The firearms subreddit is really unhinged

I mean you can but it would need a lot of modifications first.

Not that you can get most of them going on your own anyway

You'd also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc

Right, and my life insurance should be able to hold a claim against their insurance, or everything they own. That way my insurance doesn’t go up with their recklessness and my heirs don’t need to deal with the legalities

I agree. Gun insurance is the future. You want to have your guns? Fine. Underwrite the risk.

You're just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren't going to pay out anyway, that's their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it's money being thrown away every month, and 2. You're adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic unknown reasons.

I'm all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I'm just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.

Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can't do) involved, they just say they can't afford it and they'll just watch YouTube or whatever.

Edit: Not sure how "creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up" is such a controversial take, especially when I've added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren't a barrier...

Yes but... A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance. Steal guns, ghost guns, or simply not give a fuck about the law since they're going to break it anyways.

In my opinion, the root issue is a moral/mental one. Do the shooters believe they are killing? Are they "saving"? Are they not real people? Etc. If you don't believe people are real, you're not really hurting anyone.

No thank you. Guns ownership is a protected right under the constitution and can not be controlled to the degree that car ownership can.

I'd rather a joke with a little training and safety classes to lower your liability insurance than the current solution of ignoring the problem

It is more than is needed for gun ownership. The arsenal I inherited required nothing. The one I have purchased required a 48 hour wait I think it was. In none of the cases did I have to prove I knew how to handle a firearm.

Sadly depends on the state. Would also love if we did more like other countries for driving instruction. Although would need more public transport before that would possible

And no one cares about what you do with your guns if you're out in the boonies where you can't hurt anyone else.

Wouldn't be great if the police could just search anyone for any reason (or no reason) at any time unless they have obtained a privacy permit? Think of how many criminals they could catch, including people who shouldn't have guns, if they could just set up road blocks and strip search everyone who comes through (except those with permits, obviously). For good measure they should make us all take off our shoes too.

"providing evidence that you won't be a danger before being allowed to have a weapon? HOW DARE YOU!"

The 2nd amendment doesn't give the right to all Americans to have guns, it simply provisions a well regulated militia. Right now we don't have sufficient regulation to keep gun violence at a reasonable rate, so we clearly don't have a well regulated militia as detailed in the constitution

Constitution doesn't say anything about banning regulations on guns.

Almost calls for it by saying we need to make sure they're well maintained

When people say "regulate guns like cars" all they mean is to add the requirements of a licence, tracking ownership and sale, and proof of training.

It's a short hand, meant to be snappy, like all political phrases (BLM?). So next time you see the phrase be sure to respond to that argument because that's all anyone is really talking about when they use that phrase.

Required training, tests, insurance needs and has to be safe for others.

You didn't make a point. You talked about some unrelated things with operating vehicles on private roads, which is nonsense, because plenty of laws still apply to the manufacture and sale of the vehicle initially, and also all laws of civil liability still apply to it.

Yah and the right to bear arms is not absolute. You can't and shouldn't be able to own just a bunch of rocket launchers. Just like with the first amendment, you still can't threaten people. You can have sensible laws around rights.

Also, running the country off ideas people had hundreds of years ago is so backwards.

The biggest difference is you need to have a license for a car

I agree and made a similar comment on this post but you can buy a car without a license in every US state. It's the driving part that requires a license. It's a nitpick but still applies given the conversation around gun control is focused mostly on the purchase side of things.

How many hours of car driving are there before a death?

How many of those deaths from cars are intentional?

What would happen to the economy if we remove cars Vs guns? (Public mass transit would hopefully get better)

Take the average person who will cause a fatal car crash next year, and ask them what they use their car for every day.

Now take the average person who will shoot someone to death next year and ask them what they use their gun for every day.

Truly, you have the dumbest take.

Not everyone who disagrees is a fool, but you certainly are.

And driving licenses are far too easy to get as well.

Yeah I've always kinda questioned why we have speed limits on highways

So the police have somewhere to find extra funding.

A speed limit encourages everyone to go a similar speed and sets the tone to a safeish speed. How fast most traffic goes on a highway does vary wildly by region, but at least from what I've seen regionally, its largely informed by the construction of the highway and the speed limit. Lower limit means lower overall speed while a higher limit leads to a higher overall speed

Or a bus. Or sets off a big chain reaction crash

On the interstate that seems less likely.

The problem is for every responsible gun owner there are dozens of irresponsible ones who are a danger to themselves and others.

Look at all the damn cases of kids killing themselves playing with guns left out by their owners.

Anyone who argues against the idea of gun control shows a distinct lack of empathy at best and is one of the those irresponsible and dangerous users at worst.

I’ll certainly buy that there are some people and situations where a weapon is a necessary tool, And some people who can use them responsibly. however the problem is the majority of careless or frightened weapons holders who are a deadly threat to everyone around them. Most talk about guns rights doesn’t account for that and completely ignores the rights of the potential victims to not be killed

As long as you’re treating gun control as all or nothing, I’ll have to side with all the victims rather than the few responsible gun holders. Meet us someplace in between to try to reduce the harm caused by your tool and protect all the innocent victims

Some people have never been in a situation that required one, and they don’t understand why people would need one.

Realistically such situations come about because of easy access to guns. Make it more work to buy and keep a firearm, use red flag laws to prevent those who cannot safely own and maintain a firearm from having them, provide easy gun buyback & disposal, and eventually the gun population will dwindle and fewer people will have actual needs for guns. Overtime with such programs firearm ownership should eventually find itself at a reasonable level where only responsible gun owners have them

Originalists, yet they stretch the definition of “at war” and “tyranny” to meaning at all times for everyone.

Its straight up propaganda, its illogical, and its not what's written.

Uvalde

Sandy Hook

How many more

I hope you catch one if you really believe the people should have the right to unfettered firearm access

thanks, i was confused by the sawat team and the lady, i wondered where her gun is.

is it where you make up a fake scenario

Yes, that's generally how metaphors work, making a difficult concept easier for people to understand by explaining it in different terms with a hypothetical. I'm glad I could help you learn this.

and then get outrage from it?

Are you talking about the guy you're responding to? He doesn't seem very outraged, to me. Or do you mean the guy posting the screenshot on reddit -- you got "rage" from 'gun control in a nutshell' -- how, exactly? That doesn't sound like frothing at the mouth to me, that sounds like someone making a point.

What a strange comment.

That was a simile.

Sure. And I can happily give you some great ideas that don't infringe on fundamental civil rights.

Most violent crime is a result of material circumstances, so change the circumstances. Make income and wealth more equal through tax policy so that there's less disparity between the worst-off and the best. (Yes, I think even a single billionaire is a failure.) Adequately fund public education, and stop letting conservatives steer money towards charter and magnet school. Reform the criminal justice system to focus on reform instead of punishment. Create a single-payer health system so that no one has to drown in medical debt, and start seriously funding public mental health systems. (My first therapist in Chicago had been in public mental health until the city slashed the budget--again--and he lost his job. He went from working with severely mentally ill homeless people--people who desperately needed the help--to high-functioning autistic people like me that just kind of suck at being human.) Build and adequately fund high-density public housing so that no one has to live in a ghetto. And, maybe most importantly, start funding community programs, like sports leagues, gardening groups, and the like, all on the public dime, so that people can start building real-life connections.

Fucks sake, we're nearly the richest country in the world, we can do this shit.

So we should ban pressure cookers, right?

I’m there ATM, yet the first thing I ever learned about the law in school was the notion of “grandfathering”.

Supposed to be a thing, and yet isn't, not really. You can talk about the 'takings' clause, too. What states may do is ban a thing, and require you to turn it in, and then give you what the state thinks is a just compensation. Or insist that, while you can own it, you can never sell or otherwise transfer it, which undercuts the idea of ownership of a thing in the first place.

How, exactly, are you going to load a Glock that has a magazine welded into place?