression."

A lot of pro-gun lunatics out there like to try and make it sound like the word "control" means "confiscation," and they throw around BS arguments like "they're coming to take our guns away." No they're not. The people throwing that argument around are just giving in to fear mongering and baseless, unsupported accusations because they want any excuse to fight off gun control purely because it's a "leftist" idea. Mindless partisanship at its finest. If it's "leftist," it must be unlawful. It must be wrong. It must be unconstitutional.

Can you hear me shaking my head?

Now, what does "gun control" actually mean? Or, rather, what should it mean?

To my logical mind, proper gun control (in the US) should look like this:

1) US Birth Certificate, and either a valid US Passport and/or Driver's License are required to register for a US Firearms License.

- If you're missing either the Passport or Driver's License, you're immediately disqualified from registering because just being born on American soil shouldn't be enough to qualify someone for firearms ownership.

- Note: For those thinking that this kind of requirement is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's not. All local, state, and federal agencies, companies, and public entities in the US are allowed under the Constitution to set their own rules and policies so long as they do not blatantly violate any fundamental human rights. And no matter how many gun nuts want to scream from the mountaintops that it should be, firearms ownership is not a human right. Protection from racism and any other form of discrimination are human rights which no set rules or policies may violate under both US law, and the Constitution itself. As the firearms process would be enforced by a federal agency, known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, any such regulations and/or rules they set regarding how to register for a US Firearms License are protected by the Constitution and do not violate any fundamental human rights as presented in this hypothetical.

- TLDR, this is lawful and Constitutional regardless of whether or not someone likes it.

2) Mandatory Psychological evaluation requiring a passing grade from a licensed practitioner is also required to register for a US Firearms License (if you can't pass a basic psyche eval, you have no business owning, let alone operating, a firearm).

Once registered for a US Firearms License, the following are mandatory before it will be presented to you:

1) Successful completion of mandatory online/book training for both state and federal gun safety laws and regulations (followed by an exam covering the information)

2) Successful completion of mandatory in-person firearm training including how to dismantle, clean, re-assemble, and store the firearm (also followed by an exam overseen by a licensed firearms professional)

As an added bonus, all firearms vendors should be licensed for both firearms ownership, and firearms distribution services. If they're not licensed, no sales made are considered lawful. This would help to reduce the abuse of the gun show loophole which are almost all unlicensed vendors who bought guns and are now out selling for higher prices for profit because they know gun lovers will pay for it. If they're caught or reported for selling without a license, they risk 6 months in prison (minimum) along with a $10,000 fine. Also, if a customer shows up without a US Firearms License, no sale. Period. If a customer gets upset or rowdy, the police are to be called or requested via the little red button that automatically calls them to the scene, and the vendor is lawfully enabled to brandish, but not discharge unless absolutely necessary, their own firearms for self defense until the customer leaves or the police arrive to handle the situation.

To me, this is all perfectly sensible and respectable gun "control." All lawful US citizens who have at least a birth certificate and driver's license (and who pass the mandatory psyche eval) would be able to easily register for a US Firearms License and, providing they're smart enough, would be able to pass the mandatory studies and exams regarding firearms rules and regulations, as well as the practical side of things. If you fail them, no license for you until you pass.

Clean. Simple. Efficient.

And the only people who do not benefit from this version of gun control are those who are mentally unstable and can't pass a psyche evaluation, and those who are too stupid to pass the studies and practical exams. But let's face it. If you're either a crazy or stupid, you've got no business owning or operating a firearm in the first place. Case in point, Virginia Tech shooting. Happened a while ago, but is still the poster child example for someone who's mentally unstable having far too easy access to firearms. Also, there was an incident in April of this year where a 3-year old found his father's loaded firearm on a table and then shot his baby brother once in the stomach with it (probably thinking the gun was a toy), and now that baby is dead. The parents did not follow any gun storage or safety laws by leaving it in a place accessible to a three year old who doesn't know any better. And now their other child is dead because of their stupidity. These parents should not be gun owners.

Cheers!

 

[Cosmo]

Speaking as someone who hunts and so owns firearms, lives with someone who owns firearms, and comes from a family with firearms including having an older brother who makes a living dealing firearms, yes, I support gun control. Generally speaking, there is no reason for someone to own a fully automatically rifle or a thirty round drum for their AR-15. If they want to own it just to own it, there are license for better weapons like that, I'd prefer seeing that system expanded to make it both more accessible to people who want to pursue that, a nice fee to give the state some income from people who seem to have a lot of disposable income to share, and include a yearly inspection and recertification process to keep them up to date.

Generally speaking, gun safes don't tend to be all that secure. If someone, including some random teenager, wants to get in, with enough determination and youtube, they will get in. My cousin and I were able to break into my grandfather's guncase when we were 14 just because we were bored and wanted to. Gun safes tend to be more deterrents then the final solution.

I fundamentally oppose the idea that someone needs a US birth certificate to own a gun in the United States because, to me, that is unnecessary discriminatory. There is zero reason someone who moved here from China, Honduras, Germany, or wherever, should be bared from owning a personal firearm, especially if they wish to engage in something like hunting, because their mother's popped them out on a different patch of soil. Currently, all you need is to prove you are in the United States legally and that is all you should need.

As far as the USA goes, gun control will always be an extremely touchy topic and it's really hard to get anyone to agree on anything, so.. at least something is consistent in politics!

 

[The Great Sage]

I'm hearing some support for gun control.

In Canada, we have a system that is very close to what GojiBean and Cosmo are describing. It's called the Canadian Gun Registry, and it is a government-run program that keeps track of who owns what gun and issues exams and licenses to citizens to determine what type (if any) of gun they should be allowed to own.

Does this decrease violent crime involving firearm use? Maybe. Americans are over twice as likely to commit a offence with a firearm as a Canadian is, and culturally we are very, very similar to one another so the disparity shouldn't be so huge. Additionally, there is good information describing the decrease in firearms offences in the time since the Canadian firearm registry was implemented, so there's that. However, the decrease is like a half percent over 50 years, so....

One thing to keep in mind is that in Canada, the estimated cost of this program is ~ $80 million a year. Canada's population is ~ 40,000,000. America's is ~ 320,000,000, which is a multiple of eight in relation to Canada's population. So let's combine that with the annual cost of the firearms program to get: $640,000,000. Over half a billion dollars to keep a firearms registry going in the USA. Might even be more since you guys own more and fancier guns than we Canadians do. Does this change your opinion?

 

[Next Door Hustler]

I'm surprised this topic didn't provoke a more heated argument.

 

[DougLeTourneau]

Honestly very proud of everyone here for discussing this so calmly. If I may offer a little information though, I work for DHS. I fix, maintain, and service weapons for the Fed, military, and LE. I am pro gun, but also pro common sense laws. I don't agree with magazine capacity bans, or suppressors falling under the NFA. There are a few things I would like to point out though, that may shed some light on why Pro 2A people are usually very anti-gun control in even moderation, or don't want to even entertain discussion.

For starters, many organizations grossly misrepresent information about gun crime. They do it in clever ways too, so they don't actually lie about what they're stating but people also don't understand. For example, the CDC counts suicides by gun as part of the US gun death statistic. That stat is also what most people then use to push that too many people are killed with guns each year and blame gun violence. They also compare us to other country's gun death stats, when I don't think any other country counts suicide into theirs like we do. The CDC actually records how many are murders and how many are suicides, but those numbers are rarely used. They also don't separate people who were killed by a gun by someone who was defending themselves vs actually murdering someone. It's easier to push an agenda with broader strokes knowing most people won't look into it.

The media constantly throws around words and terminology to scare people. The most popular, "Assault Rifle/Weapon" is complete and utter hogwash. There is no official term, in fact the only place any official description can be found in is some ATF ruling about multiple gun purchases close the border with Mexico. Essentially something they put in place to make sure people aren't selling guns to the cartel. What an "Assault Rifle" is to 99% of the industry though is a rifle that fires in intermediate cartridge, has a detachable magazine, and is select fire. In that case, select fire means it can be semi-automatic and fully-automatic. Civilian purchasable AR-15s and similar firearms cannot legally be fully-automatic, thus they are NOT "Assault Rifles/Weapons."

Machineguns, as previously stated in this thread, albeit with a bit of not entirely correct info, are only purchasable two ways. They must have been manufactured before 1986. To purchase one of these you must file a Form 4 Tax Stamp, complete with 2 copies of fingerprint cards and pictures of yourself. This is also the case for any already manufactured NFA item like an SBR, SBS, DD, or Suppressor. It then takes on average, currently, 9-13 months to be approved. The only other way is to be a dealer or manufacturer yourself. This requires you to get a Federal Firearms License and then typically your 07/02 SOT. Not cheap or easy to do.

The BATFE, or ATF as most know it, is also the single biggest waist of tax dollars in the federal system as far as I'm concerned. They can change their interpretations of things on a whim, and have no obligation to inform anyone. They do not have to obey precedents set in their own court cases, and what one man may go to jail for, another may get away with. Their classifications are so grey area they have to be deliberately attempting to turn law abiding gun owners into criminals. For example, you could be convicted of illegally manufacturing a firearm without a license for painting a gun that belongs to your friend. (Perhaps you're a better Krylon Picasso than he is.) The same goes for helping a friend level a scope, change a trigger, anything. You can be convicted of illegally selling firearms or straw purchasing if you buy a gun, don't like it, and sell it. That is even if transfers are done and all paperwork is squared away.

The machine is constantly working against law abiding gun owners who constantly find themselves jumping through new hoops to not be felons. This is all in combination with that fact that most gun crime is gang and drug related, in cities and states that already have the strictest laws for guns. We get guns in all the time that have been illegally modified as we are asked to determine if they were. To recap, I am for common sense laws, not overreaching by federal bodies with an agenda. At the end of the day, no real gun control law will do anything to stop criminals. They are criminals because they don't follow the law to begin with.

 

[Ezina-Kusu]

As someone who lives in a country where gun ownership is mostly illegal, and only very specific hunting and country farm ownership licenses are available, a very definite fear of firearms has been instilled into the population. As such there is also an overly enthusiastic interest in guns; the old forbidden fruit scenario. I've grown up never having fired, held or even seen a real gun (outside of antiques items and museums), I personally do not feel like they are any kind of a necessity. My life has not in any way been impeded by the lack of gun ownership. From my experiences and from observing the communities I've lived in, I strongly believe that legalisation of guns where I am will result in a massive rise in crime and accidental/purposeful death. This does partially come from the fact that people will go overboard on the sudden change of rules and abuse the system. When something has not been an option for such a long time and then is made readily available, generally the public will act foolishly. We already experience a high number of violent crimes. Personal conflicts within family, or between friends and neighbours still too often result in deaths or injury. I feel like putting guns on the table will be like putting gasoline onto the fire. Of course gun control would be massively needed, but it's never going to be 100% effective. With the way our government is currently failing it's country, I do not trust them at all to deal with legalising firearms responsibly or competently.

However I have been to the US a number of times and not felt at risk of being shot, but I haven't been to any areas where gun crimes are a big issue.

 

[BakaTheIdiot]

So I just watched a video where a kid takes his dad's shotgun out of an unlocked gun safe, racks it and 'pretends' to shoot it. I say pretends, because that's clearly what the kid was going for - but in actuality he blasts a shell full of something into the wall.

In Canada, there are three-ish laws being broken in that sentence, and any one of them could land a guy in super hot water.

I wonder: Are the people here generally pro or anti gun ownership? What sort of safeguards or restrictions do you think there should be?

*inhales* ...OK. This is gonna be really ranty. Gonna put up every disclaimer I possibly can ahead of time: I am not a gunsmith, police officer, soldier, or even a gun owner (although I live with my parents, who are gun owners), and all of this is based purely on my own opinion. I'm almost positive people are going to disagree, and I'm OK with that. I know what I'm saying, I know some bits might be wrong, and I'm willing to think about it if they are. The following rant is opinion, not fact, accumulated through four years of pent-up frustration and anxiety regarding guns and gun violence.

My personal relationship with guns is honestly pretty weird, uncomfortable, sort of extreme, and constantly evolving and changing as I learn more. But here's the gist: living in the United States, there are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of people who really, really shouldn't have guns. I was born and raised in a military family, and so I inherited a lot of their personal feelings around guns, namely around their use. Let me be perfectly, 110% crystal clear: a firearm's sole purpose is to kill someone. There's no such thing as a gun that only "maims" people, because any gun can kill someone, even a lower caliber (.22) if you're really determined. If you want to physically incapacitate someone without taking their life, there's a stun gun, but that's more of a taser than a gun, and you don't have to look very far to see police here in America skipping over their tasers and going straight for their firearms. Because of that, we as people need to be VERY careful with who we trust in using weapons literally designed to kill people.

I'll be upfront about this: I personally don't carry super strong feelings towards things like airsoft, BB, or even .22LR guns, because those are generally less dangerous - but here's the thing. Both sides of my family were surrounded by guns for their entire life. I was completely sheltered from them until I was 17, when I saw, held, and even loaded a pistol for the very first time. I'll say, it was heavier than I thought it would be.

And you know what? Sure. Carry a handgun. That's fine. A handgun is all of the leeway I am willing to give. If you want to defend yourself or people important to you in the (very hypothetical and reasonably uncommon) scenario of an armed robbery or some crap like that, fine, you do you. If you feel like you're in danger when you're walking home in the dark and want to get a proper conceal and carry permit in case you're not being paranoid, alright, sure. I disagree with both of those scenarios, but I won't really stop you, and I can at least get where you're coming from. Sort of. Where I personally draw the line is anything above that. But here's the thing: you do not need an AR-15. You do not need a Spas-12. I absolutely do not believe that the populace should be arming themselves with military surplus. I absolutely do not trust my neighbors, who have at least one assault rifle in their house. And for the people out there pleading "MUH 2ND AMMENDMENT MUH" - have you actually read the second amendment? No? Lemme just get that for you:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did you catch it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This amendment was written in a time where "guns" usually meant muskets, or very rudimentary rifles, and getting one was expensive, using one was hard, and keeping it nice was even harder. This was written in a time where the United States was a very young country and had a lot of people itching to beat it up, namely the British, and maybe the government wanted to be able to call up an army from nothing - and did so, twice. The 2nd Amendment is older than every single pro-gun lobbyist in existence - and that's the problem. The wording of the amendment is vague, and constantly gets spun as "own all the guns you want, nobody cares." Take it from me: I care. I had to go through 4 years of high school laced with trainings on how to barricade a door so that some high-strung hormonal teen couldn't break into our classroom and shoot me in the back. I absolutely care that the founding fathers (who I already have complicated feelings about) have basically left my life in the hands of incredibly angry cis white men.

The most infuriating part of all of this is that pretty much nothing can be done (again, thanks, founding fathers). I won't beat a dead horse here since most of the people in this thread have already talked about the shortcomings of the US Gov, and Prince Lutin summarized my opinion best, so here's a direct quote:

Here it's practically impossible to pass legislation for tighter gun control because of the pro-gun lobby who use and abuse the 2nd Amendment. Whenever there's a mass shooting (and because this is America, there's tons of them) it always boils down to gun control. Sadly, gun culture is deeply entrenched in American culture, what with the NRA and many gun owners owning guns that should be used only by the military and not civilians. And then there's the hypocrisy and double standards: a black kid with a toy gun is labeled a "threat", but a white adult with a bunch of real guns is considered a "patriot". I do think people should be allowed to own guns, but I think that at this point we need tighter gun legislation to protect people from mass shootings.

Thanks, bruv.

Now I just said a bunch of "radical left extremist garbage" - and yes, I am radical left extremist garbage, I'll own up to my trashiness - so let me say something else to sort of bring my rant to a close: I don't want to take away people's guns. You bought it, you own it, I don't argue that and don't want to change that. What I really want is for people to get proper trainings in firearm safety, to take a moment and just ask themselves beforehand if they actually need a firearm (the answer, believe it or not, CAN be no!), if they have the means to keep it properly locked up so that some kid can't get it, and finally, I want people to do more of this: sit down and have an honest and open conversation about guns, gun control, and whether or not we actually need them. Set aside the media - which is hard - and the politics - which is even harder - and you come to my core belief regarding guns: you use a gun to kill something, or someone, and that alone is all the reason we need to tread carefully.

Guns do have a place. That place is not everywhere.

 

[Sylvio]

Being another pro-gun American I am of the belief that gun control is an essential part of gun ownership and ensuring we are allowed to bear firearms. I’m not too familiar with gun policy although I am against the ban of ar-15’s and various attachments although I am also of the belief that no one should hold onto so much military surplus even though I would like to own some ww2 surplus but that’s beside the point.

It baffles me that people can have a whole basement full of guns that they’ll never use except to expend ammo for entertainment. I believe that people can own handguns, hunting rifles, and hunting shotguns but beyond that you don’t really need anything passed that.

But in the case of the 2nd amendment I believe that Americans should have regulated militias to protect themselves,
especially with the rise of militarized police in our country. If there’s anything that scares me more than gun violence it’s the fact that cops drive around our neighborhoods with military surplus.

I want this to be totally clear I am in NO WAY endorsing civil conflict in the United States. I’m only saying in our society where the police brutalize marginalized people along racial, sexual, and economic lines they should have the rights to organize and defend themselves against police brutality or any threat to their way of life. The black panthers understood this back in the 60s before the GOP and NRA worked against them to take their guns away. (See the Mulford Act).

I might be making a few people uncomfortable by bringing up how we use police but guns dictate a lot of our politics and way of life which to the outside is understandably terrifying, but as Americans it’s important to understand that solving guns violence goes beyond gun control for current and potential gun owners. Why should we allow a civilian police force to drive around our neighborhoods with apc’s and ar’s while wearing full body armor?

This brings me to my next point about gun crime and poverty. The main reason why we have so much gun violence because of unequal wealth distribution, especially in our major cities. Because a lot of poor people don’t have access to important services and goods like food, water, shelter, education and healthcare a lot of people commit crimes.

And so if we were to curtail gun violence, outright banning firearms or the sale of them won’t stop anything. We have to do more than enact universal background checks and gun safety. We have to address the wider systemic roots of the problem instead of just blaming the symptom

 

[Malphaestus]

No one without military experience should own weaponry beyond hunting purposes.