what would that process entail in a shop? — Lael

It would be a database. The US is woefully inadequate when it comes to record keeping, particularly cross-state and cross-department, it seems. I don't know the inner workings, but not having gun owners who had mental health issues on a register is insane. Gun dealers should be licensed and given access to a database through which any potential buyer must be screened for several things,mental health being one (or at least, reported mental health issues). It wont be perfect, and wont catch "after the fact" mental health issues, but nothing would. So there's that...

Though, this brings up a pretty nuance point I am not sure where I fall on: Veterans with guns. I am unsure that's a safe proposition for some of them. But surely, more htan most, veterans are capable of handling guns in the absence of mental illness. Tough one.

this seems to be a moot point — Michael

How so? Present your argument.

---



Everything I said also applies to nuclear weapons. I even mentioned nuclear weapons in my post.

I think this is a thoughtful and good post. As an american that would rather die than give up the 2nd amendment, let me offer you some brief points you can address (if you would like):

1.The people well-regulated in arms is necessary to mitigate the tyrannical nature of the government: a militia is necessary to keep checks and balances on a military. This is a key concept in American politics that you did not address.

2. Guns are the great equalizer. Although you mentioned “individual security”, you omitted the key fact that guns are the best and safest way to defend oneself from aggressors—which has no bearing on this idea that “well, everyone already has a gun, so I should too!”. E.g., a woman cannot truly defend herself properly with pepper spray or a knife or her fists; a man cannot properly defend himself against three men; etc. Likewise, it is the safest way to de-escalate or at least deal with a lethal threat. Anyone who engages in melee fighting, unless they are heavily trained, should expect to end up in the hospital best case scenario. A knife fight, a fist fight, a bat fight, etc. is a lose-lose situation. If someone is lethally threatening me or a loved one, usually I could just pull out my firearm in compressed ready position and they will walk away: most criminals want to go after the sheep—the easy target. Most people think guns only escalate situations, but the vast majority of the time they de-escalate them.

3. You can’t just look at homicide or violent crime rates. You also have to look at how often guns are used in self-defense. In America, they are used anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times per year to legitimately save someone.

4. Removing the people’s ability to carry weaponry in a responsible manner ONLY makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Most people in any nation are generally law-abiding and so most people will not carry anything if it is illegal; but this is something a criminal will not follow. For example, I was shocked to find out that even pepper spray is illegal in Britain to conceal or open carry: a criminal that wants to do damage will carry a weapon (e.g., a knife, bat, etc.) and the fact that their victim, who most likely will be a law-abiding citizen, will not just helps them!

5. Any kind of technology that allows the government to well-regulate firearms or any weapons defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment: it is meant to allow the people to be a well-regulated militia to defend against the government itself.

:up:

CC: @Samlw

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical" -- (Jefferson's Letter to Madison)

Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

This is the USA we are talking about? So having guns is preventing the downfall of your democracy, unlike those other western nations were there are gun controls...

Hows' that working out?

I don't think Europe is a great place to live; and I do think that our guns would help prevent an authoratative regime shift.

So just to be clear, your argument is that you want the government (currently run by Trump) to be the only people allowed to have guns? And you see no problems with this alternative future?

You equate "the government" with the President. The US constitution effectively elects a king. But there were - until recently - other powers to keep that monarch in check. The breach of the separation of the powers we see now was not prevented by your owning guns.

The argument that owning guns keeps the government in check rings very hollow.

Indeed, this whole argument, this discussion of gun control as a democratic principle, is a Furphy, a distraction. The US failed to provide an adequate mechanism for social support, allowing a gross disparity in the distribution of wealth. The result is, unsurprisingly, an oligarchy.

The issue is equitable distribution of power, not of guns.



SO which...

I do think that our guns would help prevent an authoratative regime shift. — Bob Ross

or

(gun owenership) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

You want your cake and to eat it.

You want your cake and to eat it. — Banno

That looks exactly like one of those false dilemmas that you go around accusing everyone else of. :roll:

Any kind of technology that allows the government to well-regulate firearms or any weapons defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment: it is meant to allow the people to be a well-regulated militia to defend against the government itself. — Bob Ross

ANY weapons?

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military and has historically broad applications for deploying the national guard, was more my point. And no, I don't see it as a distraction. I see a lot of attempts at gun control as a very deliberate attempt to make the populace easier to control. Proper gun training, safety and respect for the power of the tool does more good than banning them does. To be clear though, I am not fully against some level of gun regulation.

To your broader point, I don't see giving up individual power as an equivalent exchange for what you get in return. Countries that have banned guns also have wealth inequality and violent criminals. What sense does it make to ask that someone give up their personal protection for an imperfect promise of external protection?

And no, I don't see it as a distraction. — MrLiminal

That explains a lot.

Countries that have banned guns also have wealth inequality and violent criminals. — MrLiminal

:rofl: Such logic!

Remember this?


Don't get me wrong, the demise of US democracy is a tragedy.

*shrug* Not sure what else to say to that. Giving up personal freedom for an imperfect promise of safety does not seem rational to me.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty. — Wayfarer

Or, the root of the root of the issue is how to deal with the inevitable monstrosity and absolute horror show that is human nature, unrestricted. I've long said, and have proven on paper, actually, the only difference between the average man and the worst dictator or tyrant who ever lived are but two transient and equally inevitable things: Opportunity. And time. All written history attests to this theory as not just theorem but pure fact in the most concrete sense of the word. Time and time again. No matter what is introduced or deprived, the assertion remains constant.

Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? Someone who doesn't do too much harm or good? I'm thinking of most people I know and none of them would turn into, say, Pol Pot, if they were put in that position.

Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? — RogueAI

Absolutely. And that's the problem. These things don't "scale" as one inexperienced with such areas of social workings might imagine. The average person generally goes through life without causing himself or those in his immediate care or even occasional guardianship death or injury. Because he basically has the pressures or stress of a stray cat. Existential "existence" basically is taken care of by the government. Sure he has to work, provide, avoid and occasionally fend off danger. But that's on a one on one personal level. There's 7 billion people doing the same. All he has to do is worry about his isolated (detached) social bubble and idea of reality, and he lives and dies a happy life. Simple. Now, to become a leader, responsible for the thousands if not millions of things people never think about, and many frankly could not even fathom ,that creates this artificial product we call peaceful society, all day, everyday? Good luck!

Moreover, my point was, temptation generally defeats morality for morality's sake when no counter-incentive is implied. Human nature is opportunistic. The majority of people here wouldn't be here if this were not so. It's biology. Science. Not my opinion. Just fact that can be proven on paper. And so requires control. Discipline. Lest we end up in a swirling torrent of perpetual degeneracy destroying everything we worked hard for and hold dear, until all that is left is an abyssal wasteland of decay and trepidation. To be incarcerated, without realizing, waking up one day, in a near alien world of immorality and trepidation, a society we try to escape from yet know deep down we never can. That, is all what the average man made ruler can provide, or at least will inevitably result in.

Simply put, if you can kill two birds in one stone, why wouldn't you? Eventually, these birds become entire peoples and stones become armies under one's command. All one needs to do is open a history book to confirm that this is not mere postulation but observation in the most absolute sense of the word.

Or, the root of the root of the issue is how to deal with the inevitable monstrosity and absolute horror show that is human nature, unrestricted. — Outlander

So does this mean, because human nature is horrible, then you’re under threat, hence the need to arm yourself? Is that what you’re saying?

So does this mean, because human nature is horrible, then you’re under threat, hence the need to arm yourself? Is that what you’re saying? — Wayfarer

No, it means exactly what I said. Simplified, bearing in mind the context of your assumption, which I'm sure is quite reasonable: Power corrupts. Do you disagree with that? If so please explain why, preferably with examples that can be proven on paper. I have plenty. How many do you have? Not many, I'd imagine.

The thread is about gun control, and my comment was about equating gun ownership with civil freedom. You might explain how what you said has a bearing on that.

I will start off with a couple pro's I see for less gun control. — Samlw

I’d like to revisit the question: “Do citizens need the right to own firearms?” and break down the common arguments for and against gun ownership.

Arguments in favor of gun ownership:

National Security. Some argue that an armed populace could deter foreign invasions. In reality, any aggressor would account for this and likely avoid ground invasions, especially in an era of advanced technology and nuclear threats. The idea that civilians would unite and effectively resist a professional army is more romantic than realistic. History, like Middle Eastern conflicts, shows that armed rebels often cause chaos among civilians rather than successfully oppose organized forces.

Self-Defense. Owning a gun for self-defense sounds reasonable, but its practical effectiveness is questionable. Using a firearm effectively requires training and composure under pressure—skills most civilians lack. For non-professionals (unlike police or security), the risks of losing the weapon, escalating conflicts, or failing to use it in time outweigh the benefits.

Personal Freedom. Claiming that guns ensure personal freedom often boils down to “don’t mess with me, I’m armed.” This isn’t freedom—it’s a threat that can provoke rather than protect. True freedom means living without fear, not brandishing a weapon.

Deterring Tyranny. The notion that armed citizens could resist a tyrannical government is appealing but unrealistic. State security forces are designed to uphold authority, and any resistance would likely be swiftly crushed. In a civil war scenario, widespread gun ownership would fuel chaos, not prevent it.

Arguments against gun ownership:

Weapons in the Wrong Hands. No licensing or mental health screening can fully eliminate human error. A lost, stolen, or misused gun can lead to tragedy—imagine a forgotten pistol ending up with someone unstable.
Increased Mortality. Firearms amplify the consequences of conflicts. An angry or unstable person with a gun can cause catastrophic harm. U.S. statistics (13.7 deaths per 100,000 people) show a clear correlation between gun availability and higher violence rates.
My stance: Ideally, firearms should be limited to those who need them for their profession (military, hunters, high-level security). For most citizens, guns pose more risks than benefits. With over 400 million firearms in the U.S., drastic measures won’t solve the issue overnight, but that’s no excuse for inaction. Gradual steps—stricter licensing, gun amnesties, biometric trigger locks, and harsher penalties for illegal possession—could reduce violence over time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

The thread is about gun control, and my comment was about equating gun ownership with civil freedom. You might explain how what you said has a bearing on that. — Wayfarer

Sure, we're extending the debate into larger enveloping (yet fundamentally relevant) concepts that aren't ordinarily part and parcel of such. Does that really warrant a refusal to answer such concepts in the rude manner you've just displayed by suggesting I may somehow be "out of line" for forcing you to answer a root and fundamental question you are seemingly unable to?

In a sentence, a man can use his body or anything his body can wield to do great and amazing things, whether these things are destructive (killing an innocent person) or constructive (building something or perhaps defending an innocent would-be victim preventing said person's death), depends on the underlying morality or education of the individual. This is common sense, and this is not your first rodeo. Why act as such? Don't try to paint me into a corner, please. You might find your equipment is not as loyal to you as you first expected.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty. — Wayfarer

Yep.

It seems to me I’m asking a straightforward question that is being met by circumlocution.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty.
— Wayfarer
Yep. — Banno

That's true for a lot of people, but I suspect there's a lot of people who think like me: I know someone breaking into my house is pretty unlikely, but I keep a gun around because I really don't want to be empty-handed if it does happen. And guns are fun to collect and target shoot with. And in a SHTF scenario, it's good to have a gun around. I don't look at guns as an extension of muh rights.

I guess if you live in a society with high rates of gun ownership and the possibility of violent crime then it would seem necessary. That’s the ‘vicious circle’ aspect of gun ownership. The more others have weapons, the more we feel the need for them. That shows up in the spikes in gun sales that often happens after mass shootings

equating gun ownership with civil freedom. — Wayfarer

A gun is an item. Is that correct? It fires a projectile that can be used for hunting, gathering of food, and of course, defense if needed. Food is required for life. Not dying (self defense) is also. Do you believe any of the aforementioned statements to be false or misleading? If so, why. Sigh. These games are getting tiresome.

So you’re comparing guns with nutrition?

That gun is far more likely to kill you or someone you love than a home invader.

You are kidding yourself, and putting your family in danger.

Sad, but that's it.

My kid is grown. It's just me and my wife. I would never have a gun around if I ever get grandkids. But you're probably right anyway. It's probably more likely I'll accidentally shoot my wife in an ambien stupor then a home invader.

ETA: I think I used the wrong "then" but I'm not entirely sure.