> What the louder militia members and gun nuts are up to is no secret.
For that matter, I'd include myself in the latter group. I'm reasonably vocal here - usually in an attempt to simply share my perspective, as it's not of the prevailing position in this community.
Sure, "the gun nuts" have a different agenda than the larger community. We're gun nuts because that's important to us. I can't think of anything that I've ever said (or seen said) in that community that should be secret. Lots of things that could be easily taken out of context, sure, and a fair number of things that are just plain inappropriate - but you could say the same for any community.
> You worry about the ones who organize quietly.
Some of them, absolutely.
> Here's "God, Family, and Guns", on YouTube.[1] This week, "What gun would Jesus carry?" (Answer: a 1911, the classic Army .45 automatic from 1911.)
I've never heard of that channel - though, granted, I'm not really a YouTube kinda person. It looks like what I'd call "Boomer content". I don't mean that in a negative way exactly; that's the kind of thing I'd expect someone in the gun community in their mid-50s or older to watch. The younger generation (say, 20s-40s) is watching things like "The Fat Electrician".
While there's certainly more overlap than a random group of people, in discussions like these I think even the most anti-gun people recognize that the broader "I like guns because guns are fun" community isn't really the focus in terms of domestic terrorism or crazy race war stuff.
Particularly on youtube there's this huge Forgotten Weapons, Garand Thumb, DemolitionRanch etc style sphere that stays relatively apolitical, or at least just mildly right wingy.
The problem is it's difficult to have one without the other. If the cost of reducing gun violence is that hobbyists can't collect guns... that's a cost I think society can stomach.
I'm not blaming hobbyists for gun violence or anything, obviously, but these ideas are not unconnected.
We are failing specific people at specific stages of their lives by not offering them opportunity and hope for the future, resulting in gun violence and suicide. Even if you could round up all the guns, the hopelessness and violence will remain without some structural changes.
If you're a US citizen, gun control is an infringement on your civil rights and a weak topical solution for systematic flaws.
I agree with everything you said, except your last sentence.
As a parent, and as a gun owner, I'm fine with there being gun control that leads to no more school shootings. And no, you can't depend on a "good guy with a gun" (Uvalde, Parkland). I don't know what the solution is, to be honest, but other countries don't have the school shooting problem the US has.
There is no gun control that leads to no school shootings. It is simply not possible.
The best thing we can do is to address the root cause, and react as quickly as possible when there is a problem. We have police presence at basically every single public arena -- government buildings, hospitals, stadiums, malls, etc; we should have police presence at schools too, along with the training to do their jobs effectively.
The harsh reality is that school shootings make up a vanishingly small number of students who will die of gun violence, let along those that die from any cause.
[The FBI says 105 people](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-...), excluding shooters, died in mass shootings in 2023, of which a subset will be students. Even if we assumed every mass shooting victim in 2023 was a student, something like 10x the number of students will die from poisoning, another 10x from suffocation, another 22x from motor vehicle collisions, etc.
I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.
First of all, I'm not a gun control activist, and I do agree with some of your views.
However:
> I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.
- increased wealth should be correlated with a reduction in shootings,
- population diversity is not a unique feature of the USA, it is comparable, or arguably lower, than most European countries,
- same for rights: the rights of a USA citizen are comparable to the average EU citizen. Many EU countries allow the possession of guns (although most forbid taking arms out of one's home unless it's for transport, e.g., to the firing range, and most EU states vehemently forbid concealed carry). There are some differences regarding Free Speech, however, where most EU countries allow it largely, but restrict hate speech more.
It's true that shootings are a somewhat unique USA problem, but I'd look more into cultural differences than into rights and demographics.
> I think this is a uniquely American problem because America is a unique country. No other nations have the incredible wealth, diversity, and rights of America, and looking to other countries to emulate is imo, a mistake.
Other than the "right to bear arms", what rights do Americans have that sets them apart?
> We know where gun violence comes from, and it's not dudes collecting vintage rifle prototypes from Yugoslavia.
I literally said "I'm not blaming gun hobbyists for violence." Thank you for starting off with a terribly bad faith reading of my comment.
> If you're a US citizen, gun control is an infringement on your civil rights
And this is what I mean by them being connected. Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights", which just makes it harder to make any changes that might actually reduce gun violence.
> Even if you could round up all the guns, the ... violence will remain without some structural changes.
It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same. Is there any evidence to support this theory? I've never seen any, but I have seen data suggesting that countries with stricter gun control laws tend to have less murders.
> gun control is an infringement on your civil rights
Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...
> the hopelessness ... will remain without some structural changes.
I don't disagree that hopelessness is the core issue here, but I think it's blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill, and tell them that owning that weapon (and using it when necessary...) is a fundamental part of their identity... that it won't result in more and more intense violence.
Like with many widespread societal issues, you can't just ignore the symptoms and try to cure the actual problem - and certainly nor can you do the opposite, as you say - you need to fix both.
> I literally said "I'm not blaming gun hobbyists for violence." Thank you for starting off with a terribly bad faith reading of my comment.
I agree with you, this is not the problem. No bad faith intended.
> Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights"..."
No quotes on rights. If you don't care about rights or are happy to cede them, then there are all kinds of societal improvements you could make -- say, banning hate speech, lowering or eliminating a presumption of innocence, banning private firearm ownership, etc. However, this is antithetical to how the US is setup and its system of laws. The same arguments used to attack gun control can just as easily be turned on other rights, such as the freedom of speech.
> It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same
It's difficult to run a proper experiment for many reasons. However, I would argue that the concern from voters is not about routine violence (eg gang violence localized to a specific community) but mass killings like Uvalde or Parkland. As we can see in Europe (or even in the US, in New Orleans), you can kill plenty of people with a car, a bomb, a knife, etc. Killing lots of people quickly is not an attribute unique to firearms.
> Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...
Yes, this is a systematic attack and many Americans see it this way. Governments have only ever moved one direction on gun control -- once the right is eroded, it is gone forever.
> blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill...
Again, the second amendment for everyone. We do not gate rights behind fees, tests, or onerous restrictions. I am interested in preserving (and expanding!) civil liberties for all, while addressing the root causes of gun violence.
I think the issue is less stopping gun collectors. The issue is preventing self-defense. If there were a magic weapon which can only be used to defend yourself, and not for offensive purposes, then sure! Ban guns! But in today’s world, a firearm is the most effective self-defense tool (tho owning a gun isn’t going to magically make you safer).
I grew up supporting gun control, but I think that’s because of my background. I grew up trusting the police, not only to protect me from any would-be ne'er-do-wells, but also that I wouldn’t be antagonized by the state.
If you live in a rural area, where the response time for the local sheriff is half an hour, then having a gun can be vital. Or if you live in an area where the cops simply won’t show up when called.
I don’t want to have to fully rely on the state for my personal safety, and in particular this current government.
Ah yes, paint the issue as only solvable by a "magic" item... Of course, trying to make the other side seem fundamentally silly is a primary tactic of the pro-gun crowd
> only be used to defend yourself, and not for offensive purposes, then sure!
Of course not, but the question is more the damage one can do when used for offensive purposes.
> Of course, trying to make the other side seem fundamentally silly is a primary tactic of the pro-gun crowd
I don't think "the other side" is fundamentally silly--that's just the way I write. I take "the other side" extremely seriously because, like I mentioned, I've been to pro gun control protests, and while I now disagree with some of those positions, I have genuine respect for where you're coming from.
In terms of less-lethal weapons, anyone who's serious about self defense should carry pepper spray (though pepper spray is non-lethal, rather than less-lethal). Full stop. If you want to carry a gun, too, that makes sense in some situations. But for myself and anyone who's serious about self-defense, we first of all hope to never have to use any of these tools ever. But if something did happen, I'd much much much rather use pepper spray than something that's more harmful.
Society believes it can stomach that cost because it is largely irrational, incapable of long-term or worst-case thinking, and utterly oblivious to ground-state reality.
I always feel the need to preface this statement when I make it here, so here we go: this is in no way meant as a threat or even a statement of my own political beliefs. It is my belief based on being a member of these communities for decades.
Any attempt to ban firearms in the United States would result in more death and injury than the problems it is intended to solve. The American people will not give up their arms without bloodshed.
Your argument is absurd... we have real world counter-examples. When people were complaining about the recent Iraq conflict (and Afghanistan too), the complaints were always "not enough boots on the ground". Turns out that what wins wars is men with rifles. Not tanks, battleships, or next generation fighter jets.
Worse than the logic of your argument, is the morality of it. If trained soldiers are oppressing people, then not only is it rational to retain the means to fight back against them, but it's a moral imperative. Stupidity might be forgiven, you can't will yourself to be smarter than you were born. Moral cowardice is a choice, a disgusting one.
>Any attempt to ban firearms in the United States would result in more death and injury than the problems it is intended to solve.
This is a very generous assumption. I instead assume that the problem that it intends to solve is "how does a government crank down hard on its citizens so that they become some sort of Stalinesque serfs who have no power and those which survive mindlessly obey"... in that scenario, gun prohibition isn't just a good idea but probably a necessary precondition.
For obvious reasons, even if gun control advocates are privy to that reasoning, public relations demands that they not say that part out loud.
> the broader "I like guns because guns are fun" community
That's the community I'm speaking of - in fact, we'd call those people "Fudds", after Elmer Fudd.
It's definitely a political position. It's just one that's prone to violence. If anything, it's the opposite; the gun community does an excellent job of policing itself. I've personally seen people displaying violent tendencies get reported and ultimately charged and convicted within that particular community.
Gen X is in their mid-fifties. Boomers are in their 70s now. But yes, it is Boomer content, and the pick of the 1911 is a weirdly hilarious tell. That's the sidearm from WWII so it's the one all the Boomers' dad's wore into Europe & the Pacific. Of course Jesus would choose the 1911 lmao
I don't carry them much, for all the reasons you might imagine: they're big, heavy, and relatively low capacity. They feel great, though.
Realistically I almost always carry a Glock 43. If I were buying a carry pistol today, I'd consider a Sig P365 or a Canik. They're the right balance of capability and convenience.
... but yeah, that particular conclusion was foregone. If nothing else, it feeds the long-running meme of .45 ACP being "God's caliber".
> Lots of things that could be easily taken out of context, sure, and a fair number of things that are just plain inappropriate - but you could say the same for any community.
What kind of ridiculous copium is this?
i'm sure the quilting community says all sorts of terrible things that could be taken out of context.
the difference is they don't have a long history of gun violence. ain't no one showed up and killed 20 elementary kids with knitting needles. no one smuggled a crochet gear to a 17 year old and saw protesters crochet'd to death.
and what is your 2nd amendment right doing now? the government, and arguably global economy, is under threat and you're doing what exactly with these guns?
Personally, I’m using my guns to teach my trans friends how to shoot. The government (and their supporters) are increasingly vocal in their dehumanization and threats against trans people, and many (of my friends at least) are looking for protection.
What else would you have me do with my guns? (I’m also helping my non-trans friends get into shooting too.)
People are not ready to take up arms over "economic policy". What they're concerned about is the flaunting of the Constitution by the Executive, and the dereliction of duty by Congress.
Global economics has the power to kill far more people than small arms ever could. We suggest you put your money where your exceptionally large mouths are.
I understand there are arguments for it. I can even understand where they are coming from. What is interesting is many of these anti 2A sorts unknowingly speak their murderous intent out loud. They are that which they hate.
That's fair. It is highly hypocritical to call for the end of civilian gun ownership but expect civilian gun owners to save them from authoritarian goverment.
It is also hypocritical for civilian gun owners to claim they will use their 2A rights to protect themselves and other citizens from authoritarian government but fail to be vigilant enough to recognize the rise of authoritarianism.
This only works if the people that have guns are smart enough to know when to use them con(de?)structively. Unfortunately there are swathes of American gun owners that view politics like a football game that will never have any effect on them, and once it arrives on their doorstep it will be far, far too late.
> That's fair. It is highly hypocritical to call for the end of civilian gun ownership but expect civilian gun owners to save them from authoritarian goverment.
I wouldn't say hypocritical. I'd say cognitively dissonant. Not the same thing.
> It is also hypocritical for civilian gun owners to claim they will use their 2A rights to protect themselves and other citizens from authoritarian government but fail to be vigilant enough to recognize the rise of authoritarianism.
Private firearms ownership is an indirect and implicit threat of violence against tyranny. It may or may not work as such. It might only limit the degree of tyranny. Remember, armed citizens can't organize to commit violence against the state because the state has authority (or a patina of authority) and the ability to bring a great deal of force to bear on any hot spots. The state's ability to bring force to bear is limited though, but only in such a way that a huge number of citizens would have to rise up simultaneously and be patient enough to keep rising as the going gets tough. Therefore I think private firearms ownership can't stop tyranny altogether, but can moderate it. There is no hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance here.
>ain't no one showed up and killed 20 elementary kids with knitting needles.
Plainly false. Though people who advocate gun control never pay attention, there have been many high-profile mass murders/attacks where people did attack with knives/swords/machetes, and these have comparable body counts.
The UK is way ahead of you too, by the way. They've started to implement knife control, including orders for people to bring in kitchen knives to have the tips blunted.
>and what is your 2nd amendment right doing now? the government, and arguably global economy, is under threat a
And that government is perceived to be on the side of the gun rights proponents. The people complaining are largely those who have, in the past, eschewed gun ownership.
The point was that knitting needles are not implements of violence, yet groups using them for the group's explicit purpose can have very bad and harmful takes. One does not need to have a weapon to be harmful. Our Dear Leader has proven that many times.
It is a good idea to stand on pro-gun rhetoric when you want all the guns on your side and not being pointed at you. You use confusing double-talk to trick them into believing you are on their side and you fight for them. In the US, there is the added benefit of poor education, which cripples critical thinking.
Also, the claim that melee weapons are somehow comparable to modern firearms is quite laughable. Where are you getting your data?
>Also, the claim that melee weapons are somehow comparable to modern firearms is quite laughable.
People laugh at all sorts of things that aren't very funny.
The body counts for most of the school shootings (and other, various, non-school shootings) that people complain about are just under double digits, or manage to roll right up into double digits. Blade attacks are perfectly capable of that many injuries and deaths within the time constraint of a typical police response. This is born by fact, where such knife attacks have managed those body counts. There are a half a dozen or more in recent years in China, and at least one in Europe that I can think of.
>You use confusing double-talk to trick them into believing you are on their side and you fight for them.
No one with any sense here thinks I "fight for them". I'm just showing that I'm not unwilling for them to exercise their own rights to self-defense. This is because a principle is at stake. If it also contrasts with the general lack of principles among those who advocate gun control somehow, that's their problem.
> and what is your 2nd amendment right doing now? the government, and arguably global economy, is under threat and you're doing what exactly with these guns?
It sounds like you're either advocating or wishing that gun owners "do something", something presumably violent. And that in a post ascribing desire for violence to [from context] militias and gun nuts. A bit strange, IMO.
> i'm sure the quilting community says all sorts of terrible things that could be taken out of context.
The things said there are different in perspective from some of the things said here, just from another direction.
To be more specific, most of the time when I see someone say something like "hang 'em from the lampposts", it's in reference to LEO attempting confiscation or something. It should not be reasonably construed as a legitimate threat and is not intended as such. It's hyperbole.
People who are actually a risk are obvious based on their overall pattern of behavior.
> the difference is they don't have a long history of gun violence. ain't no one showed up and killed 20 elementary kids with knitting needles. no one smuggled a crochet gear to a 17 year old and saw protesters crochet'd to death.
Neither does the gun community.
We do have dangerous items as the center of the whole idea, though, which means the hyperbole I mentioned above is looked at much more closely than if a textile artist made the same comment. That has resulted in significant internal policing.
> and what is your 2nd amendment right doing now? the government, and arguably global economy, is under threat and you're doing what exactly with these guns?
The vast majority of us don't see things that way at all - this is exactly what "we" (i.e., the gun community) voted for.
That said, I've been an advocate for LGBT, minorities, and others at risk acquiring arms and training for decades. I'll continue to do that.
For that matter, I'd include myself in the latter group. I'm reasonably vocal here - usually in an attempt to simply share my perspective, as it's not of the prevailing position in this community.
Sure, "the gun nuts" have a different agenda than the larger community. We're gun nuts because that's important to us. I can't think of anything that I've ever said (or seen said) in that community that should be secret. Lots of things that could be easily taken out of context, sure, and a fair number of things that are just plain inappropriate - but you could say the same for any community.
> You worry about the ones who organize quietly.
Some of them, absolutely.
> Here's "God, Family, and Guns", on YouTube.[1] This week, "What gun would Jesus carry?" (Answer: a 1911, the classic Army .45 automatic from 1911.)
I've never heard of that channel - though, granted, I'm not really a YouTube kinda person. It looks like what I'd call "Boomer content". I don't mean that in a negative way exactly; that's the kind of thing I'd expect someone in the gun community in their mid-50s or older to watch. The younger generation (say, 20s-40s) is watching things like "The Fat Electrician".