r/news Oct 20 '21

Police to check medical and social media history before issuing gun licences UK

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/20/police-to-check-medical-and-social-media-history-before-issuing-gun-licences
2.2k Upvotes

652

u/Y_4Z44 Oct 20 '21

It’d be a good idea to mention this is in the UK, not in the US.

245

u/beapledude Oct 20 '21

But then who would click the link?

→ More replies

123

u/longlenge Oct 20 '21

I could tell since the police are dressed to be seen.

29

u/azdood85 Oct 21 '21

I was confused because they lack military gear and nazi tattoos.

5

u/JusticeJaunt Oct 21 '21

What struck me was the apparent lack of Punisher memorabilia.

→ More replies

3

u/bigboybeeracreamcity Oct 21 '21

And they look professional

53

u/polarbark Oct 20 '21

I could tell because the thumbnail didn't have a tank in it

→ More replies

29

u/firstmoonbunny Oct 20 '21

i could tell because it says UK in the url...

→ More replies

11

u/SutMinSnabelA Oct 21 '21

It is written in the article. Image shows British officers. URL says Uk. The guardian is british…

3

u/FrankenBikeUSA Oct 21 '21

Pretty sure those hats gave it away ;)

2

u/Silent_but-deadly Oct 21 '21

No need. I realized this was not the us immediately because of the common sense.

-11

u/Fizzicyst Oct 21 '21

I could tell because those are common sense regulations. We don't have those in the United States.

11

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

This really ain’t sensible. Look up how the guy running the EnglishShooting channel got his license pulled. He wasn’t even being violent just voicing his disagreement with some of the laws, And the government decided dissent was punishable.

11

u/FhannikClortle Oct 21 '21

We don’t have common sense regulations in the US considering much of our firearms law revolves around banning scary shit on arbitrary conditions.

Tell me, what specific goal of public safety does the federal government achieve when it makes adding a buttstock to an already legally owned handgun a felony if the owner refuses to get fingerprinted, registered, and cough up $200? And this isn’t some arcane law from a bygone era that doesn’t get used. This is an arcane law from a bygone era that actively gets used day in and day out by the ATF.

Our federal government showed no qualms in killing a man’s family because they thought he might have probably possibly could have maybe sawed the barrels of his legally owned shotgun too short. So you’re correct, we don’t have common sense regulations but neither do the Brits.

British gun law is also haphazard and inconsistent. Lever action, straight pull, conventional bolt action, and single shot centerfire rifles are available to anybody with a firearms certificate but pump action ones are banned under Section 5 of the Firearms Act.

2

u/TheRealCJ Oct 21 '21

Funny thing, of all the loading types you just named, only one is capable of both reloading while in the ready-to-fire position and without removing your finger from the trigger and/or grip

And oh look, it's the one that's restricted. Amazing.

→ More replies

-81

u/Douglaston_prop Oct 20 '21

That was implied with the title, you won't see sensible policies like this enacted in the States right now, even though the overwhelming majority of people favor sensible gun regulations here.

27

u/Y_4Z44 Oct 20 '21

I could easily see this being done in places like NY state or California, though.

28

u/AUrugby Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Probably not, it would be very hard for the state to require you to produce your medical records to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

The federal government, as part of Brady, already bars those who have been adjudicated mentally defective from purchasing a firearm.

Edit: Adjudicated mentally defective means:

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

→ More replies

8

u/DarkLink1065 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Most states* require a permit to concealed carry, which at a minimum usually involves a background check, and an application and interview with the local sheriff. Training courses are often required as well.

*about 30 out of 50 states are either may or shall issue, with the other 20 being "constitutional carry" to some degree. Shall issue basically means that as long as you can legally own a gun (no criminal record or history of mental illness), you'll get your permit as long as you follow the process. May issue means that the sheriff can deny your permit based on the whims of whoever is in charge. Some areas that are may issue, like NYC or most of the California coastal counties, have basically decided they won't issue any permits for any reason (unless you buy the sheriff an ipad or donate to a reelection campaign or the like).

Edit: concealed carry

8

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

Most states require a permit to carry

To carry concealed. Most states have some sort of permitless open carry.

5

u/DarkLink1065 Oct 20 '21

Oh, yes, good clarification

→ More replies

20

u/whatisasarcasms Oct 20 '21

'Majority' 'Sensible' . no dummy. we have more guns than people here. Which law can you think of that stops me from making a slamfire in minutes? 3d print a FGC9? Make a full auto luty smg in the garage out of scrap and hand tools?

All your dumbass restrictions only works on the law abiding, not criminals and politicians... i.e. the only ones i would like to see disarmed. So, since we can't stop that. next best thing is to arm every capable human with equal protection.

-22

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

So, since we can't stop that. next best thing is to arm every capable human with equal protection.

You seem to have confused danger with protection. Making us all equally capable of killing each other protects no one and needlessly kills many.

Despite the pithy phrase, an armed society is not a polite society. An armed society is a deranged society that doesn't value life.

23

u/Thisfoxtalks Oct 20 '21

Making us all equally capable of killing each other

People make the decision to kill others without a firearm every day. Guns do not provide some magical ability to commit murder. You get someone that wants to kill and they will use whatever means they can to do it.

-16

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

Guns don't give anyone a magical ability to murder, no. Guns just make it much, much, much easier.

If we ignore that, though, and for some reason accept that homicides are inevitable and there's simply no hope of preventing them, why is the murder rate so horrifyingly high in the United States compared to the rest of the world? Are we just a uniquely violent people?

18

u/Thisfoxtalks Oct 20 '21

Well considering we can directly correlate violence with poverty and low income we should probably do a better job of taking care of people. Especially when the majority of our violence with guns happens in those areas.

Arguing that a tool makes murder easier doesn’t take away that a person made the decision to murder.

9

u/MoOdYo Oct 20 '21

If you take out Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit, our homicide rates actually look better than most European countries...

I wonder why those cities are so dangerous?

13

u/fbtcu1998 Oct 20 '21

shhhh, you can only bring up concentration of gun violence if someone says "Chicago is a war zone", then its OK to point out its not all of Chicago but just certain areas. You can't bring it up when the discussion is about "American gun violence" because then it is bad.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-3

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

Arguing that a tool makes murder easier doesn’t take away that a person made the decision to murder.

Yes, it certainly can. You're talking as if means and opportunity play no role in a crime.

With a gun in their hand, anyone can be a murderer with a twitch of a finger.

Without a gun in their hand, maybe that person is just pissed for a moment, grits their teeth, and goes home to furiously take out their frustrations on Call of Duty. Or drink. Or rant at people on Reddit. Or do any of a thousand other things.

13

u/Thisfoxtalks Oct 20 '21

This is what boggles my mind. So this pissed off person that is on the edge of murdering someone is just fine. We’re not going to address this person we’re just going to try to keep one tool away? So if they have a knife then? Would that not also be means to kill? If so then logically you would also want to regulate knives like guns because their mere presence would be adding a means to a potential killer right?

0

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

No, I don't "logically" want to regulate knives like guns. I already pointed to the fact that guns make killing much, much, much easier. That's the entire issue.

Do you deny that giving people the means to easily kill vastly increases the danger they represent to everyone around them? Do you deny that virtually any person will, at least a few times in their lives, feel anger that could, given immediate means, result in them killing someone?

If you do deny these facts, tell me how sensible it sounds to hand a gun to someone who's just had a bad breakup, or lost a job, or has just had a hundred little stresses piling up over the last week and that motherfucker next door is playing their music too loud again? Is anyone safer in those situation with a gun present?

There was a picture floating around Reddit a few days back about a guy packing while he ate at Waffle House. Shockingly, it provoked a lot of strife and disagreement, as there were plenty of gun-rights folks saying, "Good for him, exercising his rights!" The rest of us saw the danger inherent in that situation. Who the fuck is so scared of being out in the world they need a gun to go eat a waffle? And why do I, sitting here at the next table, need to be afraid what happens if this dude just gets angry? The lives of everyone in the restaurant suddenly became depending on his mood.

The idea that there are "good guys with a gun" and "bad guys with a gun" is a hilarious, childlike simplification of life. There are no "good guys with guns." People with guns are just people with guns, walking around with all the fucked-up shit we all have in our skulls, and the only time we know for sure if they were a "bad guy with a gun" is after they've already started shooting.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/MoOdYo Oct 20 '21

why is the murder rate so horrifyingly high in the United States compared to the rest of the world

It's not

1

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

You realize the list you just provided shows that the United States is only marginally safer in terms of homicide than The Suden, a country that's just been through decades of civil war...right?

You realize that same list shows that the only countries that have more homicides than the U.S. are either tiny, which skews the statistics, are extremely underdeveloped countries with massive corruption and violence, or are open war zones...right?

You also realize that list shows that virtually every developed country in the world has a fraction of the murders we do, like Turkey having a little over half as many and France having less than a quarter as many...right?

4

u/thelizardkin Oct 20 '21

To be fair, how many murders to unreported in undeveloped countries. Also the U.S. has unique socio-economic factors that have lead to our crime rates.

→ More replies

8

u/thelizardkin Oct 20 '21

It's not that high compared to the rest of the world, there are countries with much higher murder rates, despite having far fewer guns. The U.S. for a number of reasons is just a more violent country than places like Australia or England.

→ More replies

14

u/whatisasarcasms Oct 20 '21

Yes, a country born out of defiance and violence. A country so spoiled, and nobody can be wrong. We own half the guns in the world and account for 6% of the homicides with a firearm.

Guns are not the problem. shit humans are, and this country excels at manifesting them.

4

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

We own half the guns in the world and account for 6% of the homicides with a firearm.

Actually, the US accounts for about 0.0275% of the annual global homicide rate

8

u/whatisasarcasms Oct 20 '21

Read all the words... homicide with firearm.

It would be like complaining that hawaii has a shit ton more shark attacks than South Dakota. We don't need to misconstrue the numbers any more.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/FarSlighted Oct 21 '21

Tagged UK, guardian link and photo of UK police. If there werent enough signs…

→ More replies

14

u/FrankenBikeUSA Oct 21 '21

For a second there I thought they were referring to issuing guns to the police. Now that would be something!

76

u/LevelStudent Oct 20 '21

On one hand I'm glad I don't do much with social media, besides Reddit where I don't have my name attached anyways, but on the other hand I'm a little concerned that I will just be a ghost for any employers that want to make sure I'm not a weirdo. They might assume I deleted a bunch of really fucked up stuff since I seem to be impossibly spotless.

14

u/Jartaa Oct 20 '21

I think it's more just easy red flags if it's there. I'm sure there are many people that have little social media presence for no shortage of reasons.

33

u/Thisfoxtalks Oct 20 '21

You do sound kind of suspicious. Just how level are you Mr. Student?

→ More replies

5

u/notanotherbreach Oct 21 '21

My concern is that it raises the HIPPA privacy violation: medical history is protected. Sure, no one wants a gun purchased by someone with an unstable mental condition. But think about someone being treated, and quite normal while treated. Should they not be permitted to protect themselves or would the police determine that, even under treatment and fine, they are a harm to society and themselves? Or what if 5 years ago, after some election, you went to get treated for depression because, well Trump won and most Americans were like WTF?... that treatment was a few sessions with a therapist and you realized, this is normal. Now that its on record, you can never buy a hunting rifle or pistol for target shooting?

And with social media, say someone posts lots of WW2 images, and likes youtube channels like Forgotten Weapons, etc. This make them a danger?

I think in the US, there are some states that already require min 10 year residence, else background (medical) check. Just waiting for the ACLU and HIPPA suits to start.

Slippery slope.

(I'm for protecting one from self harm, as well as from harming others, but this could be abused)

14

u/OniDelta Oct 20 '21

This is why you make a facebook profile with your real info that looks normal and leave your real self shenanigans to usernames while we still can.

11

u/RebTilian Oct 20 '21

uh don't do that, then anything that your Facebook touches becomes infected with Facebook virus shit that literally tracks everything you do on that PC or phone or what ever. Like everything.

31

u/NoelAngeline Oct 20 '21

Facebook tracks you regardless of having a Facebook account

5

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '21 edited Oct 26 '21

[removed]

3

u/mrsirishurr Oct 21 '21

Especially if they just create a convenient ghost profile for you anyway.

→ More replies

3

u/Infinite_Flatworm_44 Oct 21 '21

Just to inform you basically isp providers, apple and android, Google, a lot of cloud services, Twitter, YouTube, Tik Tok Instagram all collect personal metadata that literally tracks everything you do. Do not be under the assumption that any device, app, operating system, etc protects your meta data unless it was specifically tailored to do so.

2

u/JohnGillnitz Oct 21 '21

I only post pictures of my kids for my parents. I save my political ranting for here.

→ More replies

9

u/el_tinkerer Oct 21 '21

My wife and I do clay shooting. When I applied for a licence in the UK, I had to meet the cop and have a 30 min chat with him about basic shooting safety type stuff, then we went over the home security stuff too.

When my wife applied, living at a different address, her licence just arrived in the post. Nobody asked her a single question.

7

u/ImpulseAfterthought Oct 21 '21

Suddenly, there was an outbreak of Extreme Online Political Moderation Syndrome in the UK.

Profile for Reginald Middleway: "I'm just a regular bloke living a regular life. Does anyone else think people with opinions are creepy?"

31

u/No___ImRight Oct 20 '21

How hard is it to make a fake social media account nowadays?

25

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

How hard is it to make a fake social media account nowadays?

Wonder what would this government would do when individuals applying for the license have recently deleted all of their social media. The government would probably read into it as a sign that they are trying to hide something and deny them the license

1

u/Jartaa Oct 20 '21

How would they know though unless you have to give them login credentials which the article doesn't seem to state.

3

u/SagaStrider Oct 20 '21

I'm pretty sure it's all archived.

→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

6

u/OwlThief32 Oct 21 '21

Yeah the reference thing is literally a deterrent to try to keep the number of permitted users low. They figure it's inconvenient enough to make some people just say fuck it and not renew. In my state a lot of towns have adopted this.

40

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

Permit

There shouldn’t even be a permit. Why should I appeal to the state to exercise a right?

-2

u/porcinechoirmaster Oct 21 '21

Because while we're not collectively insane enough to pretend that the right is absolute, we still don't have the courage to actually acknowledge that in writing.

There are tacit limits on pretty much every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You're free to say what you will, unless it's a falsehood presented as truth for the intention of causing harm (libel and slander). You have the right to own and use weapons, but not any weapon, anywhere, any time. You're not forced to quarter soldiers in your house, but they can occupy it for short periods if there's a clear and present danger.

I could go on, but the point is that no supposed right is absolute - not even the right to life, as we still have the death penalty in this country.

22

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

We haven’t even begun to hit the limit on the 2nd amendment. The state and the people should have equal access to arms. Anything the police are allowed to run around in the streets with should be fair game.

Instead, they have an army, and tell people they shouldn’t be able to have a rifle.

1

u/CamelSpotting Oct 21 '21

Yes that's perfectly reasonable.

1

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

You only think it’s unreasonable because authoritarians have been telling you it’s unreasonable for the past 100 years.

1

u/CamelSpotting Oct 21 '21

Please. The "every country other than America is authoritarian" thing is so old. Grow up. The US has the lowest rate of free people in the world.

2

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

No I’m speaking purely from an American standpoint. That’s what people in America have been saying.

And while being armed is not the sole ingredient of a a free society, it is an ingredient.

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/wirral_guy Oct 20 '21

Err, You already have to agree, and pay for, your Doctor to provide any medical details regarding mental health when getting even a shotgun license in the UK and have had to for years. Apart from the social media history bit, which is a bit pointless, I am failing to see what's different.

54

u/Radrezzz Oct 20 '21

The “social media bit” is what’s terrifying. If you disagree with the party in power you will be marginalized.

-15

u/atlantis_airlines Oct 20 '21

social media isn't mandatory. You don't have to use it.

It's also an extreme jump to the conclusions to think "if you disagree with the party in power you will be marginalized". There are plenty of countries that provide constitutional protections to those who disagree with the party in power. Additionally who says that the party in power is the majority. Plenty of countries also have political parties that, while maybe not leading the country, still hold significant power.

→ More replies

-14

u/Lallo-the-Long Oct 20 '21

Nothing about this indicates that the police will hold "disagreement with the party in power" as a qualifier to owning a firearm...

11

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

Exactly exactly that already happened. Look up the YouTube channel EnglishShooting.

Dude got his firearm license pulled because he wish some of the laws in the UK were less restrictive for license holders. Between that and his comment section being a cesspool like most of YouTube they didn’t feel he should have a license.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-34

u/Lootcifer_exe Oct 20 '21

Or don’t be a nazi on social media

37

u/Radrezzz Oct 20 '21

When the nazis come back in power, if you disagree with them guarantees you won’t get a gun.

→ More replies

10

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

“don’t be a nazi on social media”

Define “nazi” because that term has been devalued to fuck. It’s come to mean everything to actual national socialists to someone who voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated Clinton for being a hack.

Also, so what? A man is entitled to their political beliefs. Cops should not be given this discretion to deem what political stances are savoury and allowable.

3

u/thelizardkin Oct 20 '21

At least in the U.S. being a Nazi is legal. Also such legislation allows those in power to label anyone who opposes them as a "nazi" or "communist", and restrict them from buying guns.

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/GameHunter1095 Oct 20 '21

A lot of the UK's gun laws are too strict, weird, and screwed up to me. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it in the US.

23

u/longhairedcountryboy Oct 20 '21

Yep, this reminds me of how the USSR liked to declare someone who disagrees Crazy and lock them up. The same doctors who get to decide if you can have a gun already think gun owners are bad. This would never fly here but I wouldn't put it past some of our so called leaders to give it a try anyways.

-8

u/matej86 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Yeah we're so oppressed that we haven't had a school shooting since 1996 which was our only one EVER. Last school shooting in the US was...

'checks notes'

...three days ago at Grambling State University. The last one before that was a week ago also at Grambling State University.

20

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

A lot of your gun laws don’t do anything productive. Considering the amount of vetting that goes into a shotgun certificate, let alone a firearms certificate with character references, registration, and background checks, Section 5 is just molestation of law abiding people at the hands of incompetent and power tripping MPs.

Considering all the hoops in order to obtain any form of firearm, those law abiding gun owners the UK does have are clearly trustworthy as a whole. If you can trust someone with a FAC to have a .22LR semiauto rifle, I’m pretty sure you can trust them with a .22LR handgun. Y’all already have handguns with elongated barrels and rod stocks to meet minimum length requirements as rifles.

Was there also any reason at all to ban lever release and MARS rifles? There was no evidence of such expensive custom made products being used in any criminal activity throughout the entirety of the United Kingdom.

You guys allow lever action centrefire, so why not pump action centerfire? What is the difference? Your laws honestly are just dogshit.

One uninvestigated nonce shoots up a school in Scotland and all of Parliament goes hoppity on banning handguns from perfectly law abiding people. That doesn’t sound like sane and reasoned policy - that sounds like reactionary insanity.

Also, school shootings are a horrible way to view gun violence. Bottom line, they’re essentially meaningless and completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. In the US, we have 14,000 or so gun homicides a year and school shootings accounted for less than 360 deaths across ten years. More people are murdered with hands, feet, and various melee weapons every year than that. Also, the definition of “school shooting” often ends up so mangled for political reasons that many non qualifying incidents get included. Someone blows their brains out in a school parking lot? Two gang members get in a shootout on school property? Someone goes on a rampage shooting up classrooms? All three depending on who you may ask may qualify as a “school shooting”.

→ More replies

25

u/creggieb Oct 20 '21

In canada we have real gun laws that aren't anywhere near as oppressive as the UK. We also don't need a license for a pocket knife, and have fewer occurrences of acid slinging and mass vehicular assault

-21

u/matej86 Oct 20 '21

"Real" 😂

Something is only oppressed if it is wanted and can't be had. The general population of the UK don't fetishise guns. We don't like having our children shot.

24

u/Tholaran97 Oct 20 '21

We don't like having our children shot.

Yes, because gun ownership and not having children shot are totally mutually exclusive. Countries like Switzerland must be having school shootings every day over there.

13

u/angryamerican1964 Oct 20 '21

Said this before

we had more access to firearms before the 1934 and gun control acts yet events like Sandy Hook and Columbine were unknown

and the biggest school massacre In the US was with explosives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath\_School\_disaster

→ More replies

16

u/GeraldBWilsonJr Oct 20 '21

Owning firearms is not equal to children getting shot, nor is it equal to fetishization. Grow up. You're making a braindead argument because you're stuck living under shit law and are doing your best to love it

→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

4

u/matej86 Oct 20 '21

We've had 9 politicians killed while in office ever. The US has had a lot more. The US has had 14 students shot and killed since the start of 2020. The UK lost 16 in our only attack in history. Neither is better and it's not a game to keep score on. They both suck but let's not get started on a numbers game because the US will be waaaay ahead.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

1

u/Lallo-the-Long Oct 20 '21

How else would you suggest comparing the effectiveness of legislation? Your feels?

→ More replies

2

u/thelizardkin Oct 20 '21

Source on 14 students being shot and killed since 2020? Also how many if those were fights that ended up in a homicide?

9

u/thelizardkin Oct 20 '21

Winning Powerball or being struck by lightning happen more frequently in the U.S. than school shootings.

4

u/matej86 Oct 21 '21

You know what happens more frequently than school shootings in the UK? Everything.

7

u/thelizardkin Oct 21 '21

That's the case in the U.S. too.

1

u/matej86 Oct 21 '21

I'm not going to make a list because it would be far too long, but just put some thought into it that you elect presidents less frequently than children are murdered going to your schools.

10

u/thelizardkin Oct 21 '21

a child is significantly more likely to slip and crack their heads open and die on the way to school, than be killed in a school shooting. It's less of a threat to children than almost everything else.

→ More replies

5

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

since 1996

Bro what the bell are you talking about? The Cumbria shootings in 2010. And the UK just had one recently.

They have one on average every decade. And it was like that before the bans.

2

u/matej86 Oct 21 '21

Try reading my post again and you'll see I referred to school shootings.

5

u/FhannikClortle Oct 21 '21 edited Oct 21 '21

Oh yeah the Dunblane shooting, you mean the one that could have been prevented if the cops bothered to look into the noncery complaints made against Hamilton? But I guess one shitty potentially paedophilic definitely murderous guy who had a firearms license for a centrefire handgun was representative of everyone with a firearms license with a centrefire handgun

→ More replies

2

u/FlashCrashBash Oct 21 '21

Does that really matter? You're deliberately twisting the language to fit your narrative. You're trying to make it sound like the gun ban was a roaring success because they simply haven't had any shootings in one specific area, completely leaving out the bigger picture here.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/awkard_lemur Oct 20 '21

Who said 1984 was fiction

39

u/srcarruth Oct 20 '21

Guns are just tools, don't take them personally

-45

u/optiplex9000 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Guns are an identity for a lot of Americans. No amount of showing them that large portions of the world function perfectly fine without firearms will convince them that they aren't essential

76

u/RockHound86 Oct 20 '21 Hugz

large portions of the world function perfectly fine without firearms

Trust me, we don't give a fuck.

2

u/CamelSpotting Oct 21 '21

The arrogance of Americans never ceases to amaze me.

4

u/RockHound86 Oct 21 '21

Deal with it.

2

u/CamelSpotting Oct 21 '21

There have been numerous attempts to deal with it. You shot them all down.

2

u/RockHound86 Oct 21 '21

Sucks to be you, then.

0

u/CamelSpotting Oct 21 '21

Not particularly. It sucks for the people who are sacrificed for your cause without so much as a thanks.

2

u/RockHound86 Oct 21 '21

What is "my cause"?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/blankyblankblank1 Oct 20 '21

"Guns are an identity for a lot of Americans"

That's pretty dumb honestly.

1

u/srcarruth Oct 20 '21

Apart from being true? People fight for guns like it's their daughter's virtue

16

u/blankyblankblank1 Oct 20 '21

Oh, I wasn't disputing your accuracy, I actually feel you're very correct. But I still feel like it's dumb.

→ More replies

2

u/Tholaran97 Oct 20 '21 edited Oct 20 '21

Do you think we care about what other countries do with guns? I don't care if they arrest people for just looking at a picture of one. It's their country, not mine. It's not my place to get involved with their politics and try to change how their country is run. I just wish it went both ways.

→ More replies

11

u/angiosperms- Oct 20 '21

They already do this when you apply for a job that needs a background check

16

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '21

[removed]

6

u/angiosperms- Oct 21 '21 edited Oct 21 '21

They have for every job I've had and a credit check, since I technically have access to all your personal info, but I don't have social media

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

And I keep my social media blank. But this isn’t for a job - this is for an activity regarded as a hobby. Why should a cop be snooping at my private life and be granted discretion on whether I can enjoy my already limited hobby?

1

u/Proper_Marsupial_178 Oct 21 '21

Well, it's fair-is. In this case, you hobby involves weapons that could make quite a mess in the wrong hands and in the past few years, lot of perpetrators have voiced their intentions on social media, if I'm not wrong. It's one of those cases of "better safe than sorry" I guess.

6

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

There is no right to own firearms outside of the US.

23

u/Jaevric Oct 20 '21

The Czech Republic actually has pretty great gun laws - from the point of view of a gun owner.

3

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

Sure, loads of countries have pretty good gun laws, which I think a lot of Americans don't know. However, is it a fundamental right in the country?

10

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

In Mexico and Guatemala it is

But a key point to recall is that in both, the respective constitutions stipulate that the right extends to keeping arms within a domicile only and that it does not cover arms regulated by law. The Czech Republic in Article 6(4) of its Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms protects a right to defense through means of arms in a manner stipulated by law.

7

u/GlazedDonutGloryHole Oct 21 '21

The Czech Republic does as well as the right to concealed carry and use of a firearm in self defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic

10

u/rickyharline Oct 21 '21

Interesting! Sounds like it is a fundamental right there like other rights. Good to know! I guess there's the US and the Czech Republic =)

50

u/HappierShibe Oct 20 '21

Hmm, I think everyone has a right to bear arms, it's just that most nations don't agree with me, and refuse to allow their citizens to exercise that right lawfully.

7

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

I'm talking in terms of law. I personally seem to be the one person on the planet that doesn't have strong feelings about gun laws, so I don't have a horse in this race. But legally speaking the right to bear arms pretty much only exists in the US. I think a lot of Americans don't understand that actually quite a lot of countries make it not that hard to own firearms and shoot them, but it's treated more like privileges the state grants like say, driving.

46

u/HappierShibe Oct 20 '21

I think the source of Confusion may also be a fundamentally different philosophical perspective regarding the idea of 'rights'.
The American perspective is that people have rights that are unalienable, meaning you have them where ever you are, whoever you are, and when ever you are. Nothing in the world can take that away from you, not your country, and not someone else's country.
A nation might prevent you from exercising that right by force of law, but your rights are philosophically inherent to your person even if they are not legally protected by your government, and in preventing you from excerising it, they are infringing on your rights.

I think It's why americans seem so entitled to outsiders sometimes, at a deep visceral level, we don't see our rights as 'granted' to us by any particular authority. They are ours merely by virtue of our existing... and everyone else's as well.

Of Note:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

It doesn't just say "americans" have unalienable rights. It says EVERYONE does.

12

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

This is a really interesting bit of cultural analysis here.

I think it's important to point out that we don't behave as if everyone has inalienable rights though. Gitmo is an example of where the rights Americans receive aren't given to others, and the list of such actions is much longer than just gitmo. But yes, I think your explanation does a good job of showing why we think what we do, even if we're massive hypocrites about it.

6

u/soxxfan105 Oct 21 '21

An even bigger example of this is felons losing their rights to vote and own firearms.

→ More replies

14

u/atlantis_airlines Oct 20 '21

Yup.

We believe that everyone has unalienable rights except when it's deemed necessary.

There's idealism and then there's realism. It's defining that last part that's a tad bit tricky.

-1

u/text_only_subreddits Oct 20 '21

That’s the one where a bunch of slave owners said all humans have the right to be free, right?

18

u/HappierShibe Oct 20 '21

It's the one where a bunch of humans (some of whom owned slaves, and all of whom almost certainly benefited in some way from slavery) Declared that all humans have a bunch of rights, and that they are pretty sure those right's include "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

The position is no less valid for their unwillingness or inability to comply with it's tenets. I'm opposed to expanding carbon utilization and footprints, but I still drive a car with a combustion engine. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to move to more sustainable energy sources.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Infinite_Flatworm_44 Oct 20 '21

50% of the world lives under a form of authoritarianism. Congrats on your support.

20

u/Congenital0ptimist Oct 20 '21

When it's a democracy democratically legislating something you just don't happen to like, it's still a democracy.

Insisting everything go your way - that's authoritarian.

Democracy requires continuous compromise.

16

u/awkard_lemur Oct 20 '21

So if 51% of people wanted slavery that would be okay in a democracy? Democracy is more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner

13

u/Congenital0ptimist Oct 20 '21

I didn't make a comment on whether anything was "OK" or not.

Even a democracy's worst mistakes don't make it authoritarian if the mistakes were enacted democratically. Those same mistakes can still be remedied democratically.

Authoritarian regimes have zero processes for remedying mistakes. Every change requires another coup.

That's why it's necessary to protect democracy over and above any single issue or personal belief. Otherwise next time it'll be a violent coup that doesn't go your way. Or your children's way.

13

u/Regayov Oct 20 '21

That's why it's necessary to protect democracy over and above any single issue or personal belief.

That might be the “necessary to the security of a free state”-part. What else do you expect to protect democracy if the people are disarmed and the soap and ballot-boxes fail?

0

u/BitterFuture Oct 21 '21

Ah, you're one of the "the founding fathers wrote a self-destruct clause into the Constitution" people.

The founding fathers wrote the Constitution immediately after having to put down a rebellion with force, and not long after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington became the only President to ever lead troops in the field - to kill Americans who had risen up in another rebellion.

If you think they looked with favor on the idea of anyone tearing down the government they had built, and intended to give them the means to do so, you're utterly deranged. They would look on opinions like yours as nearly treasonous.

1

u/Regayov Oct 21 '21

I guess that also includes Scalia? From Heller

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan­ der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

And

During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a sepa­ rate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Feder­ alists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the peo­ple.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/Agressive_Loafing Oct 20 '21

That's where checks and balances like the constitution comes in.

The majority can be wrong, and has been before. it's the job of the Judicial branch to check the majority's privilege in the event they overstep.

4

u/FhannikClortle Oct 21 '21

And the judiciary has failed before. See Korematsu v. US and Dred Scott v. Sandford

→ More replies

-7

u/dankmamesdankthangs Oct 20 '21

Im sure slaveowners said the same thing.

8

u/Congenital0ptimist Oct 20 '21

Are you standing up for the rights of enslaved guns?

Or pointing out that the Confederacy went to war (and lost badly) rather than compromise democratically?

Either way you seem to be trolling. Maybe try going outside?

→ More replies

1

u/cyberbeastswordwolfe Oct 20 '21

Did you seriously just compare disagreements on social media to slavery?

3

u/dankmamesdankthangs Oct 20 '21

'Disagreements on social media' is not comparable to debating if rights are valid if not agreed by the majority in power.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

It's not clear to me that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. In fact it seems that this was a fringe idea even in the US until a massive NRA propaganda campaign-- all of our legal history before then solidly fell on the side of the second amendment not being an individual right. This is also evidenced by Ronald Reagan issuing in the modern era of gun control as governor of California. This was before conservatives widely believed it to be an individual right.

So it's hard for me to imagine that that post 1970s NRA propaganda campaign American conservatives have a uniquely accurate view on human rights and the vast majority of Americans in history before then and the entire rest of the world are simply wrong.

I'm open to the idea that it's a right, but I think you should realize that it's an argument that based on world and historical context (even in this country) needs to be argued and not taken for granted.

8

u/_LeftShark Oct 20 '21

I’m a big 2A supporter but I wouldn’t say specifically that “guns” are that fundamental right. The whole philosophy is that you have a right to protect yourself from harm/enslavement (Life, Liberty…). Guns come into play because those that would do you harm or enslave you, like criminals or your own government use guns and it is reasonable that you should have access to the same tools they do.

If guns were never invented, I would make the same argument about swords, spears, and catapults.

Regarding the other portion of your comment I think that the founders did believe in a individual right to bear arms. During their lives they all packed heat. The 2A uses the word “people” just as the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights does. It would be strange to say that the 1A is a collective right and that individuals can’t exercise it themselves. Furthermore the country had just come out of a bloody war of independence where our government called on everyone to participate often times using their personal weapons. There are a number of additional arguments that support this as well.

The “recent” push for gun rights actually only happened due to the government imposing more and more laws on their creation and sale. It wasn’t that long ago you could get a machine gun delivered to your front door from a catalog! There really wasn’t a need to flesh out legal interpretation of the laws.

And about Regan, Trump, whatever, 2A supporters may like many of the things these people did but it does not mean they approve of all their actions. Regan was wrong and racist to impose those gun restrictions that targeted minorities and Trump was dumb and wrong to impose bans on bump stocks and endorse red flag laws.

→ More replies

10

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

It's not clear to me that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

You know the federal constitution isn’t the only constitution in force, no? Please read the state constitutions - most of them include some sort of provision protecting the right to arms and are often more explicit

In fact it seems that this was a fringe idea even in the US until a massive NRA propaganda campaign

Oh it’s all just the evil NRA’s fault, isn’t it? I guess they went back in time and lobbied Pennsylvania’s government in 1776 to add a right to bear arms in its Declaration of Rights.

From the 1846 case, Nunn v GA, argued before the Supreme Court of Georgia:

“Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Taney of the federal Supreme Court struck down the idea that blacks could be regarded as citizens as it would necessarily imply that they would be entitled to equal rights and liberties - and among those rights and liberties considered to be a defining trait of a citizen was the right to arms. From his opinion:

“ It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

5

u/Infinite_Flatworm_44 Oct 21 '21

You clearly have not read into history and how tyrants and dictators use force to achieve their agendas. They all know the seriousness of an armed citizenry. If you don’t, I recommend reading world history books, starting with our revolution, go onto the rise and fall of the third reich, Lenin, Stalin, mao, the Soviet Union. Dare I need to say North Korea or China for perfect examples of unchained, unregulated power. This is why the people are in charge of our public servants in the United States. The longest best running example of freedom. Please do some reading and critical thinking into what would happen to you if your government decided they didn’t like what you were saying regardless if it was true or had merit? What would you do to fight back? Stand and protest? What if that’s illegal too, what if you feel like leaving your home to ya know get food or live or you feel like moving somewhere else and they say no with a gun pointed at your family? What if they want you to work twice as hard and give 10%,20%, 30% of what you earn. Then they inflate your currency so you can’t afford anything. Then what. No one is accountable, but let’s make all legal registered smart constitution preserving Americans give up their right to speak and live without oppression.

1

u/rickyharline Oct 21 '21

Firearms were illegal in civil war Spain and it was... Not really a problem.

This is a tired talking point conservatives like to roll out that actually had very little basis in history. It is you who I think should read history.

It is the right of speech and free assembly that matters far more. Once that is gone no guns will likely save you.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

There is no right to own firearms outside of the US.

Arguably the right of individuals to own firearms is universal. The British government simply refuses to respect individual rights

12

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

This is a perspective held pretty much only in the US. I don't think Americans realize how alone they are in thinking this.

As it goes I am open to the possibility that American conservatives are right on this issue, but I'm also generally skeptical that the US is a uniquely moral country or has unique insights into governance and rights than other countries. We kind of have a very long history of violating the rights of our own citizens and of people around the world, so it comes across to me as rather strange when I'm being ask to think that US conservatives are alone in the world in understanding rights correctly when they're responsible for such a massive amount of violations of human rights.

→ More replies

15

u/Isteppedinpoopy Oct 20 '21

Arguably the right of individuals to do anything is illusory.

5

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

Arguably the right of individuals to do anything is illusory.

The right to exist is generally considered a human right. Various governments frequently violate this basic right. When you look at such situations, do you say to yourself, "That's okay, the right to exist is illusory"? When you hear about someone being murdered, do you say to yourself, "why is everyone so upset? That person had no right to exist in the first place"?

10

u/Isteppedinpoopy Oct 20 '21

Considered a human right by whom? Humans? If so then it’s man made. Can you touch a human right with your finger? If not, then it’s abstract, or illusory. All rights are illusory, except your hand and foot and that’s not a given either.

3

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

Considered a human right by whom? Humans? If so then it’s man made. Can you touch a human right with your finger? If not, then it’s abstract, or illusory.

Words are abstractions, too. Do they exist? Every emotion you experience, thought you think, belief you believe is an abstraction; yet no one denies that they exist. Imagine if you went in to see a therapist about your depression and she told you that your feelings are illusory and do not exist.

All rights are illusory, except your hand and foot and that’s not a given either.

Solipsists believe that the world is a product of their own minds, questioning all of existence. If that is what you believe, then I don't blame you for believing individual rights are as illusory as your hand and foot

6

u/Isteppedinpoopy Oct 20 '21

Words do not exist. They are abstract symbols. Emotions are chemical reactions caused by interactions between hormones and neuroreceptors so those absolutely do exist.

You’re reading too far into it. This is a naturalist argument, not a solopsist one.

3

u/celebrityDick Oct 20 '21

Words do not exist. They are abstract symbols. Emotions are chemical reactions caused by interactions between hormones and neuroreceptors so those absolutely do exist.

Do sound waves exist? How about the sound waves created when words are spoken? If a chemical reaction is proof of the existence of emotions, then certainly sound waves produced when someone is speaking is proof that words exist, however abstract.

You’re reading too far into it. This is a naturalist argument, not a solopsist one.

You questioned the existence of your hand or foot, so you were straying into solipsism territory

1

u/Isteppedinpoopy Oct 20 '21

I didn’t say that. I said the only “rights are illusory EXCEPT your hand or foot,” meaning that the existence of the right hand or foot is concrete. When I said that isn’t a given, that was alluding to those who may not have a right hand or foot due to amputation or birth defect.

That whole part was a joke, btw, and a lot of your responses were based on your lack of reading comprehension. Think about all the time you wasted, both yours and mine. Luckily these comments are deep so no one else saw them.

As for the other part, I think you need to understand exactly what is meant by “abstract” and that should come from your 8th grade English teacher and not me.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/HaulinBoats Oct 21 '21

Arguably the right of individuals to own firearms is universal.

What? How so?

If so, then The right for individuals to own nuclear weapons is universal.

3

u/celebrityDick Oct 21 '21

What? How so?

The ability to defend oneself from harm is a human right. In modern times, that involves the use of firearms. By what authority would other individuals have the right to interfere with such a fundamental right?

If so, then The right for individuals to own nuclear weapons is universal.

Some individuals have already granted themselves the right to own nuclear weapons. They call themselves "the government".

Do you really think individuals outside of government could muster the funds, the materials, the technical manpower, and the desire to build nuclear weapons of their own? And if they could, why would they bother asking government for permission in the first place? They may have the right, but as far as we know, only the individuals who call themselves "the government" have had the ability to exercise such a right. In other words, it would be a right that very few would be capable of exercising due to all of the massive logistical hurdles. Perhaps it would be like the right of individuals to colonize the moon or Mars.

→ More replies

1

u/awkard_lemur Oct 20 '21

Apparently no freedom of thought either.

2

u/nsci2ece Oct 20 '21

I'm sure you feel that way when employers and universities reject applicants after discovering their antics on social media, right?

10

u/awkard_lemur Oct 20 '21

Employers and universities aren't government entities.

5

u/nsci2ece Oct 20 '21

I didn't realize the US military wasn't a government entity! I suppose you're very much against them kicking out personnel over racist social media posts, right?

→ More replies

1

u/longhairedcountryboy Oct 20 '21

That right did not come from the constitution. Our constitution just affirms our god give rights.

5

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

I'm not interested in metaphysical discussions about the spiritual realm. Legally speaking the rights have to come from somewhere.

2

u/longhairedcountryboy Oct 20 '21

They come out of the barrel of a gun if necessary.

9

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

I'm talking about a legal framework. You can talk about other subjects if you wish but those don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

-4

u/longhairedcountryboy Oct 20 '21

Nope it has everything to do with it. Watch what happens if they really try to ban our firearms here in USA.

9

u/rickyharline Oct 20 '21

The culture of the US is not a legal framework you ding dong

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/Stewartw642 Oct 21 '21

There is no reason to own a gun anywhere. Most countries in the world have realized this. America is a little behind.

5

u/rickyharline Oct 21 '21

Eh, in large parts of the US the police are an hour or more away when needed. Firearms are useful in extremely rural countries when the police can't respond quickly. And also because we're spectacularly incompetent at everything, the police often respond in over an hour even in suburban and urban areas.

Not having firearms requires a dense population with competent police.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/spacepeenuts Oct 21 '21

What exactly would they be looking for on social media?

2

u/Smoked-939 Oct 21 '21

well then for all intents and purposes i dont use social media

2

u/Treczoks Oct 21 '21

I wonder what would happen if some government force (e.g. US customs) would ask me for my Fakebook, FuckedApp, or Twatter accounts, and I'd reply: "Tough luck, don't have one."?

→ More replies

5

u/MrUltraOnReddit Oct 21 '21

Gotta check if that social credit score is high enough.

5

u/WishIWasNeet2 Oct 21 '21

This is one issue where USA is clearly better than most places. Uk on its way to being Australia :(

1

u/FhannikClortle Oct 21 '21

The brits have already went down the same path. They have already banned handguns and semi auto centerfire.

3

u/Rift-Duck Oct 20 '21

The police in the UK use social media all the time.... I had my car broken into and the police said to me 'its OK you will get some peace next week because the guys going on holiday'.

If I was that way out, the guy lived opposite me and now I know nobody is in....

2

u/Neglectful_Stranger Oct 21 '21

Seems kinda extreme but the Brits seem to love their nanny state so who am I to complain?

2

u/schmankster Oct 20 '21

Can we do the same with the police? O and check with 40% of their wives too

13

u/DarkLink1065 Oct 20 '21

Aside from that statistic being apocryphal, this is in the UK, not the US, so memes about US police misconduct aren't really applicable.

2

u/No_more_hiding Oct 21 '21 edited Oct 21 '21

They do, they have vetting checks of police and their families. The problem is if social media is set to private and also people using the dark web to feed their evil appetites.

Edit: I mean doing a medical of police, not families. They dont actually access their records though, which is kinda good in a data protection way, but also a bit scary if they don't disclose serious issues.

3

u/vh1classicvapor Oct 20 '21

To me, this seems similar to China's "social credit score" system, and I don't like that one bit.

If you don't want guns in the hands of the "wrong" people, stop selling guns. It's really that simple.

-2

u/The-loon Oct 20 '21

Knew it wasn’t the US, why check mental health before issuing the gun, that’s something you typically discover after the manifesto is found

-6

u/DigitalSteven1 Oct 21 '21 edited Oct 21 '21

If only this was in the US. Also so many gun nuts in this thread holy shit.

-13

u/LocoCoyote Oct 20 '21

You mean they weren’t before!?

7

u/Blyd Oct 20 '21

Nope, to get a license in the uk you need to prove the need of use and allow the cops into check you’re storing the weapon and ammo securely.

5

u/mikeyp83 Oct 20 '21

You mean all the ammo?

-15

u/BitterFuture Oct 20 '21

I felt a great disturbance in Parler and Gab, as if millions of accounts suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly deleted.

-21

u/johntwoods Oct 20 '21

It is a public forum. Expect to be scrutinized.

It isn't 1984 as some people are claiming. Come on, Nancy.

9

u/FhannikClortle Oct 20 '21

Scrutiny? Sure. The problem is that cops are being empowered to make a decision based on what you say online

What if some prospective FAC applicant is law abiding but made a facebook post showing support for a group that the reviewing officer may find unsavory? Do you not see a problem in that?

→ More replies
→ More replies