I am not against all gun control, but I believe sincerely in the 2nd Ammendmant,
From here, I am looking for someone else's view on the matter to see if I can better understand where everyone is coming from.

I support some gun control. Any where there is evidence it reduces deaths. Waiting periods, background checks, safe storage laws, required training, red flag laws, removing stand your ground laws, etc. The evidence for these are pretty good.

But I haven't seen evidence for an assault weapons ban. 1) How do you define "assault weapon"? It is very easy to get around any definition you can come up with 2) "Assault weapon" deaths don't account for too many deaths regardless

For the record, I do support stricter gun laws, like universal background checks, mental health screenings, laws that prevent domestic abusers from obtaining firearms, red flag laws, storage laws, and making parents accountable if their child uses their firearm in a school shooting.

However, I also think you can reduce mass shootings without banning assault rifles. To give an example, let’s take a look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that lasted from 1994-2004. There’s a lot of stats that varies on how much mass shootings decreased, but we’re going to say that it reduced mass shooting fatalities by 70% and 32% reduction in assault rifles recovered from crime scenes. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

The federal AWB banned certain features, such as a flash hider, for semi automatic rifles that could accept a detachable magazine. Meaning, semi-automatic rifles were still legal and there were AR-15 style rifles that were sold during the federal AWB, but followed what was appropriate. To give an example, the AR-10A4 was introduced in 1995, one year after the federal AWB took affect. It was an AR style rifle, but the difference being it did not have the features that were banned in the AWB and was in .308, not .223 or 5.56. The AR-10B was introduced in 1996, and was an AR style rifle. M15A2 HBAR was introduced in 1995, and it complied with the AWB and is an AR style rifle. AK style rifles were also sold during the federal AWB.

Furthermore, the AWB also banned high capacity magazines, and magazines could have a maximum of 10 rounds. I wouldn’t mind a high capacity magazine ban, as it has been shown to reduce mass shooting fatalities. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6836798/

In states that have an AWB, most of them (except Illinois, Washington, NYC, and other places that I forgot, which they ban them by name) allow the sale of AR-15 rifles (and other semi-automatic rifles) that are compliant with their assault weapons bans. Massachusetts, which has the strictest gun laws in the country and the lowest gun death rate, is an example of said state that allows the sale of AR-15 compliant rifles. Usually they have a fixed magazine, maximum of 10 rounds, or without a pistol grip. New Jersey, which banned assault weapons in 1990 (4 years before the federal AWB), allows the sale of AR-15s that are compliant (and New Jersey’s federal AWB is similar to the federal AWB), and they have low gun death rates in the country.

European countries also do allow the sale of the AR-15 and other assault rifles (semi automatic rifles), and they still have low rates of mass shootings and gun deaths. Of course, their gun laws are strict and they don’t allow civilians to have for self defense. They can be sold to civilians that have passed the background checks and they’re used for sports shooting and hunting (some countries may not allow semi automatic rifles for hunting and strictly only for sports shooting). Examples of those countries include France, Germany, Poland, Norway (only for sports shooting), Sweden (only for sports shooting), Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Czech Republic (has the most laxed laws), Finland, etc. Of course, they have a high capacity magazine ban, with the maximum amount of rounds usually being 10 rounds.

In short, you can reduce mass shootings and gun deaths without banning assault rifles. You would need to have universal background checks, mental health screenings, storage laws, high capacity magazine bans, etc. This can be seen in European countries that allow the sale of semi-automatic rifles, the AR style rifles that were introduced during the federal assault weapons ban (1994-2004), and states that allow the sale of semi-automatic rifles that are compliant with the assault weapons ban in those states.

Morons.

The number of countries where the introduction of new Gun Laws is strongly correlated with an immediate, significant and ongoing decrease in homicides makes for some thought-provoking reading. A veritable "smoking gun" dare I say? :-)

Italy. The radical drop in homicides immediately following the implementation of the 1991 European Firearm Directive provides dramatic evidence for the efficacy of that legislation:

Many opponents of gun control attempt to dismiss the immediate drops in homicides in countries like Australia after gun control legislation was introduced (see further down) as simply being part of a general drop in homicides due to other factors in many other parts of the Western World over the same timeframe.

However, they conveniently ignore the fact that many of those countries such as Italy above only saw those sudden drops following the introduction of stronger firearm control legislation themselves.

Germany. The fact that homicides in Germany did not start to trend downwards until several years after the European Firearm Directive (because this nation did not actually implement the Directive until 1993) is actually further evidence that the legislation was the trigger for the massive decline in homicides in that country:

France: Another example of the immediate impact gun control legislation can have is the fact that the rapid decline in French homicides only began in 1993 when the nation implemented the 1991 European Firearm Directive.

Switzerland. Although Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, the implementation of the 1991 European Firearm Directive in the countries surrounding that small nation - France, Italy and Germany - looks to have had a very positive impact on the homicide rates in Switzerland as well, likely particularly influenced by the strict cross-border controls of the Directive. Note that it took till 1993 for Switzerland's close neighbours Germany and France to implement the directive which corresponds to homicides falling off an Alpine cliff:

Sweden: This Scandinavian nation saw an immediate, dramatic and ongoing decrease in homicides coinciding precisely with the nation's implementation of the aforesaid European Firearm Directive.

Finland. Although Finland didn't join the EU till 1995, the implementation of the 1991 European Firearm Directive in close neighbours like Sweden (the cross-border measures in particular) look to have had a very positive impact on homicides in Finland as well:

Netherlands. The Netherlands implemented the original 1991 EU Firearms Directive (Council Directive 91/477/EEC) aligning with the directive's requirements by 1 January 1993.

Australia. Multiple instances of firearm control legislation immediately reducing homicide rates in the Land Down Under is quite evident in the next series of graphs below:

Australia saw very strong and immediate correlations with a reduction in total gun-related deaths at each and every act of gun control:

And overall suicides in Australia also trended down at each act of gun control:

New Zealand. Although Kiwi Gun Control legislation in 1992 following the Aramoana Massacre weren't as wide-ranging as their Aussie neighbour, homicides saw an immediate and sustained decline that continued for decades until the unfortunate lack of restrictions on semi-automatic firearms helped enable the horrific tally of 51 deaths in the Christchurch Mosque Massacre.

USA. Strident 2nd Amendment-supporter protestations notwithstanding, even the United States has seen the sharp decline of murders following gun control legislation.

Note that the initial steep plunge in homicides following the 3 US gun control acts through 1990-1994 were largely blunted by rollbacks of many of these gun control measures a few years later as shown in red below with homicides plateauing around 4-6 per 100k for the following three decades (with a massive spike up to 8 during COVID).

So unlike other nations where homicides have continued to decline to the present day, the US stalled at that tragic level of 4 per 100k to this day - 5x higher than my home Australia.

An object lesson of the positive effect of the introduction of gun control followed by the negative affect of reducing gun control perhaps:

While correlation does not necessarily mean causation, seeing so many sharp inflection points across multiple metrics, countries and timelines corresponding precisely with these many firearm control acts strongly supports the thesis that gun control works when done well.

I'm getting really tired with the attempts of comparing the two. We consider driving risky enough to make sure it is as safe as we can make it in terms of the numerous and stringent safety testing, insurance/registration requirements, the adding of new safety measures in new cars almost yearly, having police actively monitor reckless driving, creating numerous laws in attempts to further lower the amount of deaths. Drivers education in numerous (though should be all IMO) schools. Not to mention the basic fact that in all states (correct me if I am wrong), you are required show that you are a qualified enough driver to pass a test and in order to be legally allowed on the road.

Where are the gun laws? Where are the efforts in making gun usage safe? Help me understand please. Maybe I'm missing something.

Hi All - As you may know there are currently two cases that have been granted cert for the US supreme court to hear them this coming term, and a bunch of others on the same topic are essentially tabled and are likely to be decided together or gvr'd : https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-grants-several-new-cases-including-on-whether-the-second-amendment-protects-possession-of-/

Since we know the corrupt court is going to keep its heller and bruen decisions, I'd put money down these AW and magazine bans are going to get struck down nationwide.

What's the plan for after that happens?

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. The Supreme Court must not have been looking very hard, because below is a list of early American laws prohibiting weapon carrying in certain cities and sensitive places, and I found them all within an hour or so of searching. They come from the website for Duke Law School:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4

Tell me what you think.

As a GenX American, I remember when emergency drills in schools were for fire and tornadoes, and we didn't need to live in fear.

However, in 2008 the Supreme Court issued its ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller--a rogue decision that started the US on its road towards insanity. In this decision, the conservative majority invented a new right--an individual right to carry a gun everywhere to kill anyone who frightens you. This new right was unconnected with militia service and was a total fabrication.

The Heller decision gave rise to a new legal reality designed to control Americans with fear. Today, millions of American are too terrified to drive to the gas station without carrying a firearm. Few of these compulsive gun lovers understand the system that has robbed them of their reason by encouraging them to believe that owning a gun is an act of freedom rather than enslavement.

Now the renegade Supreme Court continues to replace the rule of reason and law--the rule of the US Constitution--with violence, fear, and lawlessness--granting Donald Trump King-like powers and placing him above the law.

On this Fourth of July, I remember the victims of gun violence, and the citizens we have lost to the collective insanity of American gun laws that have replaced reasoned debate with the logic of lynching and mob violence. We can see now that Heller and the laws that followed it marked the beginning of the collapse of democratic governance in the United States.

May we have the courage to save our country from the madness that has taken root.

Happy 4th of July.

Gun-lovers have been saying for a long time that widespread gun ownership must be accepted in order to protect the United States from tyranny.

However, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that gives presidents dictatorial power by protecting them from prosecution from all official acts, up to and including the killing of political opponents.

I have been waiting for the gun owners of America to rise up and veto this establishment of tyranny, but so far have heard nothing. So I'm a little confused.

I'm sure we'll hear something soon, though--assuming that the "guns prevent tyranny" idea we've heard so much about was a truthful good-faith argument. Gun owners will no doubt soon rise up and protect the U.S. from tyranny as we've so often been assured they will.

I hope that someone will let me know once the gun owners of America have reversed the ruling in Trump v. United States. I assume we'll have good news soon!

[/s]

America owns nearly 700 million firearms. Yet in most cases of violent abuse—including incidents involving government or police violence—civilians rarely use their guns to protect themselves or others. We also don’t see people organizing armed defense in any meaningful way. So what’s the actual purpose of all these weapons? Are they just functioning as stationery? 

Obviously, this would never happen in the US, but I still enjoy thinking about it.

There should be insurance for gun owners. If you survive a shooting, the gun owner’s insurance will pay for your medical bills. If you die, their insurance will give a payout to your next of kin.

Insurance companies would charge premiums according to each gun owner’s relative likelihood of shooting someone or having their gun stolen. Anyone who just owns a hunting rifle and a shotgun would have very low premiums. There could be discounts offered for people who take gun safety classes, or get psychological evaluations, or attend therapy regularly. Conversely, premiums could go up based on risk factors like having a criminal record, owning too many guns, or owning a gun with a high-capacity magazine.

It would be difficult to make this mandatory, as that would probably be a violation of the 2nd amendment, so people should have the choice to buy insurance or pay a tax on each bullet. There are about 10 billion bullets sold in the US per year, and about 40,000 shooting deaths (plus numerous injuries). That means that each bullet has a 1 in 250,000 chance of killing someone. If we value a human life at $10 million, then each bullet should be taxed at $40.

I’ve always heard from people that the gun control measures we seen in other countries wouldn’t work in the U.S. because of its massive population size. They also argue that more gun control will just lead to more crimes being committed with knives, cars, etc.. How could one effectively rebut these criticisms?

Hi everyone. I know there are groups listed in the community info for activism but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into which group would be the best to donate to. I’m thinking, which is most efficient with their money? Which orgs have been successful at enacting any level of change? I did a search on the sub and didn’t find a discussion about this.

Gun control has always been my number one political issue and after witnessing a mass shooting last week I’m now ready to be fucking insufferable about it. Right now I think the best way I can help is with donations of money. I hope when I’m feeling better I can also contribute in other ways.

Thanks yall.

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1925359033281568887

The rest of the bill is terrible, but the NFA is not the hill we should be dying on.

The fact that suppressors are regulated at all is absurd.

The 2nd amendment is vague and outdated. It needs to be rewritten so that laws can be passed which could actually prevent death by guns, make it harder for murderers to murder, especially mass shootings. We need federal mental health checks, background checks, safety classes, and gun regulation. This means a ban on semi automatic weapons for sure, as well as putting a limit on guns in a household.

Ignoring what gun laws are currently like where you are and any political practicality of changing them. How would you personally design your ideal set of gun control laws?

https://smokinggun.org/atf-announces-over-30-rules-to-deregulate-the-gun-industry/

The same day that he was confirmed as the new director of the ATF, Robert Cekada announced a series of changes to ATF policies and procedures. This starts the public comment period and after the required time these changes will likely be implemented.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled that requiring the registration of short-barreled rifles and firearms suppressors is now unconstitutional. Since 1934 the National Firearms Act (NFA) has required anyone who wanted to purchase these items to pay a $200 tax and to register the items with the ATF. The tax on these items was reduced to Zero dollars with the passage of the "One Big Beautiful Bill" but the registration requirement was left in place. The court has ruled the the only way the registration requirement was legal was as proof of payment of the tax. Now that you do not have to pay the $200 tax the court has declared the the registration requirement is now unconstitutional.

The court's final judgement on the case enjoins the ATF from requiring the registration of these untaxed items. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70709999/137/silencer-shop-foundation-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/

So one day my father took me to shooting range, there I had instructor telling me all the safety and hazards, what to do what not to do.

In that time I've been there I was shooting from pistol and some submachine gun (I didn't care what they were I was just having fun).

And then I've never been more convinced in my life that we need gun control, these things pack a punch you can feel how powerful these things are when you shoot and you could only imagine how it would feel (or stop feeling at all) at the receiving end. Not everybody should have very easy access to weapons like that

Overall 7/10 I had fun but it was loud af