They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.
Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one
How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?
I mean, we've already got our pitchforks out, fuck it
OP is racist!!
It's not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy
Noticing that a bit in this thread
The decision to gender only the victim is questionable.
The argument doesn't sound as convincing this way:
A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.
that is not a resonable test in this situation.
Dont use 'woman' as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.
Okay, but they did. I see how it sounds sexist, but how is it actually sexist? Dainty women do exist, and are on average, more dainty than dainty men.
IMO introducing gender only to use traditional sex sterotypes to frame the discussion is sexist.
Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It's a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said "eating greasy McDonald's or whatever", they could have just said "eating unhealthy food" but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.
And the sterotype they are playing into is sexist.
So the more guns there are the less gun crime, right?
So the more guns there are the less gun crime
That is not the claim
What is the claim of then?
A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people
That’s what I said.
Their claim is more guns reduce gun crime.
In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the 'burliest of asailants' was using physical strength as their weapon.
No it is not, you are saying two completely different things.
Does having a pilots livense reduce your likelihood of dying in plane crash?
Vs
Does having a pilots license give you the ability to be responsible for your own safety in plane?
Two completely different things
Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.
Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.
having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works
No, it's that it grants you the opportunity to defend yourself, not that you can.
(more guns reducing gun crime)
That is not what that means. Nowhere is that claimed. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase it for you.
You’re unable to come up with a response to my argument so you try to discredit me by claiming I used AI to write it?
That’s not just a lazy and unintelligent rebuttal but it’s just sad too.
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren't a solution but a problem themselves.
People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.
While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one
Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it's why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.
Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it's easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.
Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren't evil machines only used for crime, you're a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.
It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.
Sounds like a correlation/causation error to me
And having a pilots license makes you more unsafe when you ride on a plane
That one Alaska pilot had to go and ruin it for everyone.
Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
You missed the obvious solution:
You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.
And every sniper has a sniper covering their back.
Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!
Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?
Do you know how the last japanese PM died?
A good guy with a gun, iirc.
Literally
Get fucked, Shinzo Abe's racist and sexist ghost, I know you're reading this.
Without concealed carrying a firearm? ^/s^
That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.
💀
Ho ho, buddy! I don't agree, but I won't keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they're right. But don't take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
I was just in Hawaii a few weeks ago. Both touristy and non-touristy areas. I can concur, would be a weird ass vibe if I saw someone open carry
Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?
No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it's wrong.
You can get out of military service this way though.
it’s not a medical definition of life so…
When they wrote the laws against murder in the late 18th century they didn't really draw that distinction, unfortunately. That's how laws work, the intent of the lawmakers who voted to pass it are what matters when attempting to enforce it. A similar case would be making Donald Trump ineligible for office over sedition, he put up a legal defence claiming that the lawmakers never intended for it to apply to presidents or other high level office holders, but it turns out the congressional records detail the conversations when they considered making exemptions and decided it should apply to everyone.
if only we applied such strict adherence to original intent to the 2nd amendment
Hawaii's Supreme court actually has very recently, and the Assault Rifle Ban that expired a few years ago was also a great example of it, but yes I agree more consistency and less corruption in government would be great.
It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).
Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.
For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person's autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.
How is that any different? It's still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.
While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.
I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn't have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn't alive. Now it is. "
at least theyre tryin
It was always that way, the problem was that they wouldn’t give out permits to anyone.
That's didn't feel like a problem. No permits, no guns.
That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we're talking about so I imagine it's much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.
Considering the easiest way to get a gun "illegally" is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.
I hate this argument because it shows just how little people know about gun laws.
It's federally illegal to buy a pistol outside of your home state. You can't just go to a gun shop the next state over and buy a Glock 17.
For long guns, the seller must follow the laws of the state in which it is sold AND in which the buyer lives.
When I sold guns and someone from New Jersey wanted to buy a rifle, they had to produce their New Jersey permit and I to do the New Jersey background check and waiting period on top of the NICS background check required federally. I had to reference New Jersey laws and could only sell guns that were legal in that state.
We had a spreadsheet we kept up to date with every firearm we had in stock, new or used, listing whether it was legal in each state.
So it sounds like you're a law abiding citizen..
The argument I'm replying to is that criminals are buying guns in neighboring states because the laws are looser and they can get away with it.
But the laws regarding buying a gun outside one's home state are federal, and don't change from state to state. A California resident buying a Glock 43 in Texas is no more legal than them buying it in California. In fact - it's moreso. Buying it in California is just buying a gun illegally by California law. Buying it in Texas is violating California, Texas, and Federal law, and then illegally smuggling the gun afterwards.
Well, actually, they cited the state and federal constitution and chose to interpret "well regulated militia" does not accurately describe untrained civilians even though the SCOTUS disagreed. Which is a little more substantial than just Aloha Spirit, imo.
I love the aloha spirit! I hope it spreads like COVID. I mean, in a good way.
is this the only ōlelo hawaiʻi word that anyone remembers
Can’t wait for this to be appealed and struck down.
I like gun
Well thats going to get shut down
States can ignore SCOTUS rulings now.
I'm surprised to see so many people supporting the actions of Gov. Abbott.
I don't think it's necessarily support. But if actions have no consequences then there's no reason not to? Not that it's a good argument but it's apparently reality
Maybe "accepting" would have been a better choice? I don't know.
What are they supposed to do about it? The average person can't afford to take a day off to protest.
Clearly. I guess this is the country now. Supreme Court rulings are optional unless the President decides to send in troops to enforce it.
I'm not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it's not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are "reasonable" and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn't even try to register or get a carry license?
Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.
There's Shall Issue and there's "Shall Issue". Where I live (Bay area) it's 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there's a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I'm not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff's or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
Okay?
So you're not sure what Hawaii's rules on carry permits are, but you're sure they're bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it's pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don't want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can't bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
What I never get is how people who don't want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It's everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don't even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.
For one, I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn't the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.
Second, bold of you to assume that people who don't want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn't get up and think "I better make sure I'm ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store".
Saw another post and thought of your response here... I think the difference is those of us who know what it takes absolutely feel more comfortable around people who have something to lose, because they do not conflate their position with expertise granting blanket immunity from consequences for their mistakes.
You seem to keep coming back to some belief that I hold cops in some esteem. I don't.
For all the warts of the profession, they're still a known quantity. You know why the cop has the gun. You know they completed their minimum of one semester of training and bare minimum psychological evaluation. You know they have a high school diploma.
Anyone else, you know that they could ... Afford a gun. If it's concealed, you know that they took an eight hour course in safety. You know rather little about their stability or anything else. You don't know why they brought the gun.
In both cases, you also know that they likely exceed those minimums by a fair margin.
As mentioned, cpl holders tend to be enthusiastic and proficient, law abiding citizens. Where I live cops tends to have four year degrees on top of a full year of dedicated police training and supplementary medical training and continuing education requirements.
Again, don't particularly want to have either around me, but one has less question marks.
Also, linking to idiots with guns isn't a great way to testify to the responsibility of gun owners.
"I better make sure I'm ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store".
Funnily enough that is exactly what the cop said. If he gets a call to a grocery store about some violent dickhead, he may be right, too.
Not to mention the cops have a reputation of shooting unarmed black people, are actually statistically worse shots than CCW holders, and statistically commit less crimes than CCW holders.
So the difference there is that someone called the cops to the grocery store, as opposed to a rando taking their gun to buy milk.
Do you really not see the difference between a job where people pay you to carry a gun, and some random person deciding that they want to carry a gun just in case?
One has the job of "person we decided responds to violent situations, while they're are work doing what we asked them to do", and the other is "I have no idea who this person is, they're wearing a dirty T-shirt, holding a cartoon of milk and wearing a pistol at the checkout line of this 7-11”.
With a cop, you have a known quantity and you know why they have the gun. With rando, you just know they have a gun, with no clue why.
Finally, you're totally correct. That's why a lot of people don't exactly like being around armed police either.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people are made to feel less safe being around people with guns, and would like to avoid it where possible?
Well typically murderers don't order victims by phone, no, unless we're counting delivery drivers maybe, but that just means civilians "need to have it when they need it" more than the people who get advanced notice.
Do you really think victims of violent crime don't need or deserve to protect themselves, simply because their job isn't responding to others being victimized? Why do you think cops, which have less training hours than cosmetologists, are superheros somehow better than other civilians?
Btw I'll give you a tip, usually the guy with a gun you have to worry about isn't "some dirty prole open carrying," it's someone concealing it illegally and you'll never know until it becomes a problem. Most legal carriers also carry concealed, so that dirty prole behind you in line "without a gun?" You can never be sure, he may in fact have one just under a thin layer of cotton/polyester blend.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people are made to feel less safe being around people with guns, and would like to avoid it where possible?
Tbh, yes. If you live in America and don't just "work, home, sleep" (if you go anywhere in public, a mall, the movies, church,anywhere) you likely pass a person with a gun at least one time a day and never even know. Being scared of everyone with a gun is honestly more irrational than just being scared of everyone because they could have a gun. I for one choose not to live my life in fear, if I see a person open carrying I just say "ayy cool is that the p365? How do you like that thing? I had to replace my p320 and got a p10c instead but I've been thinking about picking one of those up" and now I have a new, albeit "dirty shirted," friend.
You seem to be taking this really personally.
You've started interjecting a lot of defensive talk about being a "prole", and thinking that people who don't feel safer in the presence of guns must live their lives in constant fear, or want to take guns away from people.
Re read what I said. I never said people shouldn't be able to own guns, or carry them. I said people should be able to say "you need my permission to bring a gun into my home or business".
I'll be honest with you, I feel like I probably live my life in less fear than the person who needs to carry a gun everywhere to feel safe.
I don't feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I'll need it, but I'll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.
I don't carry a gun to the grocery store because I'm afraid I'll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I'd rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don't just "go off" on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one's was in immediate danger.
I don't get up in the morning thinking "I better make sure I'm ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store." That's way too reductive and gung ho.
Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times?
What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?
My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.
Don't pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.
No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn't make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves "oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That's just what this Baskin Robbins needed".
Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times?
What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?
I was highlighting the convenience/safety tradeoff in taking basic precautions against low probability but high risk events. You were incorrectly stating that people feel like they need to carry a gun just to grocery shop, and I explained how that was false. Not sure how that went over your head, but it clearly did.
My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.
Ok, name a few? How else would someone mitigate risk of human threats against their life? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but you don't have to forgo carrying a weapon for self defense in order to eat healthy and exercise to mitigate risk of heart failure. Carrying a gun everyday also isn't a burden, and I enjoy range time and training. People should be allowed means to self defense if they want it. If they abuse it, they get their rights taken away. It's really quite simple.
Don't pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.
If the goal is having means for self defense against people, concealed carry is the only effective way to achieve it. Pepper spray, taser, knife, or anything else is objectively ineffective. I don't need a gun to grocery shop, but I do need a gun if I want adequate self defense.
No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn't make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves "oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That's just what this Baskin Robbins needed".
The goal isn't to make other people feel safe, the goal is to help myself and my loved ones. Other people will never know that I have a gun on me, so whether I actually have one or don't doesn't change anything from their point of view.
So in the beginning, you explain how I was wrong to think that it's people feeling they need a gun just to go grocery shopping, then you end by explaining how you need a gun to feel safe when you go grocery shopping.
I'm not sure you've really thought your position through all the way.
I'm not sure what you're looking for when you ask me to name a few larger risks and mitigations to you and your families personal safety. I literally opened with a list of precautions you could, but almost certainly aren't, taking. Wearing a helmet while in a motor vehicle, or refitting your car with a five point harness will do a lot to prevent injury or death in a vehicle accident, which is stupendously more likely than dealing with a dangerous armed person.
If you're not taking those options, but you are carrying a gun, I find it hard to believe that it's just a simple risk mitigation analysis, because your probabilities are grossly out of line.
Also, who said anything about denying people weapons or even the ability to carry them?
I said some people don't like being around guns, and you should be able to say "you can't bring a weapon into my house or business without my permission".
If that sounds like denying people their right to self defense to you.... I'm not sure you're worth talking to.
gonna have to aloha sprint the next time an open carry w/o permit thinks otherwise
Are you having a stroke?
Is your country such a shithole that you need a gun in order to feel safe walking around?
It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.
Because gun laws have worked in other places. Canada, Australia, The UK, etc don't have this problem.
One of the best things the govt here in aus did in my lifetime, was tighten gun laws and buy back as many guns as they could. While we're by no means free of gun violence and homicides, we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
I would be cautious of attributing the falling rates of firearms related crimes to the 1996 buyback [source]. It can be argued that the rates were already dropping prior to the 1996 buyback. This can also be further shown in other countries around the world that didn't enact such laws. For example, all of western Europe has shown declines in homocide rates since the 90s [source]:
we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
For the sake of clarity, here is a list of all the mass shootings that have happened in Australia -- from that list, I count 24 since the firearms buyback in the wake of the Tasmania mass shooting.
Actually, comparing violent gun crimes in the US and Australia reveals significant differences in homicide rates, mass shootings, and overall gun violence.
Homicide Rates
Intentional Homicide Rate: The intentional homicide rate in Australia was 0.74 per 100,000 residents in 2021, showing a decline from previous years[6]. In contrast, the US has a significantly higher rate[1].
Gun Homicide Rate: Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia[1].
Mass Shootings
Mass Shootings: Australia has seen a significant decrease in mass shootings since the implementation of stricter gun laws in 1996. Since then, there has been only one mass shooting in the 26 years following the enactment of these laws[4]. In contrast, the US has experienced well over 100 mass shootings in the same period[4].
Overall Gun Violence
Gun Violence: The US had 10 times higher death rates from gun violence than Australia[5]. This is despite similar rates of mental illness in both countries, suggesting that high rates of gun ownership and access to firearms in the US, rather than mental illness, are significant contributors to gun violence[5].
Firearms per Resident: The US has a much higher number of guns per resident compared to Australia. In the US, there are approximately 393 million guns owned among a population of about 335 million. In contrast, Australia has 3.5 million guns among a population of 26.4 million[5].
Gun Control Measures
Gun Control Laws: Australia implemented more restrictive firearms legislation in 1996 following several high-profile killing sprees. The laws included a ban on the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, a requirement for individuals to present a legitimate reason and wait 28 days to buy a firearm, and a massive, mandatory gun buyback program[4][8]. These measures have been associated with a significant decrease in gun-related homicides and mass shootings[4].
In summary, the US has higher rates of homicide and overall gun violence compared to Australia. These differences are influenced by stricter gun control laws in Australia and the higher prevalence of firearms in the US.
And the US has roughly 13x the population of Aus, so you would expect the US to only have 312 mass shootings in the same time frame, but the actual number is massively bigger than that.
Also it's extremely disingenuous to try passing off a decrease in overall homicide rates as a relevant argument against un control. Especially when you're not even considering the actual relevant statistics.
The majority of guns crimes in Canada are committed with guns that were smuggled in from tithe US, where it is (relatively speaking) trivially easy to obtain guns.
America's lax attitude towards weapons directly leads to Canada's gun death problem.
America’s lax attitude towards weapons directly leads to Canada’s gun death problem.
The CBSA should be handling that, though; it's the CBSA's job to catch people engaging in illegal border activties, e.g. firearms smuggling (I am assuming that you are insinuating that it is the USA's job to fix our problem).
They do catch a lot, but no border control in any non-authoritarian country can catch 100%
Based on what metric are you making that claim? Canada, for example, certainly still has an issue with firearm related crimes [source]. It is also quite arguable that firearms laws even have an effect on reducing crime in general [source] (I will concede that this source, the fraser institute, isn't the most reliable, but their data does show some interesting things that cannot be ignored). Furthermore, it has been reported that the majority of handgun related crime, in Canada, is done with handguns that were illegally owned -- they were smuggled in from the USA.
One could point to some trends of firearms rates decreasing and attributing them to firearms bans, but the devil is often in the details. For example, this study by Rand stated that firearms related crimes in Australia were already on a downward trend piror to the 1996 buyback, and similar dips in violent crime can be seen many other western countries that didn't adopt such strict gun-control measures -- violent crime, in general, appears that it has been on a downward trend for quite some time.
Are you really trying to make a comparison without actually comparing the numbers?
Comparing gun crimes in the US and Canada reveals significant differences in homicide rates, violent crimes, and robbery incidents involving firearms.
Homicide Rates
Gun Homicide Rate: In 2020, Canada's gun homicide rate was an eighth of the rate in the United States[2][4]. Despite being lower, Canada's rate is higher than many other wealthy countries and has been increasing[2].
Violent Crimes
Robberies with Firearms: In 2000, 41% of US robberies were committed with a firearm compared to 16% in Canada[3]. This indicates a higher prevalence of gun involvement in violent crimes in the US.
Robbery
Firearm Involvement in Robberies: Firearms were involved in 41% of robberies in the US compared to only 16% in Canada in 2000[7].
Additional Insights
Firearms per 100 Residents: The US has a much higher number of guns per 100 residents (88.8) compared to Canada (30.8), which correlates with higher rates of gun-related crimes[1].
Gun Origin: A significant portion of guns used in crimes in Ontario, Canada, were traced back to the United States, indicating cross-border implications of US gun policies on Canadian gun crime[2].
In summary, the US has higher rates of homicide, violent crimes, and robberies involving firearms compared to Canada. These differences are influenced by stricter gun control laws in Canada and the higher prevalence of firearms in the US.
If that dude could read, he would be so angry right now.
Because guns are not the same as drugs. Hence the rules should be different.
Do you need target practice to shoot heroin? Do you seek self medication by going out and waving a gun around?
for some reason one seems much less threatening to the general populous than the other
We’re all here wondering if this is to convince yourself, or just bad sarcasm.
Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.
They could like, get a permit
True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol
Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).
A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.
The argument may be that driving isn't in the constitution. You don't need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I'm fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.
You are correct on the argument.
We put law on paper because other paper has law on it
My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.
you are executing the function of a xerox copier. functioning society
If we just throw the rules out, then there will STILL be guns.
You don't like the Constitution? Hold a Constitutional Convention. We've done it before.
Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren't in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.
You are already a member of a militia in the US - it's called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.
This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.
I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being "called up" by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I'm old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.
So perhaps you should get that musket and start training...........
it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That's very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?
No.
The age and gender requirements come from the legislature, not the Constitution. Constitutionally, the militia is everyone. If militia membership is required for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment, we have to use the Constitutional meaning of "militia" which is everyone.
Legislatively, the militia is defined in 10 USC § 246, the unorganized class of which is comprised of all able-bodied male citizens and those who intend to become citizens, aged 17 to 45.
Congress can change the legislative definition. They cannot alter the constitutional meaning.
Constitutionally, the militia is everyone.
Text doesn't say that
Contemporary writings from a majority of the signatories do.
should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
If you're talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an "Army" or a "Navy".
Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.
They don't define the constitutional meaning of "Militia" when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from "citizen" to "person subject to US law" or "able bodied" to "sound minded", or "male" to "person", or "17-45" to "16-60".
The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of "We The People", and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in "armies" or the "Navy".
The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don't think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.
You don't get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.
You are.
Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of "a free State".
If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.
Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of “a free State”.
Very well. Please show me the court ruling to that effect.
If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.
So I am not in a well-regulated militia now? Why can't you keep your story straight? If I am in a well-regulated militia now I am entitled to be paid for it, if vague promises of freedom are my payments then why do I get paid for jury duty, if I am not in a militia then why can I buy a gun?
My story is straight. The flaw is your lack of understanding the difference between "militia" and "armed forces".
The "armed forces" are the "armies" and the "Navy" provided for under Article I Section 8 clauses 12, 13, and 14. They are the professional forces hired by the government to serve its needs.
The militia is not an "army" or the "Navy". The militia is not an "armed service". It is not regulated under clauses 12, 13, or 14.
The "militia" is We The People. Under Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, Congress has the authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (training) the militia, as well as calling us forth for purposes of enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. Additionally, under the 2nd Amendment, we are directly charged with providing the security of a free State.
When we are "called forth" from the militia, we enter what the Constitution refers to as the "armies" or the "Navy", and we receive a paycheck for our military service. We are now regulated under laws enacted in accordance with clauses 12, 13, and/or 14.
When we are not called forth from the militia, we still have the obligation to provide the security of a free State, as described in the 2nd Amendment.
Where you do not receive the benefits of a free State (you are incarcerated for draft dodging, for example) you are not obligated to provide the state's security.
You're free to try to sue the government for additional compensation relating to your militia service, but whatever you end up receiving from the public, you will also end up being required to pay to the public.
I dislike this "only guns from 1700's" argument. The constitution didn't make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn't possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict "new" guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I'll have to research more.
private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing:
Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.
We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one
We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.
Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people
gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn't be in the constitution.
Article I Section 10 Clause 3:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Article I specifically prohibits states from keeping standing armies and entering into wars.
Militia != Military. A militiaman is not a "troop". Militia are not under the command of a state. Militia are under no command. Individuals may be called forth from the militia into a state or federal army.
If there is a constitutional remedy for force to be brought to bear against a tyrannical federal government, it is only through "We The People" - the militia - taking back by force what we previously granted it in peace.
You don't need a driver's license or registration to own a car. You don't need a driver's license or registration to operate a car on private property. You don't need a driver's license or registration to transport your car in public spaces.
Hell, if you get a small dirt bike, you can slap shoulder straps on it and carry it down the sidewalk with no license or registration. You would only violate the registration requirements if you set it down in a public space. Granted, that's not a typical scenario, but it is a valid one.
If there were a life threatening emergency and you needed immediate transportation to the hospital, you would be justified in using any vehicle at your disposal, including an unregistered one, to make that trip.
Can I own and operate a gun on my own property without a license or registration?
Can I operate my gun on my friend's property without license and registration?
Can I transport (not use) my gun through public spaces without a license or registration?
If I run into a life threatening emergency that can only be remedied by using my gun in a public space without a license or registration, am I justified in doing so?
If we are to regulate guns the same way as cars, you would be able to carry your gun while walking down the street, and only violate licensing and registration requirements when you draw it in a public place.
Suffice it to say that cars are regulated much more leniently than guns.
In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license. Some states have a grace period, but it is required. Even if you only intend to drive it on your own private property. Is it enforceable? Probably not, but it is the law.
Not only that, legally you still need to register your car with the state. I’ll concede the “you can buy cars immediately but not guns” argument, but that really only applies to some states. In Wisconsin, you don’t need to register nor is there any waiting period.
As for the “justified” argument, of course you are justified in those cases—but you can still be charged. Hell, my grandmother had to go to court for driving me (without a license) to the hospital in the 90s.
In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license.
No you don't. That's a requirement for vehicles that will be operated on the road.
There is no requirement anywhere in the nation for liability insurance on a vehicle that will be operated solely on private property.
There is no requirement for liability insurance on a tractor, a ride on lawnmower, a dune buggy, a dirt bike, a demolition derby car, or similar unregistered "vehicles".
That is simply false.
As for your grandmother: a "charge" is merely a question for the courts to answer. "Did this woman break the law for driving her daughter to the hospital?"
If ever forced to use a firearm against another person, any reasonable person would expect a similar question to be asked, and the courts to supply the answer. "Charges" are nothing a reasonable, responsible person need fear.
The cost of complying with the dozens of legal hoops is often like 10-20x or more than the price of just a cheap pistol itself.
Larger financial barriers just mean if you're rich you can do what you want and if you're not, you're fucked, which often leads to people breaking these dumb laws and the cycle getting worse.
Larger financial barriers just mean if you're rich you can do what you want and if you're not, you're fucked,
This is a very dumb mentality. Like making sure your car is safe and roadworthy costs money. But we don't view people who drive with broken break lights or worn out tyres so sympathetically.
A janky car is a danger to others on the road, not having the proper paperwork for your gun only puts yourself in legal danger.
So you think people who haven't practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???
Well an apples to apples comparison would be a rusty or dirty gun, which is way more likely to simply not work than it is to malfunction in a dangerous way. A rusty old car has multiple failure points that are dangerous to people who aren't the driver.
As for user competence, I would love to see firearms training become a standard class option in high school, just like driving is now. I'd rather we had a society where neither were necessary, but we're not anywhere close to that ideal on either front.
I think adding undue cost holds weight even though we live in a society currently where people are expecting compensation for their materials and time. One is making it more expensive specifically because "the poors shouldn't have guns," one is how much a physical item is sold for. In a post scarcity society where everything is always free; sure I agree, that argument would be silly. But this ain't that, we ain't never had that, and I'm 99% sure we never will have that.
No, you can't. Hawaii is not a shall-issue state. It's pretty much impossible to get a permit there. Also, criminals won't be getting permits so why should we make law abiding citizens get them.
Make the bad thing illegal. Don't make the tools or the intermediate steps illegal
Fr, I've been looking into a tool (that is about to be banned in Canada) that lets you "hack" radio signals. It's legal to buy and use on your own devices, I plan to use it on my car as after some research into my aftermarket lock I think I can. However if I use it to unlock someone else's car and steal their stuff, that is illegal.
Guns follows the same logic, yes, they can be used for crime; just like the f0 or the wifi pineapple, or the bashbunny, or rubberducky/badusb, but they can also be used for defense, like all those pentesting tools can legally be used for pentesting. It's all in the person behind the item.
This is the same crowd that will try to claim code is not a crime. Now, I agree with that statement, but at least I'm logically consistent and believe possession of a firearm should be perfectly legal.
And then the state has a convenient list of who to go after once the shit hits the fan at the end of the year.
They already have multiple lists. But also they tend to add names ad hoc when that kind of thing starts happening.
Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?
It's absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.
The US has not had uncontrolled gun distribution and nobody is asking for that. You can't legally buy a gun without a background check and more, and it has been this way for decades.
and nobody is asking for that.
Lol I wish
Yeah, those two things together are the problem
relaxed condescending chuckles from Canada
That's a concern people had when things transitioned outside the US.
I can't imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.
It's not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.
My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you're just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.
Just go play roblox or something instead. It's a better use of your time kid.
Labeling everything you don't agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.
Well it's a good thing there's plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn't it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn't mean I say the same about anything and everything.
Its the typical right wing argument of "not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis" when no one is doing that.
The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.
it's official: according to Hawaii, guns have no chill
They're tools designed specifically for killing, that's kind of the point
Wrong. They were originally designed to open beer bottles.
Source:
Don't kill the chill.
Is all I ever asked.
But what about my GOD GUNS GUTS bumper sticker?
They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.
Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one
How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?
I mean, we've already got our pitchforks out, fuck it
OP is racist!!
It's not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy
Noticing that a bit in this thread
The decision to gender only the victim is questionable.
The argument doesn't sound as convincing this way:
A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of assailants on an equal field with the burliest of women.
that is not a resonable test in this situation.
Dont use 'woman' as an adjective. No need. Just use dainty/frail vs. burly.
Okay, but they did. I see how it sounds sexist, but how is it actually sexist? Dainty women do exist, and are on average, more dainty than dainty men.
IMO introducing gender only to use traditional sex sterotypes to frame the discussion is sexist.
Well, using the stereotype is to reinforce their point. It's a argumentative tactic. Like if someone said "eating greasy McDonald's or whatever", they could have just said "eating unhealthy food" but using specific imagery that plays into stereotypes gives a more emotional reaction.
And the sterotype they are playing into is sexist.
So the more guns there are the less gun crime, right?
That is not the claim
What is the claim of then?
A gun allows physically weaker people to defend themselves from physically stronger people
That’s what I said.
Their claim is more guns reduce gun crime.
In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the 'burliest of asailants' was using physical strength as their weapon.
No it is not, you are saying two completely different things.
Does having a pilots livense reduce your likelihood of dying in plane crash?
Vs
Does having a pilots license give you the ability to be responsible for your own safety in plane?
Two completely different things
Yeah and we’re not talking about pilots or flying here so I don’t know what your point is.
Their claim is that having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works (more guns reducing gun crime), but that facts clearly show that gun control is the way to reduce gun crimes and having a personal defence gun is a liability and increases your risk of being a victim of gun crime.
No, it's that it grants you the opportunity to defend yourself, not that you can.
That is not what that means. Nowhere is that claimed. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase it for you.
You’re unable to come up with a response to my argument so you try to discredit me by claiming I used AI to write it?
That’s not just a lazy and unintelligent rebuttal but it’s just sad too.
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren't a solution but a problem themselves.
People who everyday carry guns, open or concealed, are either paranoid chicken-shit cowards or trigger-happy wannabe vigilante heroes. Neither is a desirable state of mind.
There is an increasing portion of the LGBT+ community who concealed carry. I don't blame them, given the current political climate.
While I don’t blame them and it’s the last group I’d go after, the contention still holds true: a frightened untrained person with a deadly weapon is more likely to cause another problem than to solve the first one
Gun supporter here: you make a very good point and it's why I think people should have to go through extensive training before being allowed to own one. Way more so than for a drivers license.
Or women defending themselves from stalkers or absuive exes. Or LGBTQ people defending themselves from much, much higher rates of assault than average. I know it's easy to get sucked into the us-vs-them mentality, but please remember there are plenty of people out there who have damn good reasons to carry.
Sir, this is Lemmy. All we do here is call gun owners small-wienered piss baby cowards. Nuanced discussion is allowed for everything else, but the moment you imply that guns aren't evil machines only used for crime, you're a brain dead Christian devout who gets off to school shootings and cowboy fantasies.
It’s not even just guns, in the UK people who carry knives around are more likely to be stabbed than people who don’t carry them. That’s why there are so many laws about when you’re allowed to have one with you even if you need it for work.
Sounds like a correlation/causation error to me
And having a pilots license makes you more unsafe when you ride on a plane
That one Alaska pilot had to go and ruin it for everyone.
You missed the obvious solution:
You need a sniper covering your position whenever you are in public.
And every sniper has a sniper covering their back.
Makes perfect sense. Pass laws forcing law abiding citizens to go unarmed while criminals who don’t abide by those same laws can freely ignore them and continue to use firearms on their law abiding victims. Make sure you include some carve outs so politicians and elites can carry or have access to firearms in case the poors get uppity and BOOM problem solved!
Brilliant, did you think that up all by yourself?
Do you know how the last japanese PM died?
A good guy with a gun, iirc.
Literally
Get fucked, Shinzo Abe's racist and sexist ghost, I know you're reading this.
Without concealed carrying a firearm? ^/s^
That must be why the homicide rates in the rest of the world are so much higher than the US.
💀
Ho ho, buddy! I don't agree, but I won't keep kicking ya. The mob has spoken. In this particular instance, they're right. But don't take it personally, it could be any one of us tomorrow!
Open carry does not pass the "vibe check"
"Don't kill the chill"
"Aloha Motherfucker"
I was just in Hawaii a few weeks ago. Both touristy and non-touristy areas. I can concur, would be a weird ass vibe if I saw someone open carry
Hmm here is an idea. What if we made a religion that was against open carry and was technically Christianity? Could we use the veto power religion now has over the Bill of Rights?
No. Religious arguments against abortion are actually relying on the definition of what constitutes a life, not the pure fact that their religion says it's wrong.
You can get out of military service this way though.
it’s not a medical definition of life so…
When they wrote the laws against murder in the late 18th century they didn't really draw that distinction, unfortunately. That's how laws work, the intent of the lawmakers who voted to pass it are what matters when attempting to enforce it. A similar case would be making Donald Trump ineligible for office over sedition, he put up a legal defence claiming that the lawmakers never intended for it to apply to presidents or other high level office holders, but it turns out the congressional records detail the conversations when they considered making exemptions and decided it should apply to everyone.
if only we applied such strict adherence to original intent to the 2nd amendment
Hawaii's Supreme court actually has very recently, and the Assault Rifle Ban that expired a few years ago was also a great example of it, but yes I agree more consistency and less corruption in government would be great.
It has nothing to do with the possibility of ending a life, otherwise republicans would actually care about what happens in schools (be it shootings or diddling, republicans are OK with them happening in schools).
Republicans are hardly a monolithic entity. Some may care about ending lives, but only ones that have nor been convicted of a crime. Others may care about ending lives, but not as much as they care about their right to firearms. Others view it as a religious issue. Others want women to be broodmares.
For the record, all of them are fundamentally disrespecting another person's autonomy, but they can have different reasons for doing so or priorities when doing so.
How is that any different? It's still their religion that says when life begins. Other abrahamic religions do not believe that life starts at conception.
While the argument for life beginning at conception can be rooted in religious texts, it can also be based on the desire for simplicity of argument.
I.e. not wanting to pick a random day during the term of the pregnancy to serve as a cutoff point, because the development of a fetus doesn't have a convenient place where you can say "5 minutes ago, this thing wasn't alive. Now it is. "
at least theyre tryin
It was always that way, the problem was that they wouldn’t give out permits to anyone.
That's didn't feel like a problem. No permits, no guns.
That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we're talking about so I imagine it's much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.
Considering the easiest way to get a gun "illegally" is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.
I hate this argument because it shows just how little people know about gun laws.
It's federally illegal to buy a pistol outside of your home state. You can't just go to a gun shop the next state over and buy a Glock 17.
For long guns, the seller must follow the laws of the state in which it is sold AND in which the buyer lives.
When I sold guns and someone from New Jersey wanted to buy a rifle, they had to produce their New Jersey permit and I to do the New Jersey background check and waiting period on top of the NICS background check required federally. I had to reference New Jersey laws and could only sell guns that were legal in that state.
We had a spreadsheet we kept up to date with every firearm we had in stock, new or used, listing whether it was legal in each state.
So it sounds like you're a law abiding citizen..
The argument I'm replying to is that criminals are buying guns in neighboring states because the laws are looser and they can get away with it.
But the laws regarding buying a gun outside one's home state are federal, and don't change from state to state. A California resident buying a Glock 43 in Texas is no more legal than them buying it in California. In fact - it's moreso. Buying it in California is just buying a gun illegally by California law. Buying it in Texas is violating California, Texas, and Federal law, and then illegally smuggling the gun afterwards.
Well, actually, they cited the state and federal constitution and chose to interpret "well regulated militia" does not accurately describe untrained civilians even though the SCOTUS disagreed. Which is a little more substantial than just Aloha Spirit, imo.
I love the aloha spirit! I hope it spreads like COVID. I mean, in a good way.
is this the only ōlelo hawaiʻi word that anyone remembers
Can’t wait for this to be appealed and struck down.
I like gun
Well thats going to get shut down
States can ignore SCOTUS rulings now.
I'm surprised to see so many people supporting the actions of Gov. Abbott.
I don't think it's necessarily support. But if actions have no consequences then there's no reason not to? Not that it's a good argument but it's apparently reality
Maybe "accepting" would have been a better choice? I don't know.
What are they supposed to do about it? The average person can't afford to take a day off to protest.
Clearly. I guess this is the country now. Supreme Court rulings are optional unless the President decides to send in troops to enforce it.
I'm not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it's not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are "reasonable" and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn't even try to register or get a carry license?
Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.
There's Shall Issue and there's "Shall Issue". Where I live (Bay area) it's 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there's a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I'm not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff's or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
Okay?
So you're not sure what Hawaii's rules on carry permits are, but you're sure they're bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it's pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don't want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can't bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
What I never get is how people who don't want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It's everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don't even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.
For one, I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn't the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.
Second, bold of you to assume that people who don't want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn't get up and think "I better make sure I'm ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store".
Saw another post and thought of your response here... I think the difference is those of us who know what it takes absolutely feel more comfortable around people who have something to lose, because they do not conflate their position with expertise granting blanket immunity from consequences for their mistakes.
(cop startled by falling acorn, empties gun into occupied building) https://old.reddit.com/r/Idiotswithguns/comments/1aq4jjr/a_bit_excessive/kqaj4kh/
You seem to keep coming back to some belief that I hold cops in some esteem. I don't.
For all the warts of the profession, they're still a known quantity. You know why the cop has the gun. You know they completed their minimum of one semester of training and bare minimum psychological evaluation. You know they have a high school diploma.
Anyone else, you know that they could ... Afford a gun. If it's concealed, you know that they took an eight hour course in safety. You know rather little about their stability or anything else. You don't know why they brought the gun.
In both cases, you also know that they likely exceed those minimums by a fair margin.
As mentioned, cpl holders tend to be enthusiastic and proficient, law abiding citizens. Where I live cops tends to have four year degrees on top of a full year of dedicated police training and supplementary medical training and continuing education requirements.
Again, don't particularly want to have either around me, but one has less question marks.
Also, linking to idiots with guns isn't a great way to testify to the responsibility of gun owners.
Funnily enough that is exactly what the cop said. If he gets a call to a grocery store about some violent dickhead, he may be right, too.
Not to mention the cops have a reputation of shooting unarmed black people, are actually statistically worse shots than CCW holders, and statistically commit less crimes than CCW holders.
So the difference there is that someone called the cops to the grocery store, as opposed to a rando taking their gun to buy milk.
Do you really not see the difference between a job where people pay you to carry a gun, and some random person deciding that they want to carry a gun just in case?
One has the job of "person we decided responds to violent situations, while they're are work doing what we asked them to do", and the other is "I have no idea who this person is, they're wearing a dirty T-shirt, holding a cartoon of milk and wearing a pistol at the checkout line of this 7-11”.
With a cop, you have a known quantity and you know why they have the gun. With rando, you just know they have a gun, with no clue why.
Finally, you're totally correct. That's why a lot of people don't exactly like being around armed police either.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people are made to feel less safe being around people with guns, and would like to avoid it where possible?
Well typically murderers don't order victims by phone, no, unless we're counting delivery drivers maybe, but that just means civilians "need to have it when they need it" more than the people who get advanced notice.
Do you really think victims of violent crime don't need or deserve to protect themselves, simply because their job isn't responding to others being victimized? Why do you think cops, which have less training hours than cosmetologists, are superheros somehow better than other civilians?
Btw I'll give you a tip, usually the guy with a gun you have to worry about isn't "some dirty prole open carrying," it's someone concealing it illegally and you'll never know until it becomes a problem. Most legal carriers also carry concealed, so that dirty prole behind you in line "without a gun?" You can never be sure, he may in fact have one just under a thin layer of cotton/polyester blend.
Tbh, yes. If you live in America and don't just "work, home, sleep" (if you go anywhere in public, a mall, the movies, church, anywhere) you likely pass a person with a gun at least one time a day and never even know. Being scared of everyone with a gun is honestly more irrational than just being scared of everyone because they could have a gun. I for one choose not to live my life in fear, if I see a person open carrying I just say "ayy cool is that the p365? How do you like that thing? I had to replace my p320 and got a p10c instead but I've been thinking about picking one of those up" and now I have a new, albeit "dirty shirted," friend.
You seem to be taking this really personally.
You've started interjecting a lot of defensive talk about being a "prole", and thinking that people who don't feel safer in the presence of guns must live their lives in constant fear, or want to take guns away from people.
Re read what I said. I never said people shouldn't be able to own guns, or carry them. I said people should be able to say "you need my permission to bring a gun into my home or business".
I'll be honest with you, I feel like I probably live my life in less fear than the person who needs to carry a gun everywhere to feel safe.
Small thing I want to point out.
I don't feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I'll need it, but I'll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.
I don't carry a gun to the grocery store because I'm afraid I'll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I'd rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don't just "go off" on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one's was in immediate danger.
I don't get up in the morning thinking "I better make sure I'm ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store." That's way too reductive and gung ho.
Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times? What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?
My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.
Don't pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.
No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn't make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves "oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That's just what this Baskin Robbins needed".
I was highlighting the convenience/safety tradeoff in taking basic precautions against low probability but high risk events. You were incorrectly stating that people feel like they need to carry a gun just to grocery shop, and I explained how that was false. Not sure how that went over your head, but it clearly did.
Ok, name a few? How else would someone mitigate risk of human threats against their life? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but you don't have to forgo carrying a weapon for self defense in order to eat healthy and exercise to mitigate risk of heart failure. Carrying a gun everyday also isn't a burden, and I enjoy range time and training. People should be allowed means to self defense if they want it. If they abuse it, they get their rights taken away. It's really quite simple.
If the goal is having means for self defense against people, concealed carry is the only effective way to achieve it. Pepper spray, taser, knife, or anything else is objectively ineffective. I don't need a gun to grocery shop, but I do need a gun if I want adequate self defense.
The goal isn't to make other people feel safe, the goal is to help myself and my loved ones. Other people will never know that I have a gun on me, so whether I actually have one or don't doesn't change anything from their point of view.
So in the beginning, you explain how I was wrong to think that it's people feeling they need a gun just to go grocery shopping, then you end by explaining how you need a gun to feel safe when you go grocery shopping.
I'm not sure you've really thought your position through all the way.
I'm not sure what you're looking for when you ask me to name a few larger risks and mitigations to you and your families personal safety. I literally opened with a list of precautions you could, but almost certainly aren't, taking. Wearing a helmet while in a motor vehicle, or refitting your car with a five point harness will do a lot to prevent injury or death in a vehicle accident, which is stupendously more likely than dealing with a dangerous armed person.
If you're not taking those options, but you are carrying a gun, I find it hard to believe that it's just a simple risk mitigation analysis, because your probabilities are grossly out of line.
Also, who said anything about denying people weapons or even the ability to carry them?
I said some people don't like being around guns, and you should be able to say "you can't bring a weapon into my house or business without my permission".
If that sounds like denying people their right to self defense to you.... I'm not sure you're worth talking to.
Its shall issue. Just because you do all that, you can still be denied.
Are you intentionally untruthful or just ignorant?
Is your definition of "almost every" LESS THAN HALF?
These are facts which are easy to look up and here you are spreading misinformation.
Your information is out of date. 27 states now have "constitutional carry", where there is no need for a permit.
gonna have to aloha sprint the next time an open carry w/o permit thinks otherwise
Are you having a stroke?
Is your country such a shithole that you need a gun in order to feel safe walking around?
It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.
Because gun laws have worked in other places. Canada, Australia, The UK, etc don't have this problem.
One of the best things the govt here in aus did in my lifetime, was tighten gun laws and buy back as many guns as they could. While we're by no means free of gun violence and homicides, we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
I would be cautious of attributing the falling rates of firearms related crimes to the 1996 buyback [source]. It can be argued that the rates were already dropping prior to the 1996 buyback. This can also be further shown in other countries around the world that didn't enact such laws. For example, all of western Europe has shown declines in homocide rates since the 90s [source]:
This matches up with Australia [source]:
And, it matches up with the UK [source]:
The same goes for the USA, and Canada.
For the sake of clarity, here is a list of all the mass shootings that have happened in Australia -- from that list, I count 24 since the firearms buyback in the wake of the Tasmania mass shooting.
Actually, comparing violent gun crimes in the US and Australia reveals significant differences in homicide rates, mass shootings, and overall gun violence.
Homicide Rates
Mass Shootings
Overall Gun Violence
Gun Control Measures
In summary, the US has higher rates of homicide and overall gun violence compared to Australia. These differences are influenced by stricter gun control laws in Australia and the higher prevalence of firearms in the US.
Citations: [1] On gun violence, the United States is an outlier https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier [2] Australia vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime [3] The Effects of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia on Suicide, Homicide, and Mass Shootings https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html [4] What can Australia's reaction to a mass shooting teach us about guns and gun control? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/ [5] Comparing Mental Illness, Gun Violence in the U.S., Australia and U.K. https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/mental-illness-gun-violence.php [6] Australia Murder/Homicide Rate 1990-2024 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate [7] [PDF] Firearms theft in Australia : a six-month exploratory analysis - Australian Institute of Criminology https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tbp020.pdf [8] Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia [9] Australia vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime [10] Crime in Australia - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia [11] Gun Control in Australia - FactCheck.org https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/ [12] Gun control: what makes Australian and US laws so different? - Law Society Journal https://lsj.com.au/articles/gun-control-what-makes-australian-and-us-laws-so-different/ [13] Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback [14] Australia’s homicide rate is down over 50% from the 1990s, despite a small blip during COVID https://theconversation.com/australias-homicide-rate-is-down-over-50-from-the-1990s-despite-a-small-blip-during-covid-202730 [15] PolitiFact - Viral post is wrong about Australia’s gun laws, violent crime statistics https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/13/facebook-posts/no-viral-post-isnt-correct-australias-gun-laws-vio/ [16] U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons [17] Mass shootings and firearm https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/draft_of_trends_issues_paper_mass_shootings_and_firearm_control_comparing_australia_and_the_united_states_submitted_to_peer_review.pdf [18] World Bank Open Data https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?locations=AU [19] Australian Gun Control Measures Are Ineffective (From Gun Control, P 260-268, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australian-gun-control-measures-are-ineffective-gun-control-p-260 [20] Gun Deaths by Country 2024 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country [21] International https://www.fsb.miamioh.edu/lij14/p_taylor.pdf [22] Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom: Clinical and Public Health Challenges - The American Journal of Medicine https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(23)00738-6/fulltext [23] Implications of the Australian Experience With Firearm Regulation for US Gun Policy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/ [24] The stats https://www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au/the-stats/ [25] Criminal use of handguns in Australia - Australian Institute of Criminology https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi361
And the US has roughly 13x the population of Aus, so you would expect the US to only have 312 mass shootings in the same time frame, but the actual number is massively bigger than that.
Also it's extremely disingenuous to try passing off a decrease in overall homicide rates as a relevant argument against un control. Especially when you're not even considering the actual relevant statistics.
The majority of guns crimes in Canada are committed with guns that were smuggled in from tithe US, where it is (relatively speaking) trivially easy to obtain guns.
America's lax attitude towards weapons directly leads to Canada's gun death problem.
The CBSA should be handling that, though; it's the CBSA's job to catch people engaging in illegal border activties, e.g. firearms smuggling (I am assuming that you are insinuating that it is the USA's job to fix our problem).
They do catch a lot, but no border control in any non-authoritarian country can catch 100%
Based on what metric are you making that claim? Canada, for example, certainly still has an issue with firearm related crimes [source]. It is also quite arguable that firearms laws even have an effect on reducing crime in general [source] (I will concede that this source, the fraser institute, isn't the most reliable, but their data does show some interesting things that cannot be ignored). Furthermore, it has been reported that the majority of handgun related crime, in Canada, is done with handguns that were illegally owned -- they were smuggled in from the USA.
One could point to some trends of firearms rates decreasing and attributing them to firearms bans, but the devil is often in the details. For example, this study by Rand stated that firearms related crimes in Australia were already on a downward trend piror to the 1996 buyback, and similar dips in violent crime can be seen many other western countries that didn't adopt such strict gun-control measures -- violent crime, in general, appears that it has been on a downward trend for quite some time.
Are you really trying to make a comparison without actually comparing the numbers?
Comparing gun crimes in the US and Canada reveals significant differences in homicide rates, violent crimes, and robbery incidents involving firearms.
Homicide Rates
Violent Crimes
Robbery
Additional Insights
Firearms per 100 Residents: The US has a much higher number of guns per 100 residents (88.8) compared to Canada (30.8), which correlates with higher rates of gun-related crimes[1].
Gun Origin: A significant portion of guns used in crimes in Ontario, Canada, were traced back to the United States, indicating cross-border implications of US gun policies on Canadian gun crime[2].
In summary, the US has higher rates of homicide, violent crimes, and robberies involving firearms compared to Canada. These differences are influenced by stricter gun control laws in Canada and the higher prevalence of firearms in the US.
Citations: [1] Canada vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime [2] In fighting gun crime, Canada has an American problem https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/in-fighting-gun-crime-canada-has-an-american-problem-1.6004198 [3] Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE Vol. 21 no. 11 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2001011-eng.pdf [4] reuters.com https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fighting-gun-crime-canada-has-an-american-problem-2022-07-27/ [5] Firearms, Accidental Deaths, Suicides and Violent Crime: An Updated Review of the Literature with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html [6] Canada and United States homicide rate 2022 | Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/526539/canada-us-homicide-rate/ [7] Archived Content https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm [8] Charting gun violence in the United States | CBC News https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gun-violence-charts-us-1.6847911 [9] America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe-homicide-rates-murder-crime [10] NCJRS Virtual Library https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/canadas-low-gun-homicide-rate-proves-effectiveness-gun-control-gun [11] Number of robberies in the U.S. by weapon 2022 | Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberies-in-the-us-by-weapon/ [12] How the U.S. gun violence death rate compares with the rest of the world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683893/how-the-u-s-gun-violence-death-rate-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world [13] Gun Violence in Canada - Connecticut General Assembly https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0882.htm [14] Canada vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
If that dude could read, he would be so angry right now.
Because guns are not the same as drugs. Hence the rules should be different.
Do you need target practice to shoot heroin? Do you seek self medication by going out and waving a gun around? for some reason one seems much less threatening to the general populous than the other
We’re all here wondering if this is to convince yourself, or just bad sarcasm.
Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.
They could like, get a permit
True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol
Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).
A lot of them unironjcally do, and they think that things like seatbekt laws and drunk driving laws are bad.
The argument may be that driving isn't in the constitution. You don't need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I'm fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.
You are correct on the argument.
We put law on paper because other paper has law on it
My brother, that is not responsible and well-reasoned lawmaking, you are executing the function of a xerox copier.
you are executing the function of a
xerox copier.functioning societyIf we just throw the rules out, then there will STILL be guns.
You don't like the Constitution? Hold a Constitutional Convention. We've done it before.
Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren't in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.
You are already a member of a militia in the US - it's called the state militia, (which in NOT the National Guard). And while it falls outside of formal military service, (Regular military, Reserve, or Guard), it does exist and you are a part of it from ages 17 to 55 or so. And in some states even women are subject to it equally. There are contingencies upon contingencies that already exist for this and have for a very long time.
This is a decent, and not super complicated overview of most of the military organizations and how they interact.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAsZz_f-DUA) The state militias part come towards the end.
I am a bit familiar with this as a medic who asked a dumb question, I was told we were subject to, (though it takes a really major disaster), to being "called up" by the Dept of Homeland Security to go and supply aid if needed and where needed. If I remember correctly some few were either called up or were close to being called and assigned during the last major hurricane in New Orleans. I'm old and retired now and I am no longer subject due to age.
So perhaps you should get that musket and start training...........
Wait a minute. Are you saying that there is an age and gender restriction on a civil right? Males have a constitutional protection that women do not have and the young have one the elderly do not? That's very interesting. Does it apply to any other rights?
No.
The age and gender requirements come from the legislature, not the Constitution. Constitutionally, the militia is everyone. If militia membership is required for gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment, we have to use the Constitutional meaning of "militia" which is everyone.
Legislatively, the militia is defined in 10 USC § 246, the unorganized class of which is comprised of all able-bodied male citizens and those who intend to become citizens, aged 17 to 45.
Congress can change the legislative definition. They cannot alter the constitutional meaning.
Text doesn't say that
Contemporary writings from a majority of the signatories do.
Very well. Please show me the quote
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
If you're talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an "Army" or a "Navy".
Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.
They don't define the constitutional meaning of "Militia" when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from "citizen" to "person subject to US law" or "able bodied" to "sound minded", or "male" to "person", or "17-45" to "16-60".
The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of "We The People", and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in "armies" or the "Navy".
The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don't think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.
You don't get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.
I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.
You are.
Your normal compensation is the enjoyment of "a free State".
If you are called forth to serve in the armed forces, your compensation is your paycheck.
Very well. Please show me the court ruling to that effect.
So I am not in a well-regulated militia now? Why can't you keep your story straight? If I am in a well-regulated militia now I am entitled to be paid for it, if vague promises of freedom are my payments then why do I get paid for jury duty, if I am not in a militia then why can I buy a gun?
My story is straight. The flaw is your lack of understanding the difference between "militia" and "armed forces".
The "armed forces" are the "armies" and the "Navy" provided for under Article I Section 8 clauses 12, 13, and 14. They are the professional forces hired by the government to serve its needs.
The militia is not an "army" or the "Navy". The militia is not an "armed service". It is not regulated under clauses 12, 13, or 14.
The "militia" is We The People. Under Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, Congress has the authority to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (training) the militia, as well as calling us forth for purposes of enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. Additionally, under the 2nd Amendment, we are directly charged with providing the security of a free State.
When we are "called forth" from the militia, we enter what the Constitution refers to as the "armies" or the "Navy", and we receive a paycheck for our military service. We are now regulated under laws enacted in accordance with clauses 12, 13, and/or 14.
When we are not called forth from the militia, we still have the obligation to provide the security of a free State, as described in the 2nd Amendment.
Where you do not receive the benefits of a free State (you are incarcerated for draft dodging, for example) you are not obligated to provide the state's security.
You're free to try to sue the government for additional compensation relating to your militia service, but whatever you end up receiving from the public, you will also end up being required to pay to the public.
I dislike this "only guns from 1700's" argument. The constitution didn't make a distinction between shotguns, muskets, pistols, or even cannons. We know that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to make sure if the government got out of line we could put in a new one. That isn't possible anymore, but would be even more impossible if we restrict "new" guns. TBH, I think the writers of the constituion would be fine with private citizens owning cannons. Some quick Googling indicates private ownership was a thing: https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/ but I'll have to research more.
Was, bruh civilians can still buy cannons, online, without a background check, because cannons are not classified as firearms.We know no such thing. That is intent and other text only view of the law it can not be used.
Secondly even if we did know the intent it was for standing state armies to deal with the federal army. Not Regular people
gonna have to disagree. 2A was established because we had to fight in the revolutionary war. We literally did the exact thing that lead to 2A being necessary. If we peacefully broke off from England then maybe 2A wouldn't be in the constitution.
Article I Section 10 Clause 3:
Article I specifically prohibits states from keeping standing armies and entering into wars.
Militia != Military. A militiaman is not a "troop". Militia are not under the command of a state. Militia are under no command. Individuals may be called forth from the militia into a state or federal army.
If there is a constitutional remedy for force to be brought to bear against a tyrannical federal government, it is only through "We The People" - the militia - taking back by force what we previously granted it in peace.
You don't need a driver's license or registration to own a car. You don't need a driver's license or registration to operate a car on private property. You don't need a driver's license or registration to transport your car in public spaces.
Hell, if you get a small dirt bike, you can slap shoulder straps on it and carry it down the sidewalk with no license or registration. You would only violate the registration requirements if you set it down in a public space. Granted, that's not a typical scenario, but it is a valid one.
If there were a life threatening emergency and you needed immediate transportation to the hospital, you would be justified in using any vehicle at your disposal, including an unregistered one, to make that trip.
Can I own and operate a gun on my own property without a license or registration?
Can I operate my gun on my friend's property without license and registration?
Can I transport (not use) my gun through public spaces without a license or registration?
If I run into a life threatening emergency that can only be remedied by using my gun in a public space without a license or registration, am I justified in doing so?
If we are to regulate guns the same way as cars, you would be able to carry your gun while walking down the street, and only violate licensing and registration requirements when you draw it in a public place.
Suffice it to say that cars are regulated much more leniently than guns.
In many states, you actually need (liability) insurance to purchase a car. And you can’t get car insurance without a license. Some states have a grace period, but it is required. Even if you only intend to drive it on your own private property. Is it enforceable? Probably not, but it is the law.
Not only that, legally you still need to register your car with the state. I’ll concede the “you can buy cars immediately but not guns” argument, but that really only applies to some states. In Wisconsin, you don’t need to register nor is there any waiting period.
As for the “justified” argument, of course you are justified in those cases—but you can still be charged. Hell, my grandmother had to go to court for driving me (without a license) to the hospital in the 90s.
No you don't. That's a requirement for vehicles that will be operated on the road.
There is no requirement anywhere in the nation for liability insurance on a vehicle that will be operated solely on private property.
There is no requirement for liability insurance on a tractor, a ride on lawnmower, a dune buggy, a dirt bike, a demolition derby car, or similar unregistered "vehicles".
That is simply false.
As for your grandmother: a "charge" is merely a question for the courts to answer. "Did this woman break the law for driving her daughter to the hospital?"
If ever forced to use a firearm against another person, any reasonable person would expect a similar question to be asked, and the courts to supply the answer. "Charges" are nothing a reasonable, responsible person need fear.
The cost of complying with the dozens of legal hoops is often like 10-20x or more than the price of just a cheap pistol itself.
Larger financial barriers just mean if you're rich you can do what you want and if you're not, you're fucked, which often leads to people breaking these dumb laws and the cycle getting worse.
This is a very dumb mentality. Like making sure your car is safe and roadworthy costs money. But we don't view people who drive with broken break lights or worn out tyres so sympathetically.
A janky car is a danger to others on the road, not having the proper paperwork for your gun only puts yourself in legal danger.
So you think people who haven't practiced or gone through any gun safety course could only hurt themselves with a gun???
Well an apples to apples comparison would be a rusty or dirty gun, which is way more likely to simply not work than it is to malfunction in a dangerous way. A rusty old car has multiple failure points that are dangerous to people who aren't the driver.
As for user competence, I would love to see firearms training become a standard class option in high school, just like driving is now. I'd rather we had a society where neither were necessary, but we're not anywhere close to that ideal on either front.
I think adding undue cost holds weight even though we live in a society currently where people are expecting compensation for their materials and time. One is making it more expensive specifically because "the poors shouldn't have guns," one is how much a physical item is sold for. In a post scarcity society where everything is always free; sure I agree, that argument would be silly. But this ain't that, we ain't never had that, and I'm 99% sure we never will have that.
No, you can't. Hawaii is not a shall-issue state. It's pretty much impossible to get a permit there. Also, criminals won't be getting permits so why should we make law abiding citizens get them.
Make the bad thing illegal. Don't make the tools or the intermediate steps illegal
Fr, I've been looking into a tool (that is about to be banned in Canada) that lets you "hack" radio signals. It's legal to buy and use on your own devices, I plan to use it on my car as after some research into my aftermarket lock I think I can. However if I use it to unlock someone else's car and steal their stuff, that is illegal.
Guns follows the same logic, yes, they can be used for crime; just like the f0 or the wifi pineapple, or the bashbunny, or rubberducky/badusb, but they can also be used for defense, like all those pentesting tools can legally be used for pentesting. It's all in the person behind the item.
This is the same crowd that will try to claim code is not a crime. Now, I agree with that statement, but at least I'm logically consistent and believe possession of a firearm should be perfectly legal.
And then the state has a convenient list of who to go after once the shit hits the fan at the end of the year.
They already have multiple lists. But also they tend to add names ad hoc when that kind of thing starts happening.
Have you seen, like, a single statistic about what uncontrolled gun distribution does to a country?
It's absolutely insane to have that many guns around you and somehow perceive that as some moral good instead of the very real danger it is.
The US has not had uncontrolled gun distribution and nobody is asking for that. You can't legally buy a gun without a background check and more, and it has been this way for decades.
Lol I wish
Yeah, those two things together are the problem
relaxed condescending chuckles from Canada
That's a concern people had when things transitioned outside the US.
I can't imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.
It's not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.
My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you're just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.
Just go play roblox or something instead. It's a better use of your time kid.
Labeling everything you don't agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.
Well it's a good thing there's plenty of things I disagree with that I call trolling then isn't it. Just because I call YOU out on being a edgy troll, doesn't mean I say the same about anything and everything.
Its the typical right wing argument of "not EvErYoNe YoU dIsAgReE wItH are NaZis" when no one is doing that.
The only people I call trolls are the blindingly obvious ones like yourself that a clearly saying whatever nonsense gets you rage-based engagement. And honestly the other possibility, that you are actually a real human being that fully believes the fucking r worded bullshit you type, is just too depressing to even consider it as a possibility, I refuse to believe anyone is that combination of braindead and pathetic.