I am a liberal gun owner, a former serviceman in the National Gaurd, and a hunter and outdoorsman(I eat what is killed, nothing wasted), and I dislike both sides of the mainstream argument about gun control because neither side has a clue what they’re talking about.
First, my side against mainstream pro-gun control. The US also has a terrible crime rate regardless what kind of weapon is used or if a weapon is used at all. Most of our crime problems, including gun crime, come from societal issues; some of the gun control measures are treating a symptom, not a cause. The Second Amendment was originally created in response to Shay’s Rebellion. It is based off the idea that the citizens are the militia. A lot of people don’t know this, but the states can actually draft people during a time of crisis. In the case of a natural disaster, insurrection, invasion, or any other instance when everything goes south, the loyal citizens will be able to fend for themselves and may be able to help suppress the enemy(if it’s a case of insurrection or invasion). I doubt this is ever going to happen(except in natural disasters), but I’m mostly explaining the background behind it. Now, the problem I have with the mainstream gun control supporters people is that they’re doing it totally wrong. They are attacking a specific type of weapon based on looks and its high-profile use in mass shootings, despite the fact that 97% of gun-related crimes, deaths, and injuries involve handguns. They also have zero knowledge of the weapon they are attacking, and I will leave this video here to explain it for me www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&feature=youtu.be Now, if we’re talking about banning bump stocks and certain features which can turn semi-autos into full-autos, or magazine capacity restrictions, then I’m on board with that, but low-capacity semi-autos should be legal to people who pass the requirements(which I’ll explain further down). They also pull the “but it works in the UK/Australia/Japan/insertothercountryhere” without taking into account all the variables that exist when comparing countries. Then there’s things like hunting, target-shooting and farming, but I doubt anyone would go that far.
And now my side against the mainstream opposition to gun control. There’s not enough enforcement of current laws, and some of the current laws are so lax that it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. It’s that simple. The problem I have with the mainstream opposition to gun control is exactly the same as the mainstream support of gun control, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. They’re doing it wrong. They make the same mistakes of comparing countries, notably Switzerland, Israel, Austria, and Finland. Yes Switzerland, Austria, and Finland have high civilian gun ownership. The variables they fail to account for are that those guns come with a lot of paperwork, background checks, licensing, and shooting courses, as well as stage requirements, and different requirements for purchasing different guns. Just as the gun control support can’t compare the US to the UK, Australia, or Japan, the gun control opposition people can’t compare the US to Switzerland, Austria, or Finland either.
My take on it is this: Keep most current gun laws as they are, but standard shooting classes and licensing should be required just to own a gun. Also, ban on straw purchasing with legal penalties and make regulations for storing weapons with legal penalties if regulations are not followed. And ban bump stocks and high capacity magazines(more than 5 rounds for shotguns and more than 10 rounds for rifles). I can’t compare the US to another country directly, but the Czech Republic has similar gun freedoms with shooting being the third most popular national sport. They have mandatory training and licensing for gun ownership, and have less gun crime and fewer mass shootings. Canada also has relatively high rate of gun ownership compared to most countries, and has gun laws that, while overall more restrictive than American gun laws, are less restrictive than states like California and New Jersey. Canada has similar gun freedoms as the U.S., but they require a license and firearm safety courses for ownership, and they have an overall lower gun crime rate. We already require taking licenses for carry permits and hunting, so there should be absolutely no issue with licensing for ownership. Also, reinstate Operation Ceasefire and Project Exile(They cut down gun homicide by 2/3 where they were put in place)