The "winner takes all" political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people
Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?
The extreme divide between rich and poor
Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union
The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie
Most people aren't hugely divided on guns. Like you said, you're seeing the two extremes of the parties, not the will of the people. Browsing Lemmy would convince you that everyone except for the big bad GOP wants guns banned, and that's simply not true. Most people want responsible gun limitations, not total gun bans.
Problem though is, define "responsible gun limitations."
That could mean anything from "just ending private sale" to "full on confiscation of millions of firearms from millions of people, that have the usual laundry list of california un-approved accessories for no reason" depending on who you're talking to.
Most of the laws proposed in the last 20yr are either entirely innefective or too effective and could easily be abused to deny people their rights (those people are usually the marginalized or disenfranchised, not rich white men, of course).
Well it is hard from a "cat out of the bag" reason.
To be clear I agree, there's way to many guns around and the best time to plant a tree is before today, but today is better than tomorrow. So let's start.
But there's millions of absolutely unknown guns here and banning them would create a black market with no end in sight
I didn't say ban them, I said restrict them. Heavily. Tax them. Increase bullet prices. Kinda like that black comedian, forgot his name, said: make every bullet 5000 dollars. Im gonna save up, I'm going to get an extra job, imma get me a bank loan, and then you're a dead man!
It was funny, but I think there is a realistic point to it. Make it all most expensive and people will use it less, have it least, cause less casualties
Also to be honest I'm not sure I'm cool with the "rich white people that are friends with some congressman are the only ones who deserve the right to protect themselves" attitude most of the anti gun crowd seems to default to. Sure, they tell you that isn't what they want and frankly I believe them, but they still advocate for policies that will in effect criminalize gun ownership for especially the poor and disenfranchised, and also the vanishing "middle class." Especially considering our tendancy to enforce things like this in overpoliced marginalized neighborhoods, you think they're rolling into gated communities talking about some guns? Nope, they'll be just fine, after all, they "need it to protect their lives from those who seek their property," you are "too poor to have to worry about that, just die."
Guns are one of those things thats really hard to restrict. It's a freedom that most enjoy, and some abuse. Most that own guns responsibly don't want their guns taken away due to law changes.
This was actually the case with automatic firearms, automatic firearms were legal to buy until 1986, ironically with the support of the NRA, which is the largest gun lobby in favor of less gun control. In this ban of automatic firearms, they allowed existing owners to keep their automatics.
You can count self defense cases and crimes with those weapons on one hand, most crimes are committed with handguns.
Another argument is just banning "assault style rifles". This is basically the blanket description of an AR-15 style rifle, that is generally the same design as an M4 carbine in the military, with it's adjustable stock, 16 inch barrel, black color, with a comfy pistol grip, the automatic function removed, and an MLOK rail for attachments like lights, lasers, or sights.
The reason that this description is silly, is because a normal semi-auto hunting rifle is functionally the exact same as an "assault rifle". It has magazines and you can fire it rapidly buy pushing the trigger rapidly. You could ductape lights and lasers to it. Gun manufacturers could simply sell the same gun without the "tactical" features which are convenient for all users, and it would change nothing about crime.
Additionally, if there's a huge gun buyback and all gun owners turn in their guns because the second amendment has been repealed, criminals are not going to turn in their guns, and it would leave many defenseless.
Often times, guns are necessary for those living in rural areas, because there is a great number of threats from wildlife in rural areas, from Alligators, to Mountain Lions, to Grizzly Bears and Brown Bears and Black Bears. Hunting is required to control the ecosystems of large game and small game. Additionally, many hunters opt to use the "tactical assault style rifles" due to their modularity. (Not always, many still use bolt action rifles, when it's for sport).
Nobody in America actually has a problem with responsible gun ownership. The disagreements between states go down to magazine sizes, barrel sizes, concealed carry laws, concealed carry permits, etc.
Yes school shootings are a problem, with some troubled person shooting up a school with an "Assault style rifle". But the fact of the matter is that it makes up an extremely small minority of gun crime.
The only difference between the US and Switzerland for example, is the fact that we are allowed to use the weapons in self defense versus animals or human assailants in our homes or in public. The other difference is the process to obtain firearms.
The last reason you will see resistance against gun control comes from the left. Gun control was originally pushed by conservative Republicans in the mid 20th century as a response to the Black Panther movement, civil rights group that operated as a militia and open carried rifles around town.
There's an argument that gun control would be systemically racist agenda, because it would restrict gun control only to those with the money and time and clean records to complete the checks to complete a purchase of a firearm. It would leave minority groups less armed compared to conservative white males.
Weapons are inherently a check against violence in this way. Similar to how the world uses the fact that it can destroy each other as leverage for mutual and relative peace.
As for being able to relate this to someone from Europe who has never handled firearms or can't understand the need for them, or people stubborn about them, I can relate as someone who never felt the need to own a weapon until recently. It's quite similar to the freedom a motor vehicle gives you. You get used to the autonomy and independence that a vehicle gives you. Being able to take apart the machine, customize it, optimize it, make it yours and express yourself through that construction.
I'm not trying to draw a false equivalency, but it's the closest one I can portray.
Guns. Just restrict them, it's not that hard
The "winner takes all" political system that ends with two extremist parties and a huge divide between people
Healthcare. Do I need to say anything?
The extreme divide between rich and poor
Police force. They hire lowly educated people, preferably racist, receiving barely any training, and what they do get is mostly nonsense. They then get military equipment, and the entire system is protected by a corrupt union
The amount that news organizations are allowed to lie
Most people aren't hugely divided on guns. Like you said, you're seeing the two extremes of the parties, not the will of the people. Browsing Lemmy would convince you that everyone except for the big bad GOP wants guns banned, and that's simply not true. Most people want responsible gun limitations, not total gun bans.
Problem though is, define "responsible gun limitations."
That could mean anything from "just ending private sale" to "full on confiscation of millions of firearms from millions of people, that have the usual laundry list of california un-approved accessories for no reason" depending on who you're talking to.
Most of the laws proposed in the last 20yr are either entirely innefective or too effective and could easily be abused to deny people their rights (those people are usually the marginalized or disenfranchised, not rich white men, of course).
Well it is hard from a "cat out of the bag" reason.
To be clear I agree, there's way to many guns around and the best time to plant a tree is before today, but today is better than tomorrow. So let's start.
But there's millions of absolutely unknown guns here and banning them would create a black market with no end in sight
I didn't say ban them, I said restrict them. Heavily. Tax them. Increase bullet prices. Kinda like that black comedian, forgot his name, said: make every bullet 5000 dollars. Im gonna save up, I'm going to get an extra job, imma get me a bank loan, and then you're a dead man!
It was funny, but I think there is a realistic point to it. Make it all most expensive and people will use it less, have it least, cause less casualties
Also to be honest I'm not sure I'm cool with the "rich white people that are friends with some congressman are the only ones who deserve the right to protect themselves" attitude most of the anti gun crowd seems to default to. Sure, they tell you that isn't what they want and frankly I believe them, but they still advocate for policies that will in effect criminalize gun ownership for especially the poor and disenfranchised, and also the vanishing "middle class." Especially considering our tendancy to enforce things like this in overpoliced marginalized neighborhoods, you think they're rolling into gated communities talking about some guns? Nope, they'll be just fine, after all, they "need it to protect their lives from those who seek their property," you are "too poor to have to worry about that, just die."
Guns are one of those things thats really hard to restrict. It's a freedom that most enjoy, and some abuse. Most that own guns responsibly don't want their guns taken away due to law changes.
This was actually the case with automatic firearms, automatic firearms were legal to buy until 1986, ironically with the support of the NRA, which is the largest gun lobby in favor of less gun control. In this ban of automatic firearms, they allowed existing owners to keep their automatics.
You can count self defense cases and crimes with those weapons on one hand, most crimes are committed with handguns.
Another argument is just banning "assault style rifles". This is basically the blanket description of an AR-15 style rifle, that is generally the same design as an M4 carbine in the military, with it's adjustable stock, 16 inch barrel, black color, with a comfy pistol grip, the automatic function removed, and an MLOK rail for attachments like lights, lasers, or sights.
The reason that this description is silly, is because a normal semi-auto hunting rifle is functionally the exact same as an "assault rifle". It has magazines and you can fire it rapidly buy pushing the trigger rapidly. You could ductape lights and lasers to it. Gun manufacturers could simply sell the same gun without the "tactical" features which are convenient for all users, and it would change nothing about crime.
Additionally, if there's a huge gun buyback and all gun owners turn in their guns because the second amendment has been repealed, criminals are not going to turn in their guns, and it would leave many defenseless.
Often times, guns are necessary for those living in rural areas, because there is a great number of threats from wildlife in rural areas, from Alligators, to Mountain Lions, to Grizzly Bears and Brown Bears and Black Bears. Hunting is required to control the ecosystems of large game and small game. Additionally, many hunters opt to use the "tactical assault style rifles" due to their modularity. (Not always, many still use bolt action rifles, when it's for sport).
Nobody in America actually has a problem with responsible gun ownership. The disagreements between states go down to magazine sizes, barrel sizes, concealed carry laws, concealed carry permits, etc.
Yes school shootings are a problem, with some troubled person shooting up a school with an "Assault style rifle". But the fact of the matter is that it makes up an extremely small minority of gun crime.
The only difference between the US and Switzerland for example, is the fact that we are allowed to use the weapons in self defense versus animals or human assailants in our homes or in public. The other difference is the process to obtain firearms.
The last reason you will see resistance against gun control comes from the left. Gun control was originally pushed by conservative Republicans in the mid 20th century as a response to the Black Panther movement, civil rights group that operated as a militia and open carried rifles around town.
There's an argument that gun control would be systemically racist agenda, because it would restrict gun control only to those with the money and time and clean records to complete the checks to complete a purchase of a firearm. It would leave minority groups less armed compared to conservative white males.
Weapons are inherently a check against violence in this way. Similar to how the world uses the fact that it can destroy each other as leverage for mutual and relative peace.
As for being able to relate this to someone from Europe who has never handled firearms or can't understand the need for them, or people stubborn about them, I can relate as someone who never felt the need to own a weapon until recently. It's quite similar to the freedom a motor vehicle gives you. You get used to the autonomy and independence that a vehicle gives you. Being able to take apart the machine, customize it, optimize it, make it yours and express yourself through that construction.
I'm not trying to draw a false equivalency, but it's the closest one I can portray.
I hope this answered your question!
:3
Very well written and informative. Great job.