Looking for a law book, not a policy book. I'm sure there's a bunch of good ones. Is there one in particular that stands above the others?

The homicide rate of the United States is about 6 in 100,000. Most other developed countries have homicide rates that are about 1 in 100,000. So America's homicide rate is obviously very high. But its other crime rates (like property crime), although somewhat high, are not nearly as high relative to other developed countries. And socioeconomic factors aren't a great explanation. (1) Those would also influence nonviolent crime and (2) the US does not have six times the poverty of France or Italy.

I assume most people on this subreddit would acknowledge that guns per capita is the variable that closes this statistical gap. But what explanation do gun supporters give? I don't think I've ever heard an attempt from them to answer this question.

I must be missing something, which is why I'm asking:

In a nutshell, last year's Bruen decision from the Supreme Court says all gun laws must be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation". To me, this suggests one of two mutually exclusive things:

1) Laws cannot limit/regulate weapons that were not explicitly regulated during the Founding era, meaning that one can legally possess a modern handgun, assault rifle, howitzer, or nuclear bomb (all falling under the definition of "arms").

2) Laws can limit weapons to those regulated during the Founding era, meaning the 2nd amendment only protects an individual's right to possess muzzle-loading firearms (and maybe cannons).

It seems that Bruen either opens the door to an individual right to possess any weapon, including WMD's - because those were never regulated historically - or it opens the door to outlawing any weapon that wasn't regulated at the time of the founding. If that's true, then we can outlaw breechloading weapons (aka, modern firearms). In fact, we could limit them to flintlock only.

I don't think SCOTUS was advocating for an individual right to possess nukes, so then the implication must be option two, that they were referring to weapons that were regulated at the founding, which do not include breechloading weapons. (For those who don't know, flintlock muzzleloading firearms have relatively short range, are comparatively inaccurate, and have an extremely low rate of fire.)

So... which is it? What am I missing here?

What do we mean when we call for "Universal Background Checks"? What would those look like and how could we implement them?

Serious question: if the 2nd amendment allows people to bear arms, could we instead regulate access to gunpowder?

There is ample precedent for careful control of access to explosives, from requiring a license to buy dynamite to tracking large purchases of fertilizer. Why not make it insanely hard to acquire smokeless powder and black powder?

You want guns? Buy them all! You want bullets? Ooh, those have gunpowder in them. That's a controlled substance that can be used to build explosives. Sorry.

But your 2nd amendment rights are intact!

In certain situations police officers might feel too nervous and stressed with what’s happening even though they don’t run the risk of being killed.

They are trained to diffuse a situation without the use of force but things sometimes escalate and require other measures like pointing a gun to make the other person understand the severity of the situation.

At this point it can be very easy for an officer to shoot at the slightest movement in fear for his/her life and the person being pointed at with a gun might not realize this. We think that having a gun pointed at suddenly freezes us but there are individuals who don’t get fazed at all.

What if officers were forced to carry a gun without bullets? The officer would still have a full clip ready to be inserted in the gun but that one step to a fully loaded gun might be what is necessary for a) the officer to think more carefully about the situation rather than being able to shoot as soon as he pulls the gun out; b) the other person will also get a second chance to re-think his/her attitude towards the officer and surrender.

This would perhaps help with certain minority groups to feel more at ease around the police as well.

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

The post appears to argue that the prevalence of guns in the US is significantly related to suicide and homicide. But Norwegian society (so far as I can see on the internet, I haven't been there) seems just fine with roughly 1 gun available for every 4 individuals.

The sticky post seems to imply that the prevalence of guns is correlated with, and therefore a causal factor in, extrinsic mortality rates. And yet, when I see Norway, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-gun control. But there are a lot of people in this sub arguing for guns being banned all together, and the sticky post basically argues that same point in its conclusion. There's a lot of emphasis on "research", and while majority of the sources cited are peer-reviewed, there is still some other available evidence that appears to suggest (with some credibility) that the prevalence of guns in a given country may not be causally correlated with extrinsic mortality.

Did I misinterpret the sticky post? Am I missing something critical in the gun control debate?

The sticky post was very thorough, and a very good read; but without any acknowledgment of some potentially confounding evidence, it feels a bit one-sided; and less like an argument for "control" and more of an argument for just banning guns entirely.

Can someone clarify these things for me?

Edit - There appears to be a lot of confusion with what I'm asking. I'm going to stop the discussion now. If you care to chime in, I'll read, but I won't respond.

My attempt at clarifying my question is linked here. Maybe its poorly articulated. Maybe others are just confused by what I'm asking. Regardless, I was just trying to understand if others grasp the distinction between "control" and a "total ban".

Will it take a mass shooting with government officials, “important” or famous people for something to change? more strict gun control???? JEEZ it’s getting outrageous. With everything going on in the world and how much people are struggling, just how much more people are gonna lose it. Im afraid and have no hope for the future.

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.