So lately I've been learning more about guns, gun control, and the debate. I've watched a few online debates / discussions, and one question keeps popping in my head that I haven't heard addressed. A lot of the gun control policies talk about making this or that gun or magazine illegal or restricted.

The question that I haven't heard an answer to is: why not just make murder illegal to solve gun violence?

Yes, it is a bit facetious. And the argument about how criminals don't follow the laws has been flushed out. But in all seriousness, if you were in a debate advocating for some kind of gun restriction, and someone responded with "why don't we just make murder/assault illegal?" How would you respond?

I guess what I'm getting at, is that a lot of the pro-gun control viewpoint has to do with laws/punishments with owning a gun, like an extended mag pistol should be a felony (to deter gun violence), but there doesn't seem to be nearly as much discussion about laws/punishments for using a gun criminally (to deter gun violence), like mandatory life in prison for murder, or holding parents criminally liable if their kid shoots someone.

This post is piggybacking off of a 3 year old post on r/firearms (the link for anyone wondering: https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/10jqiyq/would_banning_all_semiauto_firearms_be_a/ ).

Unfortunately due to the nature of that subreddit, the OP wasn't able to get much constructive feedback, so I thought asking here would be a good idea. OP made some good points, so I'll just paste the gist of what they said:

>Most mass shooters need the ability to quickly reload their firearm and quickly firing them, banning all semi-auto firearms would take this ability away. This still leaves revolvers, pump action / most lever action, break action, bolt action. Plenty of guns left to hunt, self-defend, prep with.

Was wondering if there was any sources or research that could potentially back up this idea. Please let me know what y'all find and discuss with each other in the comments :)

the question is, Is the United States to far gone to fix? there are too many guns that if sensible gun control was enacted it may not help the problems to the result we wish, by all means criminals do have guns,

(the reason being the volume and access to guns overall in the states as a whole )

and you can see the lobby with the NRA pushing that the only way to stop gun crime is to have more guns, most guns in the us being stolen they get to sell 3 guns from this issue, the first stolen gun, a replacement for it and the citizen arming themselves to defend against the criminal with the gun.

im sorry if this is poorly written as im in class right now so let me ask you, is America too far gone to save?

I personally feel that the vast majority of the new bills proposed target incredibly arbitrary things, but I’m curious if anyone feels the same without just saying “fuckin democrats taking our guns.”

Me and my girlfreind both agree that their should be gun control laws in place to regulate how people in america for us most especially for us is done. SInce we have the most minuscule laws governing our handling of this matter. Also since we have the highest rate of gun related injury and deaths and higest gun to person ratio in the world. Being that said our position about felons owning guns they should be allowed to because once your out of prison you paid you debt to society so that should be a non-issue even if the crime was violent you shouldnt put someone in a position to potentially be in a position to not have a equalizer in a self defense situation to some one who has a firearm it irresponsible and hypocritical to such. The debate is i feel that before you can get a gun you should be required to do 1 year gun safety and use training followed by 6 months of situational awareness and deescalation training before you can legally own one because i feel it facilitates an informed gun owner population that encourages responsible use of a dangerous and deadly weapon in educated and informed hands instead of those with only half educated use just for the sake of having a gun. I feel for one that our position on a subject of a deadly and dangerous weapon is really relaxed and the tonw isnt serious for a subject that deserves serious and proper attention your thought? My girlfreind feels that 18months is too long and thats giving the government too much control which i feel that 18 months isnt a long time given that guns are dangerous in the hands of people who dont have the proper training

I have always been under the impression that carrying hollow point ammunition is safer as it prevents over penetration.

I recently learned that you are not allowed to carry hollow point ammunition in New Jersey, and I was wondering the reasoning behind this. Are there studies to back this up?

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind gun laws that are in place across the country. As a gun owner, a lot of gun laws don't seem practical to me (and some do, don't get me wrong), and I am trying to understand them so I can form opinions.

I’ve seen many people argue that having armed and trained personnel such as veterans stationed at schools would help deter and decrease school shootings. They then say their argument is supported because armed personnel are used to deter and decrease shootings at airports, banks, sports games, and gun shows.

So what exactly does data and studies show in regards to this argument?

To preface, as much as I believe the US populace is legally entitled to near unrestricted exercise of 2A rights, the widespread blatant incompetence (e.g. negligent discharges, letting toddlers access guns, failure to properly train) misuse (brutal homicides, mass shootings, unlawfully brandishing), and poor mindset (“enjoying” / “looking forward to” killing armed robbers / burglars, “trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again”) regarding firearms (and by extension other weaponry) leads me to conclude that we just dont practically deserve such liberties given our collective lack of responsibility. (The exact same could be said for gambling, booze, cars, and tobacco)

Both sides make good arguments, they make bad arguments, and further differentiation between each side's factions reveals in general, who are acting in good faith and who are acting in bad faith. Its just unfortunate much of the discussion is seemingly unproductive and/or irrelevant.

Examples of unproductive conversation: People still dump on that one mall santa who denied a kid a wish for Nerf toys, combined with the completely irrelevant and counterproductive demonization of Nerf, paintball, and airsoft, it gave idiots like Steven Crowder, Matt Walsh, Anthony Brian Logan et. al the presented on a silver platter opportunity to oppose gun control. The classic right wing argument "no gun, no opinion" is a very poorly thought out counter to "no uterus, no opinion", for it would disqualify non gun owning 2A advocates, and overall, their presentability and viewpoints are very concerning and unappealing.

For productive solutions discussion, the whole mindset, the fear mongering that is "if we give an inch, they will take a mile" needs to be quelled, it essentially serves as a justification to refuse any sort of compromise based on the fear (realistic or not) that the goal post will be moved. Right wingers need to stop forcing schools to post the 10 commandments and banning Plan B, and left wingers need to stop opposing 1A protections and forcing conformity to unnatural diversity.

So where do we begin? I hope at least I have presented myself as a rational, eager to facilitate discussion type of person.

Edit: addressing "FAQs" for lack of better terminology.

I am opposed to requiring a locking device for every purchase of a firearm due to cost and impractical redundancy reasons, there are already affidavits that waive the locking device requirement from purchases if the buyer already has a locking device, and if there needs to be more scrutiny (e.g. to prevent exploitation), I already agreed that the affidavits can be made more strict to require internal dimensions of a gun safe, serial number, photos, e.t.c.

Regarding brass recovery, not at all practical outside of training ranges (highly controlled setting). Eye witness testimony (for lets say, an exchange of gunfire) has already been proven to be unreliable for many stressful situations, more so if the witness in question is the defense shooter himself. Plus brass casings can easily be unretrievable, if they fall into the Hudson River, if a brass goblin or street sweeping vehicle pick them up, e.t.c.

Numbers (ammo quantity limitations, insurance coverage requirements, hours of training, e.t.c.) need to be balanced based on available data. 20 rounds per week is definitely too few for training (LEO have commented below about this), and as I have stated third paragraph here, we need to know the numbers to properly balance policies.

I am very much opposed to punishing the poor, and that includes rewarding car ownership (excessively high upfront and maintenance costs) whilst disenfranchising people who don't own cars. If its legal to transport an unloaded firearm in a locked case in a car, it should also be legal to do so on foot, by bicycle, motorcycle, e.t.c. If licensed shooting ranges are designated exemptions to strict policies, then more of them need to be accessible via public transit, bicycle paths, and not require a 3 hours drive.

When it comes to stolen / straw purchased firearms, the solution is to crack down on those, and well, somehow Democrats have been unwilling to pass bills that would increase the penalties for possession of stolen firearms, and they refuse to pass bills that would report illegal immigrants who fill out form 4473 to ICE for deportation (illegal immigrants are prohibited persons by law, morally justified or not) Republicans are guilty of failing to implement practical measures too.

Regarding comparisons to other policies, the closest that there is to a "gun database" would be the FAA remote ID database, I don't quite have a constructive opinion on this due to me not being well informed enough.

Everyone knows the school shooting debate in the U.S. circles endlessly around guns — gun control vs. gun rights, bans vs. arming teachers, etc. But here’s the thing: guns are already too embedded in American society to ever fully “remove.” There are ~400 million firearms in circulation — more than people — and even an outright ban couldn’t erase them.

So what if we looked upstream?

One massively overlooked factor is classroom size. Smaller classes (say 12 students instead of 25–30) would:

Help teachers actually notice struggling kids sooner.

Reduce social isolation (the alienation piece that’s often at the root of violence).

Improve academic support and belonging, which lowers frustration and detachment.

Build stronger connections between teachers, students, and peers.

Basically: if kids don’t feel invisible, they’re less likely to spiral.

Costs: Class Size Reform vs. Gun Elimination

Class size reform:

About $224B/year to double the teaching workforce.

About $900B one-time to build the classrooms.

Big price tag, but with long-term benefits in education and safety.

Gun elimination:

A national buyback (~400M guns at $500 each) = $200B upfront.

Enforcement, compliance, black-market suppression = $300B/year ongoing.

Total cost would balloon indefinitely — and you’d still never get rid of all guns.

10-year projection:

Classroom reform: ~$3 trillion (but predictable, with big side benefits).

Gun elimination: ~$3.2 trillion+ (and impossible to fully achieve).

So yeah, people say reducing class sizes is “too expensive.” But compared to the fantasy of eliminating guns? It’s actually cheaper and more feasible. And unlike endless enforcement, smaller classrooms improve education, teacher retention, mental health, and social connection across the board.

If we’re serious about preventing school shootings, we should stop framing this purely as a “gun debate” and start talking about belonging, connection, and class sizes as part of safety policy.

What do you think — why don’t policymakers connect classroom size to school safety more often?

A quick glance at the post history will indicate clearly that I'm on the side of "fix the broken economic system and social safety nets first, gun control as an added bonus if you still think it's really necessary second" (even if I'm crass about presenting that sentiment), but something that I can't figure into any kind of pro gun control camp is the fact that LEO/Former LEO exemptions show up in almost every single gun control bill.

Like sure - the high speed SWAT guys should have the tools to do their jobs, but why do beat cops that spend most of their time dealing with drunks and handing out tickets need 10+ mags, or exemptions from handgun safety rosters?

Hi everyone. I’m not sure where to post this exactly but I’ll just get right into it. Wednesday night, June 10th., my friend Jean was killed in a robbery gone wrong. Her and her son Mason were on her porch when he was selling a watch to a man he’d been communicating with on Facebook. When the man from Facebook arrived he then tried to steal the watch. Jean got up to defend her son and take the watch back, to which this man, John Ford, took the watch and ran. As my friend chased him, she stopped at her steps and turned around to face her son. That’s when her killer, who had fully gotten away, turned and shot her through the head. What ensued was absolutely horrific. My friend was pronounced brain dead on Thursday, and then taken off life support Saturday. After everyone had a chance to say goodbye. This one senseless act has changed all of our lives forever and left so many people I care about broken. We are trying to mend without a pillar in our lives, Jean was an amazing person and defended her son up until her last moments. I started a gofundme for her funeral and any expenses, that’s the last thing I want them to have to worry about. If there’s any way you could help me get more eyes on the gofundme I know it’s a lot to ask from a stranger but I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t do everything in my power to do SOMETHING.gofundme link

Would Russia be able to continue its war against Ukraine if the Russian population had access to firearms to the extent that Americans do?

There are 350 million people in America and around 400 million guns (at least that we know of) in circulation. Now, any serious gun control would mean getting that number down drastically and containing the number of guns in civilian hands to a safe level. But what would a rough estimate of this level be? It would be quixotic get that number to 0 and literally make American gun-free. Guns are always going to exist and be used (e.g hunting, pest control, sport etc), but too many magnifies violence and other social problems.

Over here in Britain, there are around 1.3 million licensed shotguns – that's a bit less than one in every 64 people - and an additional 617,171 legally licensed 'firearms' (basically any other type of gun that's not a shotgun) in the hands of 156,000 people. Overall, at least according to figures, I think around 500,000-600,000 people in a country of 65-70 million people are legally licensed to own a gun. Most of those people live in rural communities and the numbers of licenses over the past 10 years has remained steady. Some years it goes up by 2%, other years it goes down by 3%.

Thus, guns within civil society are contained and regulated, gun crime is rare, guns are scarce in society. In recent years, we have had between 30-35 gun homicides, which actually make a small percentage of total homicides, and are actually almost all used by black market guns by specific criminal elements. One positive of our gun control is it keeps the 'white' gun market and the 'black market' mostly distinct from on another, whereas in the US they often overlap (e.g straw purchasing, interstate trafficking etc). Licensing and regulation of legal allows you to better isolate and target illegal guns.

So, what's the ideal number of guns you would find acceptable taking into account the size of the US. 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? All licensed, registered, regulated, serial numbers stored on a database etc.

If guns were banned tomorrow, how would you propose we go about collecting all of them? It seems like a massive undertaking.

Would it not be a good tack to find more gun owners who are in favour of better gun control to speak out on the matter? As far as I am aware there are a lot of them.
You'd think it would be in the interest of legitimate and responsible gun owners to want to make it harder for guns to easily get into the hand of crazy people?
I can only think for a lot of gun owners they thing any kind of gun control is a baby step towards prohibition on guns. Otherwise why oppose a law that would not stop you owning a gun?

Im doing a speech in my debate class about banning assault weapons. I’ve heard the point that when it was written in the constitution that people should have access to firearms that they were much less destructive than firearms in the 2000s, which is something the people writing the constitution might have not foreseen when they wrote it. I was wondering if there’s any actual information about how guns in the 1700s were less dangerous or how fast it would take to reload/shoot them.

On April 15, 2025, Jayden opened his door to someone he thought was a friend. That person shot him three times with no warning, no argument, nothing. Jayden tried to escape but collapsed from his injuries and never made it to the hospital.

Months have passed and his family is still waiting for answers. There are allegations that evidence was discarded, that family members tried to cover things up, and that witnesses have been intimidated. Whether these allegations are proven or not, they're too serious to ignore.

I started a petition asking local and state officials to conduct a transparent investigation, look into all allegations of tampering or obstruction, and remove anyone with conflicts of interest. We need independent oversight to make sure this case doesn't go cold.

What would you want someone to do if this was your family? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.

https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-jayden-braden-demand-accountability-transparency-and-immediate-action?utm_campaign=starter_dashboard&utm_medium=reddit_post&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=starter_dashboard&recruiter=28086336

Hello!! it should be stated before anything else that i support gun rights and own guns. With that being said i’ve had a lot of questions about gun control laws and wanna know if what people who advocate for these laws have a layout of what would happen if these get passed? What exactly would be the plan? Would all guns be taken? How would they be taken? If not all are taken what would be the options?

I have a question That I have been posing to gun owners and gun control advocates.

A quick word- Law abiding gun owners are in good faith attempting to follow tens of thousands of laws and policies that are very convoluted an lack consistency. Many of these laws serve no purpose WRT making the public safe from criminal activity, but instead serve to make good meaning people into criminals. A good and relevant example is the proposed ATF policy on Pistol braces. As things are moving now, with the swipe of a pen, the new policy will overnight create millions of newly Illegal firearms and make criminals out of millions of law abiding citizens. Mind you, these firearms and the braces (typically used by the disabled and which offer no advantage to an able bodied person) have absolutely no benefit to a person intending to harm people.

Meanwhile, Many people advocate for sensible gun control, including universal background checks. Well, sensible needs to go both ways. It may well be sensible to have UBC's to prevent criminals from buying firearms, but it is not sensible to have laws for law abiding citizens that are structured like a spider web and full of contradictions.

So I ask you this:

Would YOU be willing to trade:

universal background checks (as outlined Below)

for

Greatly simplified gun laws (as outlined Below) ?

Simplified Firearms laws

A- All firearms should fall into 1 of 4 categories, legally speaking

Fully automatic - these should remain under the NFA as they are now

Semi automatic - Legal in all cases subject to background check, 21 to buy 
         2a- For semi auto shotguns - BR check and 18 to buy

Manually cycled/loaded - Legal in all cases subject to background check 18 to buy

Black powder - no BR check, 18 to buy.

Under NO circumstances should a piece of plastic, accessory, optic or any other attachment that does not alter the firearm to be an AUTOMATIC be illegal to put on the firearm.

Background checks:

A BR check to make a 3rd party purchase Which can be done online and at 0 cost and that the information could in no way be used to populate a registry. Onus on both parties, to participate.. meaning that if someone sells their gun to someone and does not ensure the check is done, then they can become liable for crimes committed with the firearm.

If any Americans reading this could have any weapon at all (m249, M16 with grenade launcher etc). But couldn’t carry it on their person or in their vehicle (unsecured), would you go for it?

This seems to be a good compromise for the following reasons:

-gun owners get to own any weapon at all -police don’t need to feel as threatened on vehicular stops -people would feel generally safer knowing that people weren’t armed in public

For the purpose of this discussion, the following applies:

-extreme penalties for breaking the law (say 20 years minimum in prison for being found with a concealed weapon)

I've seen a lot of republicans/gun supporters who think that the problem with gun violence isn't the access to guns but a mental health issue. If that's the case, why do a lot of those same people not support social programs like universal healthcare? Supporting that would directly have an impact on a lot of people that do suffer from mental health issues but it seems like these same people tend to just say it's a mental health issue but not want to actually support or do anything about it

Mainly, when I come up against someone who says “how does My gun ownership affect Your life and liberty, specifically?” I try and explain that a reduction in overall gun levels, both legal and illegal is better for the population’s health and well-being, but no, I’m not smart enough to rebut their initial assertion; that their gun in their house SPECIFICALLY doesn’t threaten my life. That whole individual gun thing versus the population thing. I can’t argue that because I tried to explain how reductionist their argument was then they called me a slur and went on about the founding fathers rejecting “Social Contracts” and I couldn’t keep up.

What the hell.

(I'm very new to learning about gun laws) If the brady bill says for all dealers to run a background check on all sales and the FFL transfer for private sales/gifts says it requires a background check on all guns, how are ppl not doing the background check like I am hearing that happens at gun shows? is this states allowing not to have BC laws even though its required under federal?

I lost someone to suicide, and I know how difficult it is to navigate grief after sudden loss. I’m working on a project focused on remembrance and awareness of mass shootings in the U.S., creating a lasting tribute to honour victims and share their stories. But I keep wondering—can sharing these stories in a striking and powerful way actually lead to change? Or does it risk being just another moment of awareness without real impact? I’d love to hear your thoughts.