My stance on firearms and 2A rights (US Perspective)

[TAW122]

In case anyone is curious about my position on firearms, guns, and the 2nd amendment (in the US), here is my take on this. As someone who embraced the firearm as a method to CTB, no, this thread will not focus on that solely, maybe briefly only, as this thread is going to mainly explain my position and thoughts on firearms in general and why I hold the position I do as well as critique the laws that I don't agree with. First off, here is some background about me. I live in the US and fortunately, in a state where firearms ownership is generally pretty lax and accessible (not in any of the super liberal states or those with very restrictive gun laws). I will be just focusing on the utilitarian and logical aspect of things. I am also not going to go into the rabbit hole of politics and semantics as that would just over-complicate things and detract from what this thread will be about.

I support the 2nd amendment and believe in the right to own firearms (legally and responsibly) and most of the restrictive laws and policies that are in the pipeline and those that have passed are generally unconstitutional and unhelpful. They only serve to hinder the average person wanting to have fun (recreation, hunting, sports, collection, hobby, etc.) or even practically defend oneself (self-defense and deterrence from bad actors). After all, if we are being logical and rational, a firearm is just a tool, generally an effective tool at stopping big mammals, animals and humans alike aside from recreational purposes (target shooting, hunting, competitive shooting, trophy collection, etc.). It is incredibly effective at the hands of a trained individual and those who know how to operate them.

Anyways, here are the laws that I don't agree with as they don't serve any major purpose but only hinder a law abiding citizen or most people (good actors) in society, especially firearms enthusiasts. While I'm not heavily involved in the firearms community, I do read through them as part of research and knowledge as well as understand their stances and arguments on laws. In addition to this, my stance is also built mostly on utilitarian and pragmatic reasoning, as well as objective reality.

Suppressors and silencers being on the NFA
It is quite sad and even wrong that an accessory, albeit a very practical one is actually more restricted than an actual firearm in the US. The irony is while most other countries (particularly in Europe) are more restrictive when it comes to firearm acquisition and ownership (have stricter background checks, must submit to medical screening, must pass tests and training, or other eligibility requirements), yet when it comes to legally owning a firearm accessory such as the suppressor (aka 'silencer') they are much more lenient and even encourage shooters to use them. For example, hunters are encouraged to use them on their firearms as to not scare away other animals or disturb their neighbors and surrounding environment. This also doubles as reducing the amount of hearing damage or potential for hearing damage versus those who don't use them.

On a practical level and in reality, suppressors do NOT silence the firearm like movies (Hollywood and bad faith media reporting has created an inaccurate, false view on the capability of this very tool). They instead, lower the loudness of the firearm, making it easier (not necessarily hearing safe either) for the shooter to enjoy the activity instead of loudness damaging their hearing. They may still need to wear hearing protection, but are safer in general, and also to some degree, the suppressor helps with stabilizing the weapon upon discharge which allows the shooter to shoot better (good for recreation as well). While there are bad actors who use accessories or tools for harm or illicit means, it is not enough reason to ban or even heavily restrict such accessories because of the actions of the very few. Most law abiding citizens use them for legitimate and beneficial purposes that significantly outweigh the drawbacks and ill actions of the few.

Limitations on function, magazine capacity, and similar things
I am against having such (impractical) restrictions on such aspects of firearms, be it the magazine capacity, function of the firearm, or even certain things. This would include semi-automatic, limit to how many rounds a firearm can hold, certain firearm accessories, or even something as ridiculous as the "bullet button" (even though later the law was later changed – but shouldn't have been a law to begin with) just for safety. Other things include resurgence grip, making it harder for people to handle firearms in general (either hunting or recreational use). Limits to magazine capacity only makes it more inconvenient for those who want it for self-defense purposes, and to some smaller extent, somewhat inconveniences the recreational shooter, meaning those who shoot for sport or fun will have to work with less and deal with a diminished experience of recreational shooting. Imagine if sports (think popular sports, American football, football (soccer), and/or other sports) had restrictions or things that break what makes the sport 'fun', I'm sure there will likely be riots and unrest, not just with the sports and athletic communities but even with the popular people. I could list more examples, but I think these are more than enough to prove my point.

Red flag laws and such arbitrary policies
A lot of states (even some red states) have various laws which will preemptively confiscate (or even require a gun owner to surrender their) firearms if there is a report of a risk to oneself or others. While on paper this seems like a sensible law and common sense policy, in practice, it is far more sinister as it's application and use case is that it is often abused. Even while the respondent (the person whose rights are under scrutiny or attack) is ultimately cleared or found to not be ineligible to legally possess firearms, the amount of mental fortitude, the time, money, and resources spent to clear their name is an unnecessary burden. If they win, they still lose in some manner because if such laws did not exist, they wouldn't have had to go through the ordeal to begin with. Ultimately, the issue with such laws is there isn't enough evidence on the respondent (or very little) and said person is first deprived of their rights before having to disprove the complainant's claims. Additionally (even for those who aren't really going to CTB), people who want to CTB on their own terms would be lumped into the same laws and policies, but that is for another topic.

Bonus point: Criminals and bad actors don't care about the law!
I still stand by the fact that most of the restrictions and regulations not only serve to inconvenience and frustrate law abiding citizens, but of course as history proves time and time again, criminals don't always follow the law! In other countries, sure this may be more nuanced and complex than just a blanket statement, but of course bad actors will always abuse something. When the law or government restricts and limits certain features or aspects of a tool, criminals will try to find workarounds or even resort to other means, so it only burdens the law abiding citizen. Countries without firearms, criminals still exist and commit harm towards innocent and law abiding citizens though, so even in other countries where they restrict other tools (like knives, bats, pepper spray, other weapons, tools) through invasive and paternalistic policies, it once again, only inconveniences (at best) and puts their citizens in a less advantageous position.

So there is all of my main arguments and the stance I have with relation to gun rights and such. There are more that I can say, but since that is quite a lot to take in, I thought I'd just state my stance and list the major points that comprise my position with regards to the 2nd amendment. While I do share some views on various topics and issues that are more liberal (economics and social issues), I don't consider myself to be either affiliated or standing with either particular party. If I could have it my way, I would not consider 2nd amendment to be either a conservative or liberal issue, but a non-partisan issue, but I digress. Anyways, feel free to chime in and give your two cents.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's kind of ironic because, for the purposes of suicide, I would love to have access to firearms. Still- now that I have SN, I may have chosen that instead anyway. Less messy for people to clear up. Plus, I wouldn't trust myself to aim straight!

Maybe it's because I've grown up not believing it's my right to own firearms but, I'm actually grateful they're harder to acquire in the UK. Maybe they are good in some ways but, we have fewer school shootings, fewer shootings in general and that's bound to be because they aren't so accessible. Apparently, 2023 was particularly bad for unintentional shootings by children in the US- surpassing 400 incidents. Maybe they wouldn't have happened if their caregivers had been more responsible but, how do you make sure everyone is being responsible?

I can sort of understand the appeal to protect yourself and your house. Still, can't you get in a whole lot of trouble if you actually shoot and kill a burglar? Not sure really. Google seems to think some states allow deadly force but you probably need to feel mortally threatened yourself. Which you would do I suppose if they had a gun themselves- which they're more likely to have when they can get hold of them more easily. I still imagine it could land you in a whole load of really tragic shit though, eg. the Oscar Pistorius case.

The more criminals carry guns, the more everyday people will, to protect themselves, the more police will till I imagine at least a proportion of volatile people are all tooled up. It's not only going to be reasonable, rational people that can get their hands on them. I just think it's looking for trouble. I think the bad outweighs the good personally but, I can understand opposing views when it's always been a part of your culture and your rights.

 

[TAW122]

Thanks for the input and thoughts @Forever Sleep I always enjoyed your feedback on my threads and such. I guess there are laws such as safe storage laws and also similar penalties for caregivers and other legal adults if they are grossly negligent in their storage or handling of firearms, they could be prosecuted for that instead. I won't go into all the details, but basically even if the law isn't targetted at specifically firearms itself, the actions that cause harm, especially if done without care or very haphazardly (again, gross neglience), then said person could be held legally responsible. For example, if they left the firearm in an area they know that a reasonable person could access (like in plain sight, unsecured, and such), then they would be in legal trouble, however, suppose they stored it in a safe, but somehow someone got access to it (despite doing everything that any reasonable, average person wouldn't be able to circumvent), then they wouldn't be held legally responsible. IANAL so this is just based on my common sense and layman's knowledge of the law and not legal advice.

Also, the next point I'm going to make (also not legal advice either, but just a lay person's understanding of the law) is that it depends on the state, you are correct on that. In various states, there are 'castle doctrine' laws meaning that the owner has no duty to retreat and can protect their own property (home or even vehicle - some states recognize a vehicle as an extension of a home) from invaders and intruders. However, in states without such laws, it would require the owner to be threatened with great bodily injury, harm, or death before they are legally allowed to defend themselves with lethal force (usually states with very strict gun control laws and such).

On the last point, I could see that people from outside of the US viewing that with many guns in circulation, more criminals carry firearms, then more law abiding citizens carry them and the cycle perpetuates, such that even the police become more heavily armed, and that leads to more lethal outcomes. In some instances I could see the logic play out, but as someone who grew up in the US (while not in a bad area, but just average, suburban neighborhood and the surrounding public area), I don't personally see the bad outweighing the good (not just because of US bias). I hardly ever see people open carry (maybe they might conceal carry - which in many states requires a concealed carry permit/license to do so). Also, I have never saw people getting into arguments and then opening fire or any of the sort, that isn't to say it never happens, but it is perhaps less frequent that what most people outside of the US are led to believe. I think some of the US based users may be able to also corroborate with my points in this thread too.

 

[amaluuk]

Gun control is complicated in the US because like basically every seemingly isolated policy issue here, it's really often a smokescreen for another agenda. Mass shootings have largely taken over the gun control discussion, but back in the day it was all about gang violence and reducing conflict in the inner city. The major problem there of course that police departments in the US have a bit of a racism problem to put it lightly and that such gun control measures basically meant in practice disarmament of black people.

5 Things to Know About the Failed War on Gun Violence

Gun possession arrests are a major policing tactic in the fight against gun violence. Here’s how that plays out.

www.themarshallproject.org

It's no coincidence that California's gun laws first started clamping up alongside the rise of the Black Panther Party, after all. The fixation on the debate with mass shooter violence is pretty new though. I'm not sold on it for the above reasons, I don't really think this current government can be trusted with those sorts of powers (I mean if you passed an assault rifle ban you'd be asking scores of police officers and police chiefs across the country to effectively disarm themselves, especially in the Deep South, and that's not gonna go down well), and it will probably be abused like everything is. I don't like either whenever pro-gun control people say gun violence in the US is higher than it is in other "high income" countries like the third world is somehow entitled to less security than we are (they do this with healthcare too).

On the other hand, it is rather amusing that most anti-gun control Americans legitimately don't think a seemingly annual and globally unprecedented occurrence of teenagers massacring their public schools is something worth addressing at all. Like yeah, that's normal, don't worry about it. The whole "criminals don't care about the law" thing also irks me. It's true with gang stuff, sure, but the teenagers shooting up schools almost never obtain them illegally and don't have the means to. They either save up for it and literally buy the arsenal all at once and walk out with it same day, or they bum it from their parents. Can we really expect that the socially maladjusted teenagers who are inclined to shoot up their schools have the resources to illegally procure assault weapons on the black market? I don't think they can get them off Tor the way you can get drugs.

Overall I'm mixed. Maybe if we have a revolution and things get better we can talk about gun control but so much would change that I don't even know if we'd need it anymore. Certainly under the current circumstances though I'm not sold.