Is gun compromise possible?

[MKSheppard]

Lonestar; you say:

Honestly, there's a lot of restrictions I agree with in principle but I oppose in practice because the anti-RKBA side has shown itself to simply use it for step one of helping things along further down the road. Heck, you only need to look at every UBC proposal that comes down the pike in the US to see it. No one proposes anything other than something that leads to a individual gun registry, and given that I can think of twice since the 90s when a registry was used for confiscation later, I am 100% opposed to it.

Yet you say that you're OK with UBCs in exchange for nationwide carry. NICS itself is an automated registry; per the law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9

(b) The FBI will maintain an automated NICS Audit Log of all incoming and outgoing transactions that pass through the system.

(1)Contents. The NICS Audit Log will record the following information: Type of transaction (inquiry or response), line number, time, date of inquiry, header, message key, ORI or FFL identifier, and inquiry/response data (including the name and other identifying information about the prospective transferee and the NTN).

As it is, NICS Audit Log is basically "Joe Bob bought a long gun at 2:41 PM from Sixpack Supplies in Oregon, WA on 21 January 2020." over and over for everything that goes through the NICS system.

THEORETICALLY by law:

(iii) In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.

But if you believe that information is actually destroyed with what we know the last few years of government datamining etc, I have a bridge to sell you somewhere in Crimea.

Likewise, your proposed exchange of GVROs for Silencers doesn't work. As implemented, GVROs are a legalized form of "swatting" and prone to misuse -- since all it takes is an anonymous protest for the cops to roll up at your place at 0300 to either arrest you or confiscate your weapons, without a hearing in court (called in on a friday night, closest you can get to a court hearing is monday morning if you're lucky).

Here's my proposal:

Because the US Military has standardized the M4 Carbine as a replacement for the M16 in basic military training, there is now a legal military use for short barreled rifles; and as such, per Miller v US (1934), short barreled rifles are no longer controlled under the national firearms act, as they now have legitimate military uses.

Likewise, with the US Marine Crops issuing a requirement for an integrally suppressed rifle, and the widespread use of suppressors in military forces, suppressors are no longer controlled under the national firearms act, as they now have legitimate military uses.

[MKSheppard]

No it isn't. Gun store employees are def able to deny a sale on the basis of a gut feeling, and if a small set of gun stores are acting as pipelines then it stretches the bounds of imagination they don't know what they are engaging in.

Under the regulations, yes, they are allowed to deny sale for whatever reason.

For all practicality, do you want to be that guy whose store shows up on the nightly news after complaints from councilmen/aldermen about how your employees keep turning away POCs, even though said POCs have passed NICS at other stores?

[Lonestar]

People do it all the time.

I have physically been in a store when someone from DC was very obviously trying to use his VA resident aunt with Dementia to straw purchase a firearm at BRA in Chantilly, and he started yelling about racism when the guy behind the counter "no buddy".

But anyway, if your store keeps on getting visits from the ATF because of gun traces, at a certain point you can't plead ignorance. I mean, maybe you can, because you're a sociopath, but you shouldn't.

[Lonestar]

Yet you say that you're OK with UBCs in exchange for nationwide carry. NICS itself is an automated registry; per the law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9

Why don't you re-read that paragraph, you big dummy, and see if you can squeeze some inferred meaning out of "no one proposes anything other than something that leads to a individual gun registry". It's almost as if I'm criticizing applying the 4473 to all transactions.

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, he's saying that the question "can there be compromise on gun control" is inherently contradictory with "we want to create further restrictions on gun owners". If one side of an issue gets everything they want and another side of the issue gets nothing they want, that's not a compromise; and if it turns out that both sides of an issue cannot both get something of what they want, then indeed no compromise is possible.

I don't see what the contradiction is. The compromise at hand is figuring out the balance between allowing people the freedom to own and use firearms while also balancing public safety. To exaggerate a bit: if one side of the argument wants all guns to be illegal and nobody to own guns, and one side of the argument wants all guns to be completely free without restriction, it's ludicrous to say that the middle ground of "some guns will be illegal or difficult to acquire" is somehow not a compromise. By making that argument, you are literally declaring yourself as the one to be opposed to any kind of compromise, because you've drawn a line in the sand and claimed that anything short of that line is you "getting nothing you want". That's approaching the issue completely in bad faith. I mean, I don't know how anybody could ever say with a straight face, "I'm not getting literally everything I want, so compromise is impossible!".

I mean, by this logic, making it illegal to facetiously shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater can never be viewed as a compromise between free speech and complete censorship, because people who want free speech can't accept any restriction at all.

[His Divine Shadow]

The position of central storage is to me an extremist position that is very unrealistic when you give it any more than a few seconds thought. It however can be modified into say something more sensible.... Gun safe requirement perhaps? That's a compromise between no safe requirement and central storage. Voilá, you have now compromised.

Those are the kinds of things that you might have some chance of getting through as resonable compromise.

[Formless]

I don't see what the contradiction is. The compromise at hand is figuring out the balance between allowing people the freedom to own and use firearms while also balancing public safety. To exaggerate a bit: if one side of the argument wants all guns to be illegal and nobody to own guns, and one side of the argument wants all guns to be completely free without restriction, it's ludicrous to say that the middle ground of "some guns will be illegal or difficult to acquire" is somehow not a compromise. By making that argument, you are literally declaring yourself as the one to be opposed to any kind of compromise, because you've drawn a line in the sand and claimed that anything short of that line is you "getting nothing you want". That's approaching the issue completely in bad faith. I mean, I don't know how anybody could ever say with a straight face, "I'm not getting literally everything I want, so compromise is impossible!".

I mean, by this logic, making it illegal to facetiously shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater can never be viewed as a compromise between free speech and complete censorship, because people who want free speech can't accept any restriction at all.

This isn't philosophy. This is politics. The difference is that in philosophy you can talk about compromise in a manner devoid of the human element. In politics the human element is the only thing that matters. Clearly the RKBA side doesn't trust gun control advocates that come in and Appeal to Compromise. Why? Because they feel that the appeal is in bad faith. That as soon as they make a compromise with the Gun Control advocates, the gun control side will move the goalposts again and thus turn the existing compromise into a negative for gun owners. Plus, the RKBA side feels that they have made concessions in the past that were ultimately good for no one, but especially bad for gun owners. Like the NFA's specific classifications relating to suppressors and short barreled long arms. And the thing is, there is precedent for the gun control advocates to in fact be schemers and chess players. They really have made laws in the past that were later used against gun owners despite appearing at the time to be compromises. So they have good reason to be suspicious of compromise. At a certain point, it makes logical sense to draw a line in the sand and say "this is what I am NOT willing to compromise on". Because if you don't have a list, your position is meaningless. Moreover, many gun owners are also suspicious of the public safety motive because while it might appear philosophically sound, in practice it often masks an Appeal to Fear. See literally every law ever made that bans firearms based on their cosmetic properties (like having a pistol grip on a rifle). This isn't just me referencing the old 1995 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which the statistics showed to do nothing, but also current California law. Under California's current laws, owning a completely normal AR15 is a pain in the ass, but a rifle with exactly the same qualities and functionality but a cosmetically different stock is perfectly legal. The California legislation literally does nothing except make life hard on gun owners because of fear of the AR15.

In other words, what you are saying on paper makes perfect sense. But in practice, gun owners feel that it is the gun control crowd who are actually not willing to compromise, even though they use the word. In that context, giving gun owners something like a repeal of certain NFA categories helps demonstrate that your appeal to compromise isn't just a chess move in a larger, zero sum game. Of course there will be those who remain distrustful because of history or tribalism. But its still something you have to do if you genuinely believe in balancing freedom against safety and want to make political progress towards that.

[The Romulan Republic]

snip

Your source references a twenty year old paper from a state AG (ie, someone who has jack and shit for influence over federal policy or the constitution). And the fact that said paper references various forms of gun control is not proof that those proposals are all part of a secret conspiracy to ban all guns, though I'm sure you think it is.

[Formless]

The position of central storage is to me an extremist position that is very unrealistic when you give it any more than a few seconds thought. It however can be modified into say something more sensible.... Gun safe requirement perhaps? That's a compromise between no safe requirement and central storage. Voilá, you have now compromised.

Those are the kinds of things that you might have some chance of getting through as resonable compromise.

The problem is that such laws are unpopular for several reasons not the least of which is the economic burden that they place on gun owners. There is this idea that guns should not be owned exclusively by the middle and upper classes. And I think its particularly unpopular with blacks and other racial minorities who own firearms because of their sour history with law enforcement that continues to this day-- you don't want a racist cop coming into your home on a yearly basis to inspect the safe for reasons that should be obvious. The cops would misuse that time and the very information that someone owns a gun safe, its just a matter of how. Finally there is the issue that a safe makes a gun harder to access in the case of home invasion, and I say this as someone who lives in a Castle Doctrine state. Voters do take this kind of thing seriously, and people do consider guns to be valid devices for personal and home defense here.

[Jub]

I think the main hurdle to pass with any of the more sensible firearms lows the US could enact is the idea that having and carrying a loaded firearm in public is a useful self-defense tool. Until you can convince people to give up their .45 caliber security blanket or 9mm pacifier you'll never make a dent in firearms crime in the US. More than just getting firearms out of the wrong hands, you need to de-normalize them to the same degree that most other civilized nations have.

I know there are arguments that taking away the right to self-defense will create a free for all where criminals rule but has that actually happened anywhere else where the number of firearms has been drastically reduced by new laws? The same goes for the argument that guns protect women and the elderly by being a force multiplier. Is there any evidence for that being true (or true to a greater extent) in places where firearms aren't commonly carried for self-defense?

I think that both sides of the gun control debate need to look at the actual numbers and find where they can give and where they can let the other side take and that self-defense might be an area where that can happen.

[Crazedwraith]

Regardless, Lonestar what do you think could be offered to gun owners to make them accept more gun control?

You have a strange idea of a compromise when you think that "well we are putting negatives on what you want and you are getting no positives out of it" is a "compromise". I really have no idea where to being if you thing a two column score board where the home team is 0 but the visitor is 1 instead of 2...but has also won every other game this season by 1 or 2 points represents a compromise.

I do not understand your analogy in the slightest . Are you referring to specific history of Us Gun control? I am only talking in the abstract.

Look say, two people are getting married. One of them wants a massive wedding with 100 guests, the other wants a small affair with the bare minimum witnesses. They compromise and settle on 50. A comprise where one doesn't get as much as they want, the other doesn't get as little as they want.

Or painting a wall. One wants it yellow and the other wants it blue. They compromise and paint it green. Neither gets what they want, they both settle for something in the middle. Now a different compromise would be they paint that wall blue and the person who wanted a yellow wall gets to decide on something else. I believe this second version fits your idea that gun advocates must be 'given something' in a compromise/

I do apologise for the simple analogies but while I believe I understand you distaste for it and on a pragmatic level realise it won't convice gun advocate, to call the idea of moderate gun control 'not a compromise' just strikes me as linguistically incorrect.

Anyway, I would do universal background checks in exchange for nationwide carry, for example. I would do GVROs removal of silencers from the NFA.-snip rest-

Thank you for presenting some ideas for discussion. I don't really have the knowledge to argue in depth about thr suggestions. And I am quickly regretting, as ever, engaging in gun debate about american, so I shall bow out here unless you feel strongly I should address something.


eta:fixing quotes.

[MKSheppard]

But anyway, if your store keeps on getting visits from the ATF because of gun traces, at a certain point you can't plead ignorance.

ATF can only visit you once a year for compliance checks outside of ongoing criminal case inquiries -- this was a reform in FOPA to stop ATF harassment of FFLs.

Anyway:

https://news.medill.northwestern.edu/ch ... go-crimes/

Chuck’s Gun Shop, located in Riverdale, sold nearly 1,000 of the 3,389 guns tied to the crimes and traced to the 10 stories during that three-year span, according to the 2017 report.

Chuck's still has an active FFL going; if it was really a problem of noncompliance or ignoring the regulations such as saying "we called it into NICS" when you didn't, the ATF would revoke their FFL.

This article with a map of "problem" FFL dealers shows the issue nicely

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loc ... story.html



All the "problem" FFL dealers are generally:

A.) Located on major interstate highways or regional thruways (easy access)
B.) Outside the Chicago Metropolitan area. (Chicago hates gun stores)

Also, I notice that Cabelas is #4 on the list. Major chain stores like Cabelas are VERY risk sensitive and have all sorts of extra regs and rules on top of local regulations.

In any case it's irrevelant, since you need a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) to even purchase a gun in Illinois; and the Illinois State Police automatically "hot washes" the FOID database against NICS every single night -- so FOID owners are background checked by the FBI approximately 360+ times a year.

[MKSheppard]

Moreover, many gun owners are also suspicious of the public safety motive because while it might appear philosophically sound, in practice it often masks an Appeal to Fear. See literally every law ever made that bans firearms based on their cosmetic properties (like having a pistol grip on a rifle). This isn't just me referencing the old 1995 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which the statistics showed to do nothing, but also current California law. Under California's current laws, owning a completely normal AR15 is a pain in the ass, but a rifle with exactly the same qualities and functionality but a cosmetically different stock is perfectly legal. The California legislation literally does nothing except make life hard on gun owners because of fear of the AR15.

Or under Maryland's "Firearms Safety Act of 2013" which banned "Assault Weapons":


Springfield M1A (BANNED -- except for NORINCO chinese copy which has slightly different receiver dimensions and metric instead of SAE threads)


S&W M&P-10 (LEGAL).

The M&P 10 fires the same caliber round, has the same magazine capacity, and is lighter, more reliable, more accurate, and cheaper than the Springfield M1A; yet the M&P 10 is legal to buy in Maryland, while the M1A is banned.

[TimothyC]

Or painting a wall. One wants it yellow and the other wants it blue. They compromise and paint it green. Neither gets what they want, they both settle for something in the middle. Now a different compromise would be they paint that wall blue and the person who wanted a yellow wall gets to decide on something else. I believe this second version fits your idea that gun advocates must be 'given something' in a compromise.

Let me run a version of this past you so you can see where the pro-RKBA people are coming from.

The room started out as all blue, and in 1934 the 'compromise' was that there would be one wall pained yellow(This is the National Firearms Act). Then in 1968, the 'compromise' was that another wall would be yellow (1968 Gun Control Act). Then, in 1986, in what was supposed to be a relative compromise, the yellow side decided that all of the trim would be yellow (Hughes Amendment to FOPA). Then, in 1994 a third wall would be painted yellow, but it would be revisited in 10 years (Assault Weapons Ban). Now, fortunately, the yellow side hit a point of diminishing returns where people who wanted blue were getting mad so when it was revisited it got turned into a blue and yellow stripe pattern (various states passed their own versions of the AWB that have not expired), but so far, the room has generally gotten more yellow over time, and it feels like a ratchet that with one exception (AWB expiration) has resulted in a room that only gets more yellow. If you want 'compromise' you should be willing to give something up that you have already - maybe the trim (Hughes Amendment), or the closet (SRBs and silencers).

That is the perspective of the pro-RKBA side. Politicians can ignore it at their own peril.

[MKSheppard]

Tim, better analogy is the cake:

[Crazedwraith]

Maybe you could link the massive image?

TimothyC, thanks for that. As I said, I was thinking more in the abstract and can't debate the specific history of american gun control.

[Formless]

I think the main hurdle to pass with any of the more sensible firearms lows the US could enact is the idea that having and carrying a loaded firearm in public is a useful self-defense tool. Until you can convince people to give up their .45 caliber security blanket or 9mm pacifier you'll never make a dent in firearms crime in the US. More than just getting firearms out of the wrong hands, you need to de-normalize them to the same degree that most other civilized nations have.

I know there are arguments that taking away the right to self-defense will create a free for all where criminals rule but has that actually happened anywhere else where the number of firearms has been drastically reduced by new laws? The same goes for the argument that guns protect women and the elderly by being a force multiplier. Is there any evidence for that being true (or true to a greater extent) in places where firearms aren't commonly carried for self-defense?

I think that both sides of the gun control debate need to look at the actual numbers and find where they can give and where they can let the other side take and that self-defense might be an area where that can happen.

*sigh* Do I have to explain why this is a non-starter? In many of those countries, firearms were not the most popular self defense weapons on the market in the first place simply due to the economics of the situation. The US had the most advanced gun industry in the world in the 19'th century due to various factors, creating an environment where a revolver in the US could cost dramatically less to buy than its equivalent in Europe. They were available, and they were even seen as valid self defense weapons, but they were relatively costly compared to alternatives: knives, pocket clubs, canes, martial arts training, etc. Actually, carrying weapons in the 19'th century was much more common in Europe just in general than it is today-- its not just the gun laws that got more restrictive in the last century. Hell, its even true in the States. There are a whole bunch of states where blackjacks and other types of pocket club are flat out banned, but if you jump through the right hoops you can get a gun and a concealed carry license without nearly as much issue. Anyway, local gun makers in Europe tended not to make revolvers in the same volume as Colt and S&W, and when they did it tended to be because they had a military contract to fulfill. So unless you were going to go somewhere volatile like Ireland, even the police often didn't think they needed to all carry guns.

Still, even among Europeans at the time there was an understanding that there were good reasons for guns being popular self defense tools in the US. For instance, the fencer and martial artist, Colonel Thomas Hoyer Monstery wrote a book about the use of boxing for self defense and in it he specifically wrote to never ever ever get into a fist fight in the American South. You see, Southerners at the time practiced a fighting style known politely as "rough and tumble" and more accurately as "gouging," and winning such a fight was less important than not getting your testicles ripped off. That is not a joke. His advice? Buy a gun. Again, not a joke. That was the European understanding of self defense in America at the time. Incidentally, the same advice applied to Japan because the Samurai class still openly carried swords.

From what I can tell there is a brief change around the turn of the century where pistols become more popular in Europe because the semiautomatic pistol was invented in Gerrmany. The European gun industry was catching up to the States, and that made firearms more accessible for a few decades. The change in attitudes towards guns as self defense item seems to be a post-World War II thing, and I don't think that is or can be a coincidence. But unless something similar happens in America (and it won't), the idea of guns as a self defense and home defense tool isn't going to go away. Hell, its not even totally gone outside this country. But unless you live in, say, South Africa it just isn't a mainstream opinion.

Oh, and by the way? All of those 19'th century firearms aren't legally considered firearms in the US. The NFA definitions all focus exclusively on weapons that use modern smokeless powder. Black powder guns can be owned even by convicted felons unless local laws say otherwise. Black powder itself can be regulated as an explosive, but there are black powder alternatives on the market that are not. Food for thought.

[TimothyC]

TimothyC, thanks for that. As I said, I was thinking more in the abstract and can't debate the specific history of american gun control.

Fair enough, but the history of the debate in the US informs the present and the politics of why people are so against 'compromise' that has historically been anything but.

[Jub]

*sigh* Do I have to explain why this is a non-starter? In many of those countries, firearms were not the most popular self defense weapons on the market in the first place simply due to the economics of the situation. The US had the most advanced gun industry in the world in the 19'th century due to various factors, creating an environment where a revolver in the US could cost dramatically less to buy than its equivalent in Europe. They were available, and they were even seen as valid self defense weapons, but they were relatively costly compared to alternatives: knives, pocket clubs, canes, martial arts training, etc. Actually, carrying weapons in the 19'th century was much more common in Europe just in general than it is today-- its not just the gun laws that got more restrictive in the last century. Hell, its even true in the States. There are a whole bunch of states where blackjacks and other types of pocket club are flat out banned, but if you jump through the right hoops you can get a gun and a concealed carry license without nearly as much issue. Anyway, local gun makers in Europe tended not to make revolvers in the same volume as Colt and S&W, and when they did it tended to be because they had a military contract to fulfill. So unless you were going to go somewhere volatile like Ireland, even the police often didn't think they needed to all carry guns.

Still, even among Europeans at the time there was an understanding that there were good reasons for guns being popular self defense tools in the US. For instance, the fencer and martial artist, Colonel Thomas Hoyer Monstery wrote a book about the use of boxing for self defense and in it he specifically wrote to never ever ever get into a fist fight in the American South. You see, Southerners at the time practiced a fighting style known politely as "rough and tumble" and more accurately as "gouging," and winning such a fight was less important than not getting your testicles ripped off. That is not a joke. His advice? Buy a gun. Again, not a joke. That was the European understanding of self defense in America at the time. Incidentally, the same advice applied to Japan because the Samurai class still openly carried swords.

From what I can tell there is a brief change around the turn of the century where pistols become more popular in Europe because the semiautomatic pistol was invented in Gerrmany. The European gun industry was catching up to the States, and that made firearms more accessible for a few decades. The change in attitudes towards guns as self defense item seems to be a post-World War II thing, and I don't think that is or can be a coincidence. But unless something similar happens in America (and it won't), the idea of guns as a self defense and home defense tool isn't going to go away. Hell, its not even totally gone outside this country. But unless you live in, say, South Africa it just isn't a mainstream opinion.

That explains Europe and Japan, but what about Canada to your immediate north and Mexico to your immediate south? Either nation could have had free and easy access to American firearms and yet never embraced them to the same degree. Canada even had a period of western expansion where you'd think they'd have wanted quality weapons for self-defense and hunting. Were the RCMP just that much more effective at keeping the peace than US law enforcement was or do you have some other reason why the revolver and the concept of the personal sidearm never caught on in North America outside of the United States?

Beyond this, why the sighing and condescending tone? I acknowledged that US gun culture is an issue, asked people that have brought up the self-defense angle in the past to justify it, and then said that both sides would benefit from seeing the actual numbers and looking at how effective firearms are as a self-defense tool versus taking it as a given. Is any of this suggesting an illogical course of action or even suggesting we take away a single gun?

Granted, you know my thoughts on US firearms culture and can project the outcome I'd like to see but given I held back from saying as much, why go after me?

Oh, and by the way? All of those 19'th century firearms aren't legally considered firearms in the US. The NFA definitions all focus exclusively on weapons that use modern smokeless powder. Black powder guns can be owned even by convicted felons unless local laws say otherwise. Black powder itself can be regulated as an explosive, but there are black powder alternatives on the market that are not. Food for thought.

When was the last time a spree shooter showed up with a brace of revolvers?

[MKSheppard]

I think the biggest influencing factor in mexico vs canada vs USA and gunz is the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

There was a huge debate at the time of the Constitution's writing that (from wiki, fuck it) with one theory being:

the act of enumerating the rights of the people was dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist

That PoV lost out and we got the Bill of Rights.

Then there are other state constitutions -- Pennsylvania's constitution says:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Without such protections; you end up with people like NZ Police Minister Nash saying “owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right in New Zealand.” and basically rewriting law overnight with only the formal rubber stamp left to make it legal.

[Jub]

I think the biggest influencing factor in mexico vs canada vs USA and gunz is the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

There was a huge debate at the time of the Constitution's writing that (from wiki, fuck it) with one theory being:

the act of enumerating the rights of the people was dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist

That PoV lost out and we got the Bill of Rights.

Then there are other state constitutions -- Pennsylvania's constitution says:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Without such protections; you end up with people like NZ Police Minister Nash saying “owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right in New Zealand.” and basically rewriting law overnight with only the formal rubber stamp left to make it legal.

Mexico had the same laws until 1917 when they amended the right to bear arms to the right to possess arms and further cracked down in 1971 where they restricted ownership of certain classes of weapons. So why couldn't a 1920's US in the midst of gang violence and prohibition pass similarly restrictive amendments?

Also, as much as this is sacrosanct, fuck states rights. At least to the extent that they exist in the US, they cause so much more harm than good and prevent a lot of easy national scale fixes that surely would have been rolled out by now if not for the states blocking them.

[Formless]

That explains Europe and Japan, but what about Canada to your immediate north and Mexico to your immediate south? Either nation could have had free and easy access to American firearms and yet never embraced them to the same degree. Canada even had a period of western expansion where you'd think they'd have wanted quality weapons for self-defense and hunting. Were the RCMP just that much more effective at keeping the peace than US law enforcement was or do you have some other reason why the revolver and the concept of the personal sidearm never caught on in North America outside of the United States?

As far as I can tell, Canada doesn't... really have a gun industry of any note prior to the 20'th century. The oldest Canadian manufacturer I can confirm is Tobin Arms which was founded in 1905 (its predecessor was, wait for it... an American company). Given that, I'm betting that throughout the 19'th century most people there would have gotten their guns from abroad, either British made or American made. And with importation of goods we usually have tariffs to consider. However, I admit that I don't know as much about Canadian history on this front as I do American and European history, again because its not a notable country to the industry. BUT what I do know is that while Canada's gun laws are restrictive compared to the US, they are quite liberal compared to much of Europe. This is probably because like the US, its had and still has a frontier where guns are more than just self defense weapons, but hunting and survival weapons. That's why the laws there make handgun ownership difficult, but shotgun and rifle ownership relatively easy. The situation there is more similar to the US than to Europe, but its not the same either.

Canadian youtuber Skallagrim Neilson has a lot of videos showing him shooting guns on public land in Canada, and like in many parts of America it apparently isn't illegal to do so. Moreover, he's not even a Canadian local, I remember watching him right when he moved from Europe to Canada, and quite soon after the move he already had a long gun license despite obviously not being a citizen at that point (in fact I don't know if he is a Canadian citizen now!). All of this speaks volumes about the nature of Canadian gun laws and their relative similarity to the States.

As for Mexico, actually that has everything to do with the Mexican American war. In fact, what you obviously don't know is that, yeah, actually a shitload of American firearms got imported to Mexico in the buildup to the war. The problem is, those weapons were being sold primarily to American settlers in order to deliberately create problems for the Mexican government. Those settlers eventually used those weapons to separate Texas off from the country and start the war. Given that Mexico lost the war and in turn literally half of its territory was ceded to the US, it creates a historical precedent for the gun laws they have today. Laws which I should note are ineffective at stopping their current drug gangs from obtaining weapons. Anyway, I also want to point out that America's cowboy culture originally comes from Mexico as well, and that includes the role of firearms in that lifestyle. Again, guns play a different role in frontier life than they do city life.

Beyond this, why the sighing and condescending tone? I acknowledged that US gun culture is an issue, asked people that have brought up the self-defense angle in the past to justify it, and then said that both sides would benefit from seeing the actual numbers and looking at how effective firearms are as a self-defense tool versus taking it as a given. Is any of this suggesting an illogical course of action or even suggesting we take away a single gun?

I'm just trying to be realistic here. The human factor is what matters to whether or not a change will happen in American law. Like Zixinous said last page, Americans have effectively decided that mass shootings are a reality we are willing to live with in this country. Compared to tangible, nationally recognized tragedies, the raw numbers are a comparatively dry form of evidence that won't get the law changed because, well, it hasn't. The numbers are already out there, and a lot of people don't care. That's probably also why, as I said, Gun Control advocates like to use Appeals to Fear and pass laws based on cosmetic aspects of firearms. Rifles represent a fraction of the crimes committed, even in the case of mass shootings, yet are the PRIMARY thing a lot of state laws target. Because in the past century rifles have evolved further and further away from their traditional "look" towards something black, scary, and militaristic looking. People see an AR15 and can't tell the difference between it and an M16, and to be fair its because the difference is completely internal. That gets laws passed-- just not particularly good ones.

Granted, you know my thoughts on US firearms culture and can project the outcome I'd like to see but given I held back from saying as much, why go after me?

I'm not-- I'm going after the sentiment you are expressing, because I know you aren't the only one who holds it. Don't take it personally.

When was the last time a spree shooter showed up with a brace of revolvers?

I don't know about mass shootings (although some old style lever guns definitely have magazines big enough to commit one), but just last year in Ohio a convicted felon committed murder with a black powder revolver, so they do still get used as weapons. And that was a case where the state laws prohibited him from owning a black powder firearm, but the store who sold it to him followed Federal law by mistake, leading to a lawsuit against them. But anyway, I just thought it was an interesting legal loophole not a lot of people are aware of. Its not hugely important in the grand scheme of things.

[Jub]

As far as I can tell, Canada doesn't... really have a gun industry of any note prior to the 20'th century. The oldest Canadian manufacturer I can confirm is Tobin Arms which was founded in 1905 (its predecessor was, wait for it... an American company). Given that, I'm betting that throughout the 19'th century most people there would have gotten their guns from abroad, either British made or American made. And with importation of goods we usually have tariffs to consider. However, I admit that I don't know as much about Canadian history on this front as I do American and European history, again because its not a notable country to the industry. BUT what I do know is that while Canada's gun laws are restrictive compared to the US, they are quite liberal compared to much of Europe. This is probably because like the US, its had and still has a frontier where guns are more than just self defense weapons, but hunting and survival weapons. That's why the laws there make handgun ownership difficult, but shotgun and rifle ownership relatively easy. The situation there is more similar to the US than to Europe, but its not the same either.

The situation is similar in that we have a frontier but we also have very different views on self-defense and personal liberties in general. I don't even mind people having access to long arms or pistols for range days either given our laws prohibit them being transported while loaded and discourage people doing a bunch of shopping between hitting the range and going home. If your laws minimize risk well enough and your culture can handle them you can allow ownership of a lot of different weapons without too many issues.

It's just that the US has issues with both laws and culture when it comes to reigning in gun violence. Hence my calls for restrictions that would make Canadian asses clench.

Canadian youtuber Skallagrim Neilson has a lot of videos showing him shooting guns on public land in Canada, and like in many parts of America it apparently isn't illegal to do so. Moreover, he's not even a Canadian local, I remember watching him right when he moved from Europe to Canada, and quite soon after the move he already had a long gun license despite obviously not being a citizen at that point (in fact I don't know if he is a Canadian citizen now!). All of this speaks volumes about the nature of Canadian gun laws and their relative similarity to the States.

Yeah, I follow Skall myself and have since the knife review era of his channel. I fully support the flexibility of Canadian firearms laws to both allow hobbyist shooting but also prevent gun crime. I think we have a good mix which is why I often suggest the US move towards our model.

The type of gun I most want to take off the streets in the US is the loaded handgun. I have no issue with range shooting and can live with allowing firearms for home defense, it's the idea of carrying a loaded pistol around in public that is a problem.

As for Mexico, actually that has everything to do with the Mexican American war. In fact, what you obviously don't know is that, yeah, actually a shitload of American firearms got imported to Mexico in the buildup to the war. The problem is, those weapons were being sold primarily to American settlers in order to deliberately create problems for the Mexican government. Those settlers eventually used those weapons to separate Texas off from the country and start the war. Given that Mexico lost the war and in turn literally half of its territory was ceded to the US, it creates a historical precedent for the gun laws they have today.

That's stuff I'm less well informed about being a Canadian. It's just not taught in our history courses up here.

Laws which I should note are ineffective at stopping their current drug gangs from obtaining weapons.

That's a failure of government and enforcement more than a failure of the laws themselves. When you're as corrupt as Mexico has been laws tend to mean very little.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. The human factor is what matters to whether or not a change will happen in American law. Like Zixinous said last page, Americans have effectively decided that mass shootings are a reality we are willing to live with in this country. Compared to tangible, nationally recognized tragedies, the raw numbers are a comparatively dry form of evidence that won't get the law changed because, well, it hasn't. The numbers are already out there, and a lot of people don't care. That's probably also why, as I said, Gun Control advocates like to use Appeals to Fear and pass laws based on cosmetic aspects of firearms. Rifles represent a fraction of the crimes committed, even in the case of mass shootings, yet are the PRIMARY thing a lot of state laws target. Because in the past century rifles have evolved further and further away from their traditional "look" towards something black, scary, and militaristic looking. People see an AR15 and can't tell the difference between it and an M16, and to be fair its because the difference is completely internal. That gets laws passed-- just not particularly good ones.

...And this is the exact opposite of how I think and want to approach lawmaking especially with regards to gun control. I'd be willing to give licensed rifle ranges the ability to purchase new machine guns as range toys, knock out the weapons feature laws (pistol grips, bayonettes, silencers, etc.) in exchange for the loaded carry of handguns in public. I doubt it would go anywhere, but I'd sell it as growing firearms as a hobby while trying to improve actual safety based on well-known metrics.

I'm not-- I'm going after the sentiment you are expressing, because I know you aren't the only one who holds it. Don't take it personally.

I can respect that. I just know our history on this topic and how these debates get.

But yeah, if this isn't personal I'm even happier to keep the discussion going.

I don't know about mass shootings (although some old style lever guns definitely have magazines big enough to commit one), but just last year in Ohio a convicted felon committed murder with a black powder revolver, so they do still get used as weapons. And that was a case where the state laws prohibited him from owning a black powder firearm, but the store who sold it to him followed Federal law by mistake, leading to a lawsuit against them. But anyway, I just thought it was an interesting legal loophole not a lot of people are aware of. Its not hugely important in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, old guns are still guns and can still kill people. Especially if you load them a little hot to get around stopping power issues with older pistol caliber rounds.

Lever action guns, well you'll get a single tube off but at least there won't be a reload. Not that most shooters get a reload down anyway so that might be a non-issue.

[Formless]

The type of gun I most want to take off the streets in the US is the loaded handgun. I have no issue with range shooting and can live with allowing firearms for home defense, it's the idea of carrying a loaded pistol around in public that is a problem.

Is it? I think that's where you will find that the situation is more complicated if you look into the numbers yourself. Its been a while, but as I recall the vast majority of licensed concealed carry holders in the US never go on to commit a crime with their weapon. Obviously some do, but that's inevitable among any sample of the population; even in Britain there are still occasional gun crimes. Most CCL holders might not use a gun to stop a crime either, but that's because of the crime rate itself being deceptively low despite our country's reputation. We're still a western country, and compared to, say, the country immediately south of us, we're pretty safe and stable. But if someone thinks "better safe than sorry," I can't say I'm in a position to judge-- its also a rather diverse country with a lot of local variation. And yet, it is true that the most commonly used weapons in crime are pistols.

What is going on here is that most of those pistols are not being carried legally, and many of them aren't even owned legally (they are stolen or obtained in places where the sellers are too lazy to vet the buyers). Tackling these problems is more complicated than taking away everyone's CCL's and confiscating their handguns, which is pretty obviously a non-starter when you look at the estimated number of handguns that exist in the US. This is why Shep and Lonestar were arguing so fervently about the role of gun stores themselves and what responsibility they have in the proliferation of weapons among existing and future criminals. This is where a lot of gun owners actually do think we can make headway on gun control, because their priority is on reducing gun crime rather than gun ownership, whereas some gun control advocates in public office can't seem to separate the two concepts in their minds. I mean, obviously. Its not like gun owners want gun crimes to be common, they could get shot at!

That's stuff I'm less well informed about being a Canadian. It's just not taught in our history courses up here.

That's not surprising, because I myself learned most of the details in college. High school level history classes are usually pretty devoid of anything you really need to know, because then the open secret that the US has always been an imperial power would get out and corrupt the minds of young people everywhere!

I can respect that. I just know our history on this topic and how these debates get.

But yeah, if this isn't personal I'm even happier to keep the discussion going.

I mean, do I really need to say that I follow the board's "no vendettas" rule to the letter? I guess some people have difficulty keeping it impersonal, but I don't find it hard. Partially because I can't remember the last time I've even spoken to you.

[Jub]

Is it? I think that's where you will find that the situation is more complicated if you look into the numbers yourself. Its been a while, but as I recall the vast majority of licensed concealed carry holders in the US never go on to commit a crime with their weapon. Obviously some do, but that's inevitable among any sample of the population; even in Britain there are still occasional gun crimes. Most CCL holders might not use a gun to stop a crime either, but that's because of the crime rate itself being deceptively low despite our country's reputation. We're still a western country, and compared to, say, the country immediately south of us, we're pretty safe and stable. And yet, it is true that the most commonly used weapons in crime are pistols. What is going on here is that most of those pistols are not being carried legally, and many of them aren't even owned legally (they are stolen or obtained in places where the sellers are too lazy to vet the buyers). Tackling these problems is more complicated than taking away everyone's CCL's and confiscating their handguns, which is pretty obviously a non-starter when you look at the estimated number of handguns that exist in the US. This is why Shep and Lonestar were arguing so fervently about the role of gun stores themselves and what responsibility they have in the proliferation of weapons among existing and future criminals. This is where a lot of gun owners actually do think we can make headway on gun control, because their priority is on reducing gun crime rather than gun ownership, and soem gun control advocates in office can't separate the two concepts. I mean, obviously. Its not like gun owners want gun crimes to be common, they could get shot at!

When you have 11ty billion pistols and allow them to be stored out in the open you've opened things up for criminals to have all the stolen guns they could ever want or need. Would it be saner to allow for current carry laws to stay as they are but force gun safes in gun owners homes? That takes firearms for home defense off the table though which is probably also a non-starter.

That's not surprising, because I myself learned most of the details in college. High school level history classes are usually pretty devoid of anything you really need to know, because then the open secret that the US has always been an imperial power would get out and corrupt the minds of young people everywhere!

I was lucky enough back in high school to have my pick of 2 AP level courses. I took War and Society course in Grad 11 which was great and is probably the main reason I didn't join the military right out of high school like I was planning to. I could have also taken a Holocaust course but I know enough to know I don't want to dive deep into the topic.

I mean, do I really need to say that I follow the board's "no vendettas" rule to the letter? I guess some people have difficulty keeping it impersonal, but I don't find it hard. Partially because I can't remember the last time I've even spoken to you. :lol

Probably just an overreaction on my part then. Especially given how civil this entire thread has been.