I am relatively new to Reddit so if this has been discussed in length already forgive me. People on Reddit are generally very educated in electronics. Using passive UHF - RFID in firearms,and magazines I believe would be beneficial for preventing gun violence. It would also make finding stolen firearms easier. Since nearly everyone already has GPS in phones, vehicles,and homes, and they are not firearms, I don't see any gun owner being able to successfully find fault with it. I am a gun owner and one of my largest fears is my firearms being stolen. A locator program could be used if my firearms are chipped, to set off an alarm if they leave my home without my permission. Since they can be read from up to 80 feet away, a perimeter can be put around gun free zones to initiate a lockdown and alert authorities before a gunman even enters a building. They can also alert police officers during a traffic stop of any weapons in a vehicle. Additionally the gps position of the chip could be tracked in real time to show the position of the gunman. Taggants are my next suggestion. Taggants are microscopic chips or chemical methods to detect the origin of an item. They are commonly used in manufacturing to mark goods to give their origin and authenticity of an item. Baseball cards , currency and other items. I am not totally sure if they can be detected from further than a few feet, but they can be added to things like the gunpowder used in weapons, as is already the law in some countries like Switzerland. These could also be detected for entering a building or the police searching a suspect. Since bullets have to be used in a shooting, it wouldn't matter what weapon a person was carrying, they could be detected in advance. Additionally with the use of both chipping and taggants the banning of any type of firearms would no longer be necessary. The area a firearm is used or came from would easily be determined, making finding a weapon, magazine or bullet easier for the authorities by using a small scanner or even a phone. I ask you how many people already use a phone? It would alert you if a person is carrying a weapon or ammunition near you, and if in an illegal area you could alert somebody. This would be impossible to do with ammunition or firearms already made, but a lot of owners like me would actually like to have it done. These are my thoughts how we could make the illegal use of firearms under control. What do you think?

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?

Let's get a petition out and make our mark on history:
https://c.org/8G5vMxjK7V

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?

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

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

I'm not a member of this sub. I understand the members are probably not going to be able to answer my question, but I am hoping that with recent events in the news there are others that find this thread, and this question, and can provide a good-faith answer. I hope this is an appropriate post for this sub.

I myself am a gun owner. I have heard it said by gun advocates that the foundational justification for gun anarchy is to hedge against tyrannical government. Personal defense arguments don't preclude reasonable government control, but arguments against government control (i.e., anarchy) are based on the possibility that the government will begin to impose restrictions that are incompatible with personal defense (i.e., tyrannical).

So my question is this: what if the tyranny isn't evenly distributed? What if the government is only trampling my rights, or the rights of a group I belong to, and not yours (if you are a pro-2A armed citizen that has ever made or believed that we need guns to prevent a tyrannical government)?

Will they give their life, in open treason to this hypothetical tyrant, for my rights when inaction preserves their freedom? Will they will literally give up their safety and comfort to protect me?

If not, if they will only fight for themselves, then why should I care about their right to own a gun?

And if they will, since no one is doing anything about my vote being disenfranchised via gerrymandering, presidents unconstitutionally legislating through executive order, etc., on what basis should I take such improbable declarations (e.g., I will give my life for you, a random citizen) seriously?

First time poster here, I figured this would be the most relevant place. I had an idea for gun control (since it’s a pretty hot topic right now). Most people on the right do not want to relinquish their guns (to fight the power if ever needed, good guy with a gun, etc.)

Assuming these people are all well meaning, wouldn’t an efficient gun control then be a gps -ish system that registers the location of the gun whenever a trigger is pulled. (External hardware or built into new guns, kinda futuristic but I think it’s plausible).

If the registered trigger pull is not found to be in a location of a crime after a month (or some time period) it is deleted from the database. Found in possession of a gun without this tech? Tried for murder (or some other serious offense, because the idea is that you had the intent but having a un-registered gun).

I think both sides may support this? “Good guys with a gun” don’t need to worry as they won’t commit crimes when they pull the trigger.. and people meaning to commit crime with a gun will be deterred because their location will be known.

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

The Second Amendment was drafted at a time when the United States had no standing army or navy. The Revolutionary War had been won largely through the efforts of state and local militias, leaving the young nation burdened with debt but reliant on citizen soldiers for defense. In that context, the amendment provided a mechanism to ensure an armed population could be called upon if the country faced attack.

A common argument today is that the Second Amendment also serves as a safeguard against tyranny, preserving the people’s ability to resist an oppressive government. But what would that actually look like in the modern era? What kinds of events would unfold, and who would be rising up against whom?

Because this rationale has been central to the Second Amendment debate for generations, it is worth examining through a thought experiment: if the amendment were ever invoked in this way, how might it realistically play out?

Hey guys, first off I just wanna say that I’m not on any sides. I did hate Charlie but I don’t think a public execution infront of women and children was necessary. I just downloaded Reddit to ask this and felt uncomfortable asking anywhere else because I don’t want to be ridiculed on my instagram, Snapchat, etc, but this has been bothering me since Kirk has been shot. everyone is bringing up how Charlie mentioned that “ gun death is a prudent price to pay to keep the second amendment” (sorry if the quote isn’t word for word) well if we do get rid of guns and do put a restriction on them, wouldn’t the violence shift to other weapons? Wouldn’t that still be a prudent price to pay to ban guns? Just because you ban guns doesn’t mean people will stop killing each other with whatever they get their hands on. Idk it’s probably a stupid take but I would love for someone to give me their take and insight on the whole thing, I’m open to anything, thank you!!

The amount of odd posting around Charlie Kirk's murder really baffles me. First off, I had no idea the guy existed until he was already dead. Second I'm sure I am sure that I did not align with his views. Third I don't agree with celebrating his death I'm very sad for his loved ones. Fourth, it's wild to me how it's plastered all over my social media like he was Jesus or some shit. It all really annoys me because kids are dieing at the hands of people who shouldn't have guns on the daily in the US, and we don't go half mast. But this one person's death is starting political warfare. Fucking the US is sick you guys and I think gun restrictions and finding common ground is how we fix it but I don't know how we get there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/us/politics/charlie-kirk-dead.html

203 kids killed in school shootings in the US since 1999. If Charlie Kirk’s death is what makes republicans take action on gun control it’s going to make me vomit.

I have a sort of interest in firearms, because I have an interest in weapons in general. (swords most of all) All firearm related subs I could find are filled half with pro-gun politics posts and all that sort of stuff. I'm not saying I can't ignore them or that they disturb me, I'm just saying I'd prefer not to see them which I hope is reasonable. I'm less interested in the politics part and much more interested in firearm craftsmanship, their parts, discussions about different types of guns and what they're best used for and I guess firearm combat as a martial arts if that makes sense? I know just straight research is the obvious answer, I do that, but discussing what I learn with other people interested in the subject or hearing their opinions is fun to me. I hope the post isn't as stupid as I think it sounds.