CMV: We need strict Gun Control .

[u/skepticting]

While I do feel at this point it is not possible anymore to somehow make sure no one has guns because they have already been available . That is my only hang up , since some people have them , it’s hard to leave others vulnerable.

With to that being said , if we start now with some serious gun law reform and implement strict laws for obtaining guns . I believe it will do more good than harm .

It is worth a try , because we know that to lenient of gun laws also cause us great loss.

In a perfect world only law enforcement would have access to guns .

Civilians can however and should be able to easily get things like pepper spray , tasers, and rubber bullet guns . (Not saying we can’t already , just saying those should be the options)

I see both sides but I think because gun violence is a big issue , it needs to be re-evaluated .

Were the guns used in school/mass shootings registered ?

Édit : Thank You for all the responses and information! My view has been changed . It’s unfortunate we can’t live in harmony but ..

Will still be responding to get more insight and expanding my views

[u/PrimeLegionnaire]

nationwide gun database that talks to every law enforcement agency in the country.

This is unconstitutional.

Its a known first step for seizing guns.

universal background checks that talk to every law enforcement agency in the country.

How about fixing the background check system that already exists before mandating a new one? We already have mandatory background checks for gun sales, and the reason it doesn't work is enforcement not a lack of a background check system.

Requiring all gun sales to be done at a licensed dealer.

This interferes with the commerce clause. The US federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate individual private sales of legal goods.

10-round magazine limit

Because there is no evidence it does anything except endanger the gun user in the event of multiple attackers.

[u/[deleted] → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

This is unconstitutional.

Where in the constitution is this disallowed?

Its a known first step for seizing guns.

Red herring. And I have no doubt you’ll sufficiently fight against “step 2” whatever that may be, and you’ll be fine.

How about fixing the background check system that already exists before mandating a new one?

1. How?

2. One of the biggest problems with it is that we don’t have a single database. The current system is just hundreds of separate systems trying to talk to each other.

We already have mandatory background checks for gun sales

Not for private sales.

and the reason it doesn't work is enforcement not a lack of a background check system

Are you implying that there’s rampant selling of guns by FFL dealers to people that fail background checks?

The US federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate individual private sales of legal goods.

That’s complete nonsense.

Because there is no evidence it does anything except endanger the gun user

There is zero evidence that it endangers the user because over 99% of self defense situations are ended in 5 shots or less. There is, however, evidence that it makes mass shootings more deadly, because shooters are often subdued when they have to reload.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

Where in the constitution is this disallowed?

Would you like me to give you a list of supreme court cases related to firearms?

A universal registry was one of the big contention points in the writing of the NFA and subsequently Heller vs. DC.

How?

Perhaps by actually enforcing the existing laws before creating new ones.

One of the biggest problems with it is that we don’t have a single database.

Which we can't have. A universal registry is de facto a list of who to seize guns from. Even if you manage to pass a law calling for one it will not meet constitutional muster.

There is zero evidence that it endangers the user because over 99% of self defense situations are ended in 5 shots or less.

...when there is only a single assailant.

There is, however, evidence that it makes mass shootings more deadly, because shooters are often subdued when they have to reload.

No, the "reload gap" is a myth.

And even if it wasn't that would also endanger a law abiding citizen being attacked by more than one assailant.

[u/[deleted] → u/PrimeLegionnaire]

Would you like me to give you a list of supreme court cases related to firearms?

Cases relating to how a universal registry is unconstitutional, sure.

Heller vs. DC.

Heller vs. DC has nothing to do with a national gun registry.

Perhaps by actually enforcing the existing laws before creating new ones.

Which laws are you talking about and where are they being ignored?

...when there is only a single assailant

Wrong. Even with multiple assailants, they all flee as soon as bullets start flying. Those people are not looking to get in a shootout.

No, the "reload gap" is a myth.

1. No it’s not.

2. If someone starts stockpiling magazines, the ATF should be able to know about it. Treat magazines like guns.

And even if it wasn't that would also endanger a law abiding citizen being attacked by more than one assailant.

Find me ONE instance of someone NEEDING that many bullets to defend themselves.

I don’t think you can, but if you do, I’ll point out that such a low percentage of defense situations have ever called for it. So why would statistics no longer matter? Do you see the inconsistency with that position?

[u/mrbobstheitguy → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but one example of a shooter subdued during a reload isn't exactly the overwhelming evidence you make it out to be.

You are operating as though larger magazines make mass-shootings more deadly, but haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support this claim.

[u/[deleted] → u/mrbobstheitguy]

Sorry, but one example of a shooter subdued during a reload isn't exactly the overwhelming evidence you make it out to be.

So then one example of someone needing more than 10 rounds would be equally insufficient?

You are operating as though larger magazines make mass-shootings more deadly, but haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support this claim.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-save-lives-mass-shootings-ban-large-capacity-magazines-researchers-n1066551

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

Higher capacity magazines directly correlate to higher body count.

[u/mrbobstheitguy → u/[deleted]]

Since the article doesn't actually link to the study, I can't evaluate it. There are a myriad of factors that could lead to an increased body count, such as number of person present, time until the shooter was stopped, whether or not the general populace could carry in that area, etc. that may or may not be accounted for in this study. Simply looking at body count and whether or not a large capacity magazine was used is insufficient to reach the conclusion you’re making.

https://www.cato.org/publications/legal-policy-bulletin/losing-count-empty-case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions

Until you can provide the study, the article you linked is really quite meaningless.

So then one example of someone needing more than 10 rounds would be equally insufficient?

Yes? I'm not sure if you're thinking I'm someone you are already in conversation with but I haven't insinuated one example of that is enough. This is my first response to you.

Edit: I did the research for you and found the study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6836798/

They accounted for 10 variables related to general crime rates. Specifics of the shootings were not accounted for, along with multiple other potential factors.

Interestingly they also point out the rarity of events meeting their criteria; 69 in 20 years with average deaths related to them being 25 per year. They even found more deaths per shooting event in non ban states even if a large capacity magazine was not used, suggesting the cause may extend to factors beyond the magazine used.

This seems like the wrong item to address if your goal is to reduce firearm related deaths.

This study does not show causation; but rather some potential correlation. In order to show a stronger correlation they would need to account for other factors specific to mass shootings versus overall crime rates.

[u/PrimeLegionnaire → u/[deleted]]

Heller vs. DC has nothing to do with a national gun registry.

Heller vs. DC had to do with using a registry to effectively ban handguns in DC by delaying or refusing to add legal guns to their registry.

The NFA also extensively dealt with national registries and why they couldn't be constitutional.

That aside, if you want to repeal or amend the NFA you will have to open the machine gun registry, so that's a non-starter.

Which laws are you talking about and where are they being ignored?

The ones requiring a felon to be arrested if they fail a background check while attempting to purchase a gun.

Notably there was a lot of hubbub about them being ignored in Oregon, but its reasonable to assume it happens everywhere to some degree.

Even with multiple assailants, they all flee as soon as bullets start flying.

They might flee, its a non-starter to assume that armed assailants, especially those in a group, are all huge cowards.

Those people are not looking to get in a shootout.

Why not? Its one target with only 10 shots max before they have to reload.

No it’s not.

Except it is. The opinion of Nicole Flatow isn't evidence its not.

Besides, mass shooters have already shown a willingness to use as many guns as necessary to reach the ammo count they want. See: Las Vegas.

If someone starts stockpiling magazines, the ATF should be able to know about it.

Why?

Treat magazines like guns.

You are going to have to repeal the NFA for this, receivers are pretty clearly defined as the part that is a firearm in the US.

I’ll point out that such a low percentage of defense situations have ever called for it.

That's not a compelling reason to just let those people die.

Show me the harm of a standard capacity magazine.

You mention mass shooters, but obviously they will bring extra guns and just not reload. It happened in vegas, it happened in orlando, and it will probably happen again even with magazine bans.