A lot of Americans do actually support some gun control measures. A lot of Americans also don’t actually know how insanely hard and effectively the NRA has organized and opposed any remotely reasonable gun control measure. They basically ensure that any hearing on the subject is flooded by their members to oppose it. They just go and many sane Americans don’t.
The ATF has no ability to have searchable records of firearm sales. To run a “trace” they need to use fucking microfilm or manually go through literal shipping containers full of receipts that are scarcely legible due to water damage. Article
Measure to apply for funding for the CDC
to study the effect of gun control on gun violence: no, because fuck them.
Measure to impose some reasonable restrictions on the ability to purchase firearms for, say, known domestic abusers: no, because we just don’t fucking care.
I’m not American, but I actually support sane firearm ownership.
I look at the lunacy over there and I am almost shocked. I really do think, from hearing about this as much as I do, that many Americans support sane measures. But the NRA is a huge problem. It prevents people from even being educated on this issue.
rockstarmode@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I’m not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.
Again, I’m not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.
If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.
(Note; It’s highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)
The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they’re worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.
(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives and economically)
There are measures to keep “known” domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If “known” means “convicted” or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.
(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it’s arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)