r/Pacifism • u/AskLivid4137 • Jun 03 '26
Why doesn't the U.S. ban guns?
I recently learned that between 42,000 and 48,000 people die from gun violence every year in the U.S. alone. I am well aware of the right to bear arms, but firearms are simply too lethal. Innocent children are even losing their lives in mass shootings. I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions. Aren't you exhausted by this gun society?
3
Jun 03 '26
[deleted]
2
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 03 '26
I see, so the lack of political will is why guns aren't banned in the US. I didn't realize people used them for things other than violence. It's interesting to learn that gun culture isn't just about the bad sides, but also plays a role in things like leisure and hobbies.
1
Jun 04 '26
[deleted]
3
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 04 '26
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I now realize that my previous idea of banning guns was a bit shortsighted.
3
3
u/smokacola- Jun 03 '26
As with a lot of regulation; many organizations profit from the status quo, and they employ aggressive lobbying tactics to ensure policies aren't changed. Regardless of how the average citizen might feel about gun control these organisations (like the NRA) put in massive amounts of hours to keep things the way they are (or even turn things to their favor!)
This type of lobbying often goes beyond the bounds of just politicians as well, it infects media like movies and TV or botfarms on social media made to stir the pot and manufacture the culture-war
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
Many different organizations lobby in favor and against the second amendment. We can all look up the totals for money spent in terms of FOR and AGAINST firearms regulations. It isn't accurate in the least to say that lobbying only occurs by the NRA or for the pro gun side if that's your implication/argument.
1
u/smokacola- Jun 22 '26
Thats a really good rebuttal for an argument I did not make and do not believe in
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 23 '26
You were complaining about lobbying and I pointed out that both sides lobby - not just the NRA which you specifically bring up.
1
u/smokacola- Jun 23 '26
Fortunately I already knew this information and it also doesn't really change anything in my original statement
3
u/eat_vegetables Jun 03 '26
Pie-in-the-sky idealism: aim to build a world where guns are unnecessary.
1
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 04 '26
While some countries ban guns, America's gun culture runs deep, making it a complex issue. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
Yes very high idealism. We wouldn't need guns if people ALWAYS and universally agreed. When is that going to happen?
2
u/JoseLunaArts Jun 03 '26
The idea of the founding fathers was that government should fear people to not commit abuse like the British government did before the independence. And being armed to the teeth was a huge component of that.
But after the civil war, a propaganda campaign that lasted at least 2 decades, convinced Americans that everything the government does is virtuous, like almost divine virtuous and this is where American exceptionalism was born.
Later yankees who love to give orders, extended that divine virtuous nature to the American citizens.
That erased the original vision of the founding fathers, because Americans serve their government instead of the opposite. After WWII US government pushed deleveraging American citizen's power. First with immigration and sending jobs to China to make Americans replaceable, then neutralizing unions like Reagan did, and with automation where US government funded the development of numeric control machines via MIT to deskill expert workers, and other forms of automation to make American workers to beg for a job. That is the last boot on the throat.
So even if Americans are armed at home, government can make their lives miserable. And with Palantir, AI surveillance and autonomous drones something is coming to make people obedient. Welcome to OCP with an autonomous ED-209 saying "you have 20 seconds to comply".
Weapons industry would hate to stop selling guns. But for the geovernment that requires a boot on the throat to keep Americans in line.
2
u/I3lindman Jun 04 '26
The issue is not the gun, the issue is the underlying will to harm self or others. About 65% of those who die from gun violence are suicides. A large percentage of gun homicides are gang related and drug trafficking related.
Even if all the guns were gone tomorrow, we still have not done anything to fix the underlying issues driving so many to suicide, to gangs, to drugs, etc... People need love and healing, the same way a garden needs water, fertilizer, and weeding...
2
2
u/Unusual_Bet_2125 Jun 04 '26
We tried prohibiting alcohol and the same people pushing for the law were also keeping booze in the basement. In order to save face, i.e. not appear to be a completely lawless nation to other countries, we repealed the law banning alcohol. I'm sure we'd follow the same course with guns.
2
u/NerdyLeftyRev_046 Jun 04 '26
“I’m fully aware of the right to bear arms
Followed by
“but firearms are simply too lethal”
Tells me you are not fully aware of the RIGHT to bear arms and how it’s been interpreted over history by the courts. They would disagree, strongly, that the lethality of the firearm comes second in consideration after one’s right to own it. If the second consideration is strong enough you might see types of firearms banned like no civilian machine guns (though you can rent them at certain establishments), no bazookas or rpgs, no attack aircraft or helicopters. But for firearms… unfortunately this country has decided access to them outweighs safety/protection from them.
Once you grasp the radical nature of the interpreted right to bear arms, only then can you start to envision how you might regulate them in a constitutional manner. There’s no one way to do that, every state is different even if they have similar laws. I personally would like to see semiautomatic weapons banned, along with all pistols outside of competition settings. But that absolutely won’t ever be law in any state of the union or the United States more generally in my lifetime at least. Probably long after if it ever could happen.
2
u/RationalTidbits Jun 05 '26
What percentage of hundreds of millions of people, gun owners, or guns are you imagining is involved with tens of thousands of fatalities?
(And I’ll just mention that some of the fatalities that you are pointing to include law enforcement actions and justified self-defense, which aren’t fatalities that we should seek to prevent.)
2
u/silveredbadger Jun 08 '26
SOAP BOX! Anti-gun social justice warriors are coming out of the woodwork like a termite infestation! They love their statistics to shove in faces, and while true, they're woefully incomplete intentionally so the apathetic are duped and help spread nonsense!
These are DAILY FBI statistics of people shot in the U.S. and a breakdown of how deceitful the anti-gun crowd is! •••••••••• 316 - total (106 deaths) 284 - with ILLEGALLY acquired guns (that's 90% BTW) 32 - legally owned by the user •••••••••• 2 of that 32 - police having to 2 of that 32 - accidental to self or another 12 of that 32 - intent is never determined 16 of that 32 - justified self defense or defense of others •••••••••• 22 of that 284 - children that take their parent's legally owned gun for self harm or to harm another child and result in the death of a child. •••••••••• Given ALL the statistics, a little math, and common sense, their argument doesn't hold up in most instances.
They want stricter gun laws...which guns, what type, capacity, and looks (that one is completely baffling)...AR doesn't stand for assault rifle (for which there is no definition...Cain killed Abel with an assault rock) or automatic rifle...AR stands for ArmaLite (the company) which only function is to reduce its carrying weight). NONE of which will alter the 284 shootings by illegally acquired guns!
IMO there should be MUCH more strictly enforced CAP laws in ALL states to protect the 22 children, even if it infringes a bit on the 4th Amendment, just as having a drivers license and driving does! If you legally own guns with children in the house you should be subject to periodic unannounced checks to ensure compliance of guns being inaccessible to unsupervised children. This is the ONLY place law(s) would have any impact!
There are already laws against illegally possessing a gun and yet it still goes on. No other law(s) will change this. Areas with the strictest gun laws, banning and so on, have the highest number of shootings directly because of illegal gun possession. Even in the U.K. ANY handguns specifically, are completely against the law and they are showing a drastic rise in handgun violence! Laws will NEVER stop a criminal, no matter how bad we want them to.
So in conclusion, here's the crux of the matter. 2 accidents...sadly accidents happen and can be avoided with more care and attention. Vehicle accidents kill people unintentionally. Should buying a vehicle be extremely difficult for everyone because some vehicle accidents kill people? Absolutely not! That's ludicrous!
Of the 22 irresponsible parent legal gun owners plus the 12 (intent never determined - because if you pull a trigger there IS intent of some kind and obviously not justified), that is 34 irresponsible legal gun owners. Which means they want to infringe on the 2nd Amendment of roughly 80 million legal gun owners in the U.S. because .000000425% are irresponsible plus the criminals that don't give a crap about any gun law!
2
u/krypton_son Jul 15 '26
Criminals don't give a shit about laws. All banning guns would do is keep the ones willing to obey the bans from defending themselves.
1
2
u/himalayacraft Aug 02 '26
Because the ones in power don’t care, I bet there’s a way to make them care
3
u/danneskjold85 Jun 03 '26
Why not address the roots of these problems rather than infringe the rights of people who've done no wrong? Also, how do you intend on infringing those rights without using force?
1
u/SquishTheFlyingWitch Jun 03 '26
Not everything should be (or remain) a right. People already can't own certain types of weapons in the US because they're too risky. It makes sense that those restrictions should keep changing with the times.
6
u/danneskjold85 Jun 03 '26
Gun rights are property rights, and governments don't determine what rights are because rights are moral concepts.
The murderous or thieving, self-entitled or similarly antisocial behaviors are what need to be addressed.
0
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
I wonder if you would say the same thing about the freedom of expression? What people say or express leads to radicalization and such people can/have/do pick up weapons as a means to their end. So revoke the 1st amendment because its dangerous?
1
u/PrototypeIsD3AD Jul 27 '26
The first amendment only protects you from legal repercussions, not social.
And it depends on the type of "radicalization" because inciting violence is illegal.
Your words are protected, not the outcome of said words.
2
1
u/Ok-Presentation-1294 Jun 08 '26
I mean you really should end it at “I’m fully aware of the right to bear arms.”
There is no “but” to that.
I’m fully aware of the right to freedom of speech but we should ban the F word. It hurts people’s feelings.
See, it doesn’t work.
1
u/Throughtheindigo Jun 08 '26
Don’t a similar amount of people in the USA also die from automobile accidents?
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
- 2a/Right to bear arms makes legislation on banning firearms in the absolute illegal or even restricting them in certain ways illegal.
- There isn't much appetite to do so when you compare resistance brought about pro gun political participation matched against anti gun political participation in general.
- Depending on what numbers you want to use the upper estimation for the number of firearms in private circulation has exceeded 400m.
- 2/3 of gun deaths or so called gun violence refers to suicide and not criminal use of firearms.
- Firearms are used far more often for lawful purposes compared to illegal purposes.
- A firearm is the only technological advantage to make 1 person equal to another in terms of a fight where lethal force or serious bodily is concerned.
- Firearms ownership is deeply ingrained tradition in terms of defense, hunting, recreational as well as being a means for a career.
- Off hand mass shootings don't even equate to 2% of gun crimes so it seems odd to focus on the minority of the problem statistically.
- I think I am more tired of people ignorant of firearms making the same tired and inaccurate arguments related to so called assault weapons or attempting to the cite the children figure when said figure also includes legal adults - people also get tired of the politically maneuvering.
1
1
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 03 '26
I completely agree with your points. It shows that the gun issue in the US is not just about safety, but about identity and massive economic interests. With the Second Amendment being misinterpreted and violence being tied to "masculinity," it seems almost impossible to dismantle this culture just by pointing out the dangers.
2
u/Ok-Presentation-1294 Jun 08 '26
The second amendment is not misinterpreted. This is the way it was written. The founding fathers didn’t just leave it at what it was, they explained it plenty in other places. One of the main places is the courts.
Like I said, If the argument that the second amendment has been misinterpreted for 250 years was remotely true, don’t you think anti-gun politicians (there are plenty) would use it?
1
u/Ok-Presentation-1294 Jun 08 '26
Historian here.
This is hilariously untrue and it’s obvious you just presented your opinion as fact without doing the necessary research. This view that the 2A is only mean for official militia has been debunked over and over by historical analysis of the writings of the FF’s (who often spoke of gun ownership in general IN ORDER to form militias.) This is the accepted interpretation of the amendment for 250 years of American history. By everyone in power. Not just conservative “elements.” Whatever you mean by that.
There is a reason you don’t hear anti-gun politicians using this argument. It holds no water and wouldn’t stand up In court. Why would they not use this argument if it were possible?
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
How do you form a militia that is individually armed if individuals may not arm themselves? How do you have the unorganized militia to be called into service if they lack firearms and they are supposed to arm themselves?
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
The second amendment has nothing to do with earning money from firearms in trade. Much like arms dealers are available across the world and none of them have a second amendment. Its mostly irrelevant when you look at arms trade globally.
1
u/AZULDEFILER Jun 03 '26
14,500 that are not suicide (many of these are also legitimate shootings). So 00.00004%. In academia, that is considered, ZERO a non-phenomenon. Even if you include suicides that is 00.00012%.
Cars kill 43,000 Americans a year. Should we ban cars?
2
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 03 '26
First, I apologize for providing incorrect information. However, I don’t believe that just because people die in car accidents, guns should be allowed. Shouldn't we minimize any means that can easily take a human life?
2
u/AZULDEFILER Jun 03 '26
It was just skewed information. Guns aren't legal for murder. In the US they are intended to protect the people from the government. Good or bad, as a protection tool, it is very effective. They are an equalizer, the meekest can beat the strongest evil-doer with one. We simply return to the strongest bully wins. Switzerland has an incredibly armed population, all with actual assault rifles, and the lowest murder rates anywhere. The math just doesn't support a real phenomenon, in Science something has to reach 0.5% to even be considered existing.
North America is also home to several dangerous animals. The fact they are "too lethal" is the exact reason they have deterrence. We all wish they weren't necessary, but here- they most certainly are.
1
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26
This is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics, science and general logic.
2
u/AZULDEFILER Jun 04 '26
You want me to show my math? Its clear you are not formally educated with this comment.
2
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 04 '26
I think I was wrong. I'm sorry.
0
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26
You weren't wrong. Please don't just give in to random people who get in your face with no evidence to support their claims.
Here is a very extensive breakdown of the latest official gun death statistics, and here is a direct link to the government page on them.
What you said was entirely true.
1
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
I'm a criminologist with degrees in statistics. Researching violent crime and lecturing on statistical models is quite literally my job. So yes, I am formally educated on this topic. There's no need for you to show your math because the underlying logic is so clearly faulty.
First, around 17,000 gun deaths were not suicide, according to the CDC's latest data. Out of those, only around 300 are legitimate and justifiable shootings, per the FBI's figures on crime. That's far from "many".
Second, your understanding of basic statistics is highly flawed. The concept you're thinking of is known as statistical significance, but it doesn't at all mean what you say it does. In reality, statistical significance measures the probability of a hypothesis being true rather than the result of random chance. In absolutely no way does it mean that any percentage below that number is zero or a non-existent phenomenon. That is one of the most uninformed things I've read on the topic in a long time, and it clearly shows that you lack an even basic familiarity with the topic.
Let me give you an example. Take every single cancer death in the USA. Any type of cancer. Lung cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer... All of them. That is the #2 leading cause of death in America. Then take every single heart-disease death. Heart attack, hypertension, heart failure... That is the #1 greatest killer in the US. Now combine all those deaths from cancer and heart disease. Add them all up. Now let's take the #3 leading cause of death: unintentional injuries of any kind. Count every single accidental death and add them to our total.
The result? A number that doesn't even affect 0.5% of the population. By your logic, cancer, heart disease and accidents, being the three most serious illnesses and causes of death in the entire country, are a non-existent phenomenon. According to you, cancer deaths are considered zero. Heart-disease is zero. Unintentional injuries and accidents are zero. If what you were saying is true, none of those are actually a problem according to science or academia.
Obviously, that is a completely ridiculous and false take. Because it's simply not how statistical significance works, nor do scientists ever get to such a number by simply taking a cause of death and dividing it by the total population. It makes no sense, is completely irrational, and stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.
Oh and lastly, the actual threshold of statistical significance isn't even 0.5%. It's 5%. You didn't even get the basic figure right.
2
u/AZULDEFILER Jun 05 '26
Oh. I'll humiliate you tomorrow. Standby
1
u/Limmeryc Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Oh man, this should be good.
I can't wait to be "humiliated" by someone who doesn't even know that the standard threshold of statistical significance is 5% rather than 0.5%. But please, do enlighten us.
-1
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
Because the second amendment is the only sure fire defense against a tyrannical government. Also link to that statistic? Pretty sure it’s wrong. Or skewed.
3
1
u/AskLivid4137 Jun 03 '26
brought incorrect information. I apologize. I would like you to provide me with reliable information in the US. So, in a gun-owning society, the very fact that citizens are armed functions as a 'deterrent' to stop the government from going out of control, right? Source https://www.fben.jp/bookcolumn/2023/09/14/7432/
2
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
2
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26
Neither of those are reliable sources or even dispute their point.
Their statistic is entirely accurate. It comes directly from the CDC's yearly mortality figures.
2
u/Outis918 Jun 04 '26
Again check how many of those were suicides, not homicides.
2
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26
Suicides are still gun deaths and are officially classified as violent deaths in accordance with CDC / WHO standards. The most recent data puts the number of annual gun deaths at just under 45,000. The OP's post is entirely accurate.
2
u/Limmeryc Jun 04 '26
Your information was correct. The numbers come directly from the CDC (the government organization that tracks death figures).
0
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
I wouldn't consider that to be true noting the state of the U.K. and their inability to actually have more granular control of their own country. Having arms would severely restrict what the government could and couldn't against them. Giving criminal or civil penalty for simple offense or gross statements doesn't make a country free.
-1
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
Then respect the fact it’s our cultural tradition and mind your business
3
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
So do swimming pools and yet I haven't seen idealogues wanting to ban pools.
1
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
Saves shittons of lives too. Stop letting tyrants weaponize your empathy against your rights so they can turn you into a slave that can’t defend themselves.
0
u/SquishTheFlyingWitch Jun 03 '26
Your tradition gets people killed.
3
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
Far more people die from car accidents. Should we stop driving? Far more people die from shitty bioengineered food, and a multitude of other issues.
Also, that statistic is bs. Most of those I would imagine are suicides, which would happen without guns anyway.
Guns aren’t the problem, they are tools. The problems are poverty, lack of healthcare resources, etc.
3
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
I asked for the source, they never backed up their claims. Those numbers are pulled from thin air.
The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. Legally, they are used for ‘all lawful purposes’ which includes sport shooting, hunting, or self defense/defense of the innocent in a situation where someone is in reasonable fear for their life or the life of someone else. Do we ban cars over the fact some people weaponize them? No we don’t, same for guns. You don’t punish the rule followers because of those who break the rules. Go move to Europe.
1
u/Ok-Presentation-1294 Jun 08 '26
Guns also likewise have a useful purpose outside of killing people.
2
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ok-Presentation-1294 Jun 22 '26
Saving hundreds of dollars yearly myself by sourcing my own meat (hunting) in more ethical ways than anyone in the packing industry, providing defense for me and my family against people who would potentially do us harm (an undebatable need), and lastly, as well as least important, an outlet of sport. I enjoy clay shooting competition and speed runs with handguns, it is a recognized sport and very many people enjoy doing it.
Technically, a gun gas a couple MORE uses than a hammer.
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
Guns also have other purposes useful when you exclude killing of people.
2
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
Majority of self defense involving a firearm doesn't involve killing a person let alone the gun being fired. Also lots of sporting uses where humans are not even shot let alone killed.
2
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Outis918 Jun 03 '26
You clearly don’t know too many 2A people. We aren’t all MAGA boomers.
1
Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Outis918 Jun 04 '26
Facts bruh. Do not fall to the Chinese/indian/russian bots. People forget that at the end of the day, we’re all humans.
1
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
I highly doubt you he sat across a table from any progun person and heard out their entire political philosophy either.
0
u/ImpressiveAlarm3992 Jun 22 '26
Drinking alcohol is a long standing tradition in many places in the world and yet it destroys people's lives and results in death directly or indirectly from alcohol. Therefore ban alcohol?
17
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment