It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.
Within the US, there is no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.02) on the state level between firearm ownership and firearm homicide. (There is a statistically significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, but this is due to suicides.)
Make of this what you will, but it's not substantiated by the facts the claim that restricting gun ownership would have a strong impact on homicides.
> It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.
These statements are misleading as they stand because the variation in the US is so high. Basically, for all types of violent crimes, the US is divided into two very different regions: (1) particular large urban and dense suburban areas, which have rates of violent crime higher than any other developed country; and (2) the rest of the country, which has rates of violent crime lower than almost any other developed country. Even looking at the stats by state doesn't fully capture this dichotomy.
So what you’re saying is, the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot.
Maybe the rest of the world should stop telling Americans to control gun ownership (ie ”ban guns”, despite nobody ever suggesting a total ban) and instead we should be promoting control of Americans (ie. “ban Americans”, although nobody would suggest a total ban. I’m sure zoos would want some).
> the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot.
More like "Americans are more subject (relative to, say, Europeans) to the economic and mental health hardships that typically beget violent crime".
That is, I'm far less motivated to rob a store at gunpoint if I can actually feed myself and my family through legitimate means. I'm far less motivated to kill someone in anger if I have access to mental health resources that can help me address that anger less destructively. I'm far less motivated to join a gang if my life - and that of my family - doesn't depend on me doing so (or more precisely, if that gang is no longer able to convince me of that).
Guns are tools. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to commit crime. I'd expect Hacker News, of all places, to understand the importance of root cause analysis.
A car is a tool. A truck is a tool. A 747 is a tool. All have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated incorrectly.
Guess how society generally tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "incorrectly" operating those tools?
Education, combined with testing (i.e. government-enforced licensing for operation of the tool).
A gun is a tool. A goodly number of the models favoured by Americans have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated correctly.
Guess how society (outside of America) tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "correctly" operating those tools?
Education, combined with testing, and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans.
No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die, or sport shooting, or anything really, other than laying down covering fire against the "Charlies in the trees". It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road.
At 9m+ wide, with a turning circle of 42m, it's safe to assume the level of damage to the roads and infrastructure wherever you go, could be measured with a unit colloquially known as "a fucking lot".
Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns. Most US states require no licensing to own and no permit to purchase a firearm, and a number require no special license to carry it on your person in public, either concealed or otherwise. Those that do impose an age limit, generally set it at 18 - so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
This is an interesting philosophical argument, but it doesn't actually stack up to the facts. While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence.
The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed?
This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, for example. Yet from a purely mechanical point of view, bullets come out of the operational end when you pull the trigger. It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle, even if the designer did not intend for it to ever be used against humans.
> While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence.
.... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right?
> The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed?
Ok, so a few things here.
(a) I just referenced AR-15's because most people have heard of them. A mini-14 is no more appropriate for sport shooting than the aforementioned AR15.
(b) The rifle you mentioned is named so because it resembles a previous military rifle (M14), and is itself used by a number of military and law enforcement agencies around the world, so it's still "military style" anyway
(c) My point was that semi-automatic rifles aren't needed for hunting, or target shooting, regardless of how "militaristic" they look. 12 people being shot in a school aren't going to feel any less shot because the gun doesn't look like the military use it.
> This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban,
Given that the law in question required a weapon to have 2 feature from a list that includes grenade launcher to be considered a "assault weapon", that's not really surprising. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It also wouldn't be affected by a ban on trans fats either.
> It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle
If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.
> .... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right?
Abroad, I'm only familiar with Australia, which didn't see any significant effects either way. There was a secular decline[0] in firearm violence which continued through the ban, but it doesn't appear as if the ban had anything to do with it - the USA saw an even larger decline, and it doesn't seem to have dropped any faster after the ban[1].
It seems like the easiest way is to just look at the USA, where there is no correlation at all. So on a state level, these regulations are utterly ineffectual. It does not seem to follow that more of the same would have any effect.
It is sort of like metal detectors in airports: On some level, it makes intuitive sense that they should help, but in reality they are just useless security theater - it's possible to build a grenade from stuff you can buy after airport security, and people have accidentally brought guns on planes without knowing it.
> If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.
On the other hand, the opportunities for serious terrorism are arguably worse[2].
> and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans.
I'm not okay with this. Who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
> No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die
No one needs an AR-15 to kill people, either. Indeed, the vast majority of gun violence (among civilians at least) is with guns that are very much not "an AR-15/etc". If you actually care about reducing death by guns, you'd be going after the Glocks, not the ArmaLites.
Bringing up the AR-15 betrays an opinion driven mostly by emotion and irrationality. It's a gun that "looks scary" despite being no more lethal than any other semiautomatic .223 rifle (among which there are a lot, and despite your implied belief to the contrary, the .223 is a very common caliber for hunting/varmint rifles, and semiautomatics - while not as common as bolt-actions - are still pretty mainstream for hunting).
Again: who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
> It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road.
No, it'd be like if you decided to buy a Tundra instead of a Tacoma (the Tacoma here being, say, a Ruger Mini-14). A "400ton mining truck" in this context would be something more like the GAU8/A.
> Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns.
Not yet, but anyone with a basic understanding of what the Overton Window is can see the writing on the wall.
> Those that do impose an age limit
I can't think of a single place where there's not an age limit to buy either the firearm itself or the ammunition thereof. I don't require a permit to purchase here in Nevada, for example, but I still had to present ID and go through a background check. And Nevada's among the most gun-friendly states in the US, even after the Las Vegas shooting.
> so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
You can do a lot of things before you can buy a Bud Light that you can't do before you're an adult. Quite a few over-the-counter drugs, for example, fall into that category. I fail to see how that's relevant (unless you're arguing to lower the drinking age, in which case I'd have no real objection).
Edit: I realised after writing a heap of this that my clarification about why I mentioned the AR15 at all was a reply to another user, not to you, so I'll edit accordingly.
> I'm okay with this, to an extent.
Why would you not be fully on board with educating people when they want to use a deadly "tool"?
Edit: removed snippiness.
> Who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
Well, it isn't me though is it? I mean I'm writing the text but what I'm writing is what other governments have implemented successfully, based on simple logic.
Perhaps you could try less attacking me, and more explaining why a semi-automatic is required to hunt deer or shoot targets?
> If you actually care about reducing death by guns, you'd be going after the Glocks, not the ArmaLites.
... Still a semi-automatic dude.
> Bringing up the AR-15 betrays an opinion driven mostly by emotion and irrationality.
As I mentioned in a reply to another user: I mentioned it because most people know it. That's all. In reality the point is about all semi-autos, either long barrel or pistols.
> the .223 is a very common caliber for hunting/varmint rifles
I don't know whether you're unaware that .223 is used in bolt-action rifles too, you just want to ignore that aspect because it makes your argument stronger, or you actually just meant .223 semi-automatics are common for that "task" - it's irrelevant. My point is that it's unnecessary - you don't need a semi-automatic to hunt, unless you're fucking shit at it.
> who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable
Again: you need to explain why a semi-automatic is required for hunting or some other non-people-killing activity. Unless Americans uniquely have decided that "hunting" now means mowing into a crowd of deer/what have you in some kind of perverse attempt to justify the use of a semi-auto for "hunting".
> No, it'd be like if you decided to buy a Tundra instead of a Tacoma (the Tacoma here being, say, a Ruger Mini-14).
Well given that both are semi-autos, and you just compared two 'pickup trucks' I guess at least the analogy is somewhat correct but you've missed the point, and keep somehow obsessing about a different semi-auto rifle just because it's less popular with Americans. That doesn't make it not a semi-auto.
> Not yet
Seriously, slippery slope argument?
> I can't think of a single place where there's not an age limit to buy either the firearm itself or the ammunition thereof.
Well federal law stipulates 18, but I have zero clue how you enforce that on private sales without any kind of licensing or permits required.
> I don't require a permit to purchase here in Nevada, for example, but I still had to present ID and go through a background check. And Nevada's among the most gun-friendly states in the US, even after the Las Vegas shooting.
Well you (Nevada) need a permit for concealed carry and background checks are required (by the state, it seems some counties are ignoring that law), so no you aren't among the most 'gun-friendly'. Plenty of states require no background check, no permits for concealed carry, etc.
> Why would you not be fully on board with educating people when they want to use a deadly "tool"?
To clarify: I'm fully on-board with education. I'm wary about licensing/permits primarily because they have potential for discriminatory abuse against "undesirables" (e.g. ethnic/religious/sexual minorities, political dissidents, etc.), especially in places with "may issue" rules instead of "shall issue" (like seriously, how exactly is one supposed to judge "good moral character" without making personal biases inevitable?).
> Perhaps you could try less attacking me
That's fair. Sorry for my own snippiness.
> and more explaining why a semi-automatic is required to hunt deer or shoot targets?
To be clear, very few people are hunting deer with .223 (that I know of); that's more the purview of, say, the .30-06 or .308 (which are better-rated for medium/large game). .223 (and .22LR, on that note - another possible chambering for AR-15s, by the way) are more common for the smaller end of game (think rabbits) or livestock-attacking pets (think coyotes).
As for why a semi-automatic would be desirable, that should be obvious if you're dealing with multiple rabbits or multiple coyotes or multiple whatever else you're hunting (hell, in the case of defending yourself or some other human being against coyotes, having a semi-automatic could be a literal lifesaver).
And as for targets, well, you generally want to practice shooting the guns you'd actually use in the field. That's how you learn to use them safely, responsibly, and effectively. Even with, say, competitive target shooting, competitions specifically for semi-automatic firearms are not unusual.
In general, a semi-automatic is arguably easier to use than, say, a bolt-action or break-action or lever-action; it's therefore not unreasonable for people to prefer them.
Also, ARs specifically happen to be both highly modular/customizable (making it flexible enough to fill a lot of different niches - including hunting) and relatively affordable.
> ... Still a semi-automatic dude.
Well yeah, the vast majority of handguns owned by Americans are. You're still not addressing my point, though: why are we fixated on semi-automatic rifles when semi-automatic pistols seem to be the preference for those actually using guns to commit violent crimes?
(That's partially meant to be a rhetorical question - I'd argue that it's specifically because an AR-15 "looks scary" and because mass shootings with rifles, despite being a negligible proportion of gun deaths, tend to get higher-profile news coverage - but if you have another explanation I'd be interested in discussing that)
> Seriously, slippery slope argument?
Just because a slippery slope exists does not make it automatically fallacious, especially when you have politicians like Beto O'Rourke or Donald "take the guns first, due process later" Trump betraying the end-goal of repeated "compromise".
Again: the end goal should be patently obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of how the Overton Window works.
> but I have zero clue how you enforce that on private sales without any kind of licensing or permits required.
Maybe the same way you'd enforce similar laws against adults giving cigs or booze or pot to minors?
> so no you aren't among the most 'gun-friendly'
I meant culturally, not necessarily legally. Even legally, though, there are relatively few restrictions on the types of guns one may own (no "assault weapon" ban), lots of reciprocity with other states re: concealed carry permits, state-wide "shall issue" policy for concealed carry permits, state preemption of open carry laws (i.e. counties/cities can't impose further restrictions, with the sole exception of designating "safe discharge" areas), and state preemption of firearm registration laws (which eliminated Clark County's firearm registration program), among many other factors.
Really the only significantly gun-unfriendly policy is the recent "red flag" law included in AB 291 (which also included a bump stock ban and safe storage requirements, both of which IMO are reasonable, even if I personally disagree with the former). I'm concerned about the risk of abuse of such a system, and hope that Nevada's implementation can resist the seemingly-inevitable risk of treating skin color or sexual orientation or political activism as one of those "red flags".
> Plenty of states require no background check
Literally all states require background checks for sales through licensed dealers (that's a federal law). It's the so-called "gun show loophole" that states currently have discretion on. You're right that Nevada closed that loophole, but IMO that ain't really much of a dent in its gun-friendliness given the above IMO-significantly-more-impactful factors.
> they have potential for discriminatory abuse against "undesirables"
Perhaps worry about addressing the issue of discrimination then? Do ethnic or sexual minorities currently have difficulties obtaining a drivers licence?
> that should be obvious if you're dealing with multiple rabbits or multiple coyotes or multiple whatever else you're hunting
I've been rabbit (or maybe they were hares? Never seen rabbits that big before) hunting with a group of friends (only one had serious experience and owned the rifles used), and literally the only way I can see that a semi-auto action would have helped was because no one (except the owner) had any real experience shooting. Unless the animals are in a fucking pen, there's no way they're not moving in every fucking direction they can the moment they hear the first shot, so unless you're against a militant bugs bunny in a fox-hole, or you're a professional hunter (i.e. you're being paid to hunt the animals en-masse), I don't buy this angle, sorry. Can you use a semi-auto to hunt rabbits? Of course. You could use a fucking shovel or a kitchen knife or a god damn bazooka to hunt rabbits if you're determined enough. The point is that the risk to other humans increases greatly when the general population has relatively easy access to semi-automatic weapons, of any kind.
> why are we fixated on semi-automatic rifles when semi-automatic pistols seem to be the preference for those actually using guns to commit violent crimes?
"We" aren't. I'm sorry if my posts gave that impression. Semi-auto pistols (so, essentially, pistols, unless you're gonna carry around a Derringer?) are indeed likely more of a problem in overall gun violence, and their legitimate usefulness for anything besides killing/injuring another person are even more limited than semi-auto rifles.
Despite what people may think, semi-automatic rifles and pistols are not banned in Australia. They're heavily regulated.
Want to use a semi-auto rifle? You need to prove that you're using it for some serious animal control. Some actual farmers may still be using them but my understanding is that it's mostly 'professional' shooters now, e.g. controlling/culling kangaroos, camels, wild pigs, etc from helicopters.
Want to use a semi-auto pistol? Become a cop, become an armed security guard, or join a target shooting club and leave the gun at the club. That's pretty much the only way to get a Cat.H license now, to my knowledge. You can of course go to a shooting range and shoot some of the above stuff supervised without a licence or gun of your own, but I somehow doubt that even classifies as "the real thing" for Americans does it?
> Perhaps worry about addressing the issue of discrimination then? Do ethnic or sexual minorities currently have difficulties obtaining a drivers licence?
We've been working on that for nearly 250 years now. That doesn't happen overnight.
Re: discrimination with drivers' licenses, said licenses are "shall issue", so there's a lot less room for discrimination than, say, a concealed carry permit in a "may issue" county in California; the criteria are based solely on (ostensibly) objective assessments of driving ability rather than nebulous factors like "being of good moral character".
> there's no way they're not moving in every fucking direction
Yet another reason why a semi-automatic rifle makes hunting them easier.
> You could use a fucking shovel or a kitchen knife
Unless you're Usain Bolt that probably ain't gonna work too well.
> or a god damn bazooka
That... defeats the whole point of hunting rabbits in the first place, lol (unless you're doing it solely as pest control, e.g. because they're eating your crops, but 1) that seems excessively cruel and 2) that seems like it'd leave your crops worse off).
> so, essentially, pistols, unless you're gonna carry around a Derringer?
Or a single-action revolver.
> and their legitimate usefulness for anything besides killing/injuring another person are even more limited than semi-auto rifles.
High-caliber pistols are useful for defense against predators like bears (non-lethal deterrents - e.g. bear spray - are obviously preferable, but plenty of hunters carry a handgun with them for this purpose nonetheless). There are also hunters who hunt with pistols for the challenge of it (similarly to why hunters hunt with bows beyond reasons of traditionalism or legality).
----
I think, however, you've pre-assumed that killing or injuring someone (or being able to threaten to do so) is not also a legitimate purpose of these tools, even for civilians. I'd argue on the contrary; self defense is a very valid reason to use these tools for what you claim is their primary purpose. They are obviously the absolute last resort, but they are a resort that sometimes must be taken to defend oneself or others from the imminent and tangible threat of violence, and I for one would much rather have that tool available in my toolbox, so to speak.
There are numerous reasons why reliance on law enforcement to do this is inadequate, chief among them being
1) Law enforcement officers in the US have a track record of racial discrimination (and while I'm white, I have siblings and nieces/nephews and other family members - not to mention friends and colleagues - who are not, and for whom reliance on racist police to keep them safe is a crapshoot at best). Like I mentioned above, the US has been chipping away at the problem of systematic racism for its entire existence, and it ain't a problem we'll solve overnight; in the meantime, minorities still need the right to defend themselves against violence.
2) Unless there's a law enforcement officer on every street corner (and even then), it's highly improbable that they are in any position to actually stop a violent crime from happening; at best, they're frequently put in the position of after-the-fact investigation and enforcement. This is a factor even in urban areas (a police officer being a minute away is cold comfort when you already have a gun or knife in your face), let alone in rural areas where police response time might be on the scale of hours.
> Despite what people may think, semi-automatic rifles and pistols are not banned in Australia. They're heavily regulated.
Ain't that the same country where bikies are somehow getting their hands on rocket launchers?
> Ain't that the same country where bikies are somehow getting their hands on rocket launchers?
I assume you're referring to the 10 RPG's that were marked for destruction, but instead sold to criminals by the Army officer who was responsible for them, 17 years ago ?
I sympathise with the issue of racial discrimination, but as I said before, if the issue is racial discrimination, in particular when dealing with a member of law enforcement, adding a gun to the mix doesn't really sound like a smart solution. The smart solution would be to solve discrimination. Perhaps start with a simple policy of not hiring racists as cops, and firing those who are already cops? Radical idea I know.
If your argument for why the average man-on-the-street needs a gun is "well someone else might have a gun" and you don't see how that is a clearly active 'slippery slope', I can't help you.
Elected officials in your country have suggested - seriously - that the problem to "gun attacks in schools" is... "give the teachers guns", because apparently those officials live in some fantasy world where teachers are perfect and infallible, and students are all on the honour roll without a single infraction for misbehaviour. I mean seriously this idea is fucking insane. I imagine if they had a house in the path of a wild fire, and for some reason had a bunch of highly flammable material, their solution would be "let's stack it up around the house".
This is why I made the original comment: if violence (and apparently discrimination) is so ingrained in American culture, and gun control won't work (either because of lack of trying or because unlike every other country it actually doesn't work in the US), then problem is clearly not the guns but the culture, and if you won't control the bans, we (the rest of the world) should simply control the culture.
> I assume you're referring to the 10 RPG's that were marked for destruction, but instead sold to criminals by the Army officer who was responsible for them, 17 years ago ?
Sounds about right. And yeah, that might sound like a one-off issue from a long time ago, but if even Australia ain't immune to improper disposal, the US' prospects don't seem like they'd be much better.
More to the point: the ACIC estimates Australia to still have hundreds of thousands of guns in illicit circulation (i.e. not corresponding to authorized civilian ownership): https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/13159
> The smart solution would be to solve discrimination.
And as I said before, that doesn't happen overnight.
> Perhaps start with a simple policy of not hiring racists as cops, and firing those who are already cops?
And neither does that, especially when the very people hiring those cops are themselves racists/homophobes/fascists or otherwise sympathetic with them, or (far enough up the chain) are outright elected by them.
Besides, that still doesn't address the issues with response time; even if all cops are perfectly just and rational and moral and do their jobs perfectly, until we invent teleportation and/or build a pool for some telepathic teenagers to swim around in and predict crimes before they happen, they are very unlikely to actually stop crime before it's already happened, at which point it's too late and the best you can do is hope the perpetrator gets caught before committing further crime.
> If your argument for why the average man-on-the-street needs a gun is "well someone else might have a gun"
No, there's no "might" in that argument. Criminals already have guns. They will continue to have guns even if we were to ban civilian gun ownership entirely (thankfully nobody of political significance is suggesting going that far, at least not yet). Some of those criminals, in fact, happen to wear badges and uniforms, and are exempt from such restrictions (and will continue to be for as long as they wear those badges and uniforms).
> Elected officials in your country have suggested
Elected officials in my country have suggested plenty of ridiculous things, like mandating that pi = 3 or banning end-to-end encryption.
That said...
> I mean seriously this idea is fucking insane.
Do you have a specific objective reason for that belief?
If a teacher wants to carry a firearm in the defense of oneself and one's students, and is voluntarily trained and certified to do so safely and responsibly, I don't fundamentally see a problem with that. There's not really an objective reason to object to it, with the possible sole exception of "what if a student snatches the gun off the teacher's holster" (which is applicable to law enforcement and security personnel, too, if not more so, and yet rarely happens, especially with modern holsters being designed specifically to prevent that).
And frankly, I'm more inclined to trust the average teacher to wield a firearm than I do the average police officer. The latter is statistically more likely to just end up killing the students one's ostensibly there to "protect and serve". The former is statistically more likely to actually care about the students' well being.
You're right that outright mandating it as a job duty is insane, though; nobody (or at least no civilian) should be forced to carry a firearm, especially when one is not comfortable or experienced/practiced with using one, for the same reason nobody should be forced to vote in an election or speak a politically-dissenting opinion or otherwise exercise one's Constitutional rights.
> then problem is clearly not the guns but the culture
Or, like I originally said (and to which you seemingly haven't really responded), the economic and mental health factors that are the much more visible and obvious and Occam's-razor-compatible difference between the United States and the rest of the "West". Guns don't magically induce criminal intent, nor do they magically induce mental health problems. People with criminal intent or mental health problems still have those problems regardless of whether or not they have legal access to guns. If we fix those problems, then they wouldn't feel as strong of a desire to hurt people in the first place, let alone with guns.
Those problems don't fix themselves overnight, either, but even partially fixing them makes things a lot better for a lot more people than even perfectly-executed gun control does.
