Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker
I forgot I had posted on this thread and I see a lot of discussion has taken place since I posted. I do not think it hurts anyone with good intentions who is trying to obtain possession of one (or another one), for the process or laws around ownership to be more stringent.
Sure someone can obtain a firearm illegally but that process is not as easy or affordable as it is made out to be. And if someone is determined to terrorize unsuspecting innocent people they could certainly get creative and do it in another way that did not require a gun but fact is most of the massacres involve a gun.
I just do not see how making the process somehow more involved, extending the waiting period and/or raising the thresholds for applying for one, hurts anyone who is well intended. It is not a fix by a long shot but even a longer delay in taking possession might buy enough time for a potential shooter to say or post something during that time where it gets reported.
All of these massacres are committed by people who are/were deeply disturbed as we come to find out later on by numerous people who knew the shooter either personally or via social media. Mental illness has been around longer than guns. It is only more recently that these massacres are becoming more commonplace. During that same period of time disregard for law enforcement and violence against officers has also escalated. Our country does not feel like it is getting healthier mentally. There are more brazen and unstable people and like the boiling frog this state has taken place slowly over the last decades. We have really gone off course as a nation, imo.
As far as attempts of the government to essentially repeal lawful gun ownership it is terrifying. But this is the same "government" who instituted lock downs and other measures during Covid for 2 years and counting to protect us from the virus. Not to change topics but there are many people...most people...who Covid was not going to kill and did not kill yet all of us were forbidden to leave our homes. And while the virus was real and a real threat to many with vulnerabilities why was the emphasis of protection not more focused but rather imposed on the masses as a one size fits all? I see the same thing happening here with gun control...government will attempt to protect us all by imposing a law that most of us do not need and few of us will benefit from.
|
My issue here is largely just that it's a vague proposition with no specifics, and it is thus difficult to be for or against or comment on.
As I've said, while I don't agree and think it unconstitutional, I am not greatly bothered by background checks. I didn't really mind the 10 day waiting period my state has the first time either (I do think it has become a rather silly exercise in stupidity when I am going through my 300th background check to buy a box of ammo or I'm purchasing my 30th gun and have the rare and highest level of permitting my state allows). I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it.
Background checks are already the law at every gun store and dealer in the United States though. What, specifically, are we proposing to expand their scope?
What thresholds would be raised?
How would this waiting period work?
Many gun owners would be fine with some version of these general notions, I think.