Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Since the topic's been opened up...

It's one of those issues that usually devolves into emotional anger rapidly. I try to see the other sides view, as a gun owner I am obviously biased, but I try to understand the other view as best I can. Gun owners get angry when people try to criminalize their property, and gun banners are angry when a piece of shit conducts a massacre (actually, everyone is angry over this - one side just doesn't blame the tool). I get the emotional anger. Something tragic happens, people want an easy solution, blaming a tool is an easy solution emotionally if not logically.

Part of the problem, I think, it that it is an issue in which almost all knowledge is possessed by one side of the debate. It's often like arguing Darwin with a creationist, there is a clear information monopoly that makes it exceptionally difficult to find any grounds of basic agreement to begin. Every time I listen to a pro-ban argument on the news, or form a Senator, or from one of my neighbors that thinks "AR" stands for "Assault Rifle", it's just riddled with factual error. I do not mean errors in judgement or things I don't want to hear, I mean actual claims to fact that are simply false. For just one example, I've been told a thousand times that an AR-15 is 'high-powered', which is the opposite of true. The AR rose in prominence precisely because it is by definition low-powered (it does not even fire a full size rifle round), and it allows for a lighter, more controllable rifle and kit. Firearm parts, how they function, banners almost never have any real awareness or idea of how they work and so the words they use fail to reach anyone who has ever really used them because they are simply wrong in claim after claim. This does not make my side right, but it kills the argument being made from any chance of being effective.

I think it is pretty straightforward and obvious that firearm ownership is one of the few rights that are directly protected from being restricted by the State. Whether this is good or bad can obviously be debated, but it is singled out in the Constitution as being allowed. 'well, they didn't have AR-15's in 1789' doesn't make any logical sense to me. News television networks didn't exist in 1789, but basically no person has ever argued CNN is not protected by the freedom of the press. Do we hold that Mormons are not protected by the freedom of religion because that faith did not exist in 1789? No. It is a made up standard that is applied to nothing else in the document; an inconsistent argument dictated by the end conclusion that is desired instead of a rational process.

I think real regulation is presently illegal under the Constitution, and am personally against it for a host of reasons. There are some proposed laws that might practically help the problem, even if I don't like them, but not many. Background checks make some logical sense, a crime of momentary passion might reasonably be stopped if someone is forced to take a few days to cool down. I think it's kind of absurdism that I have to go through one and wait 10 days to receive my gun every time I buy one; I already own a ton. But for a first purchase, while this is unconstitutional, it might possibly alleviate some shootings.

Most other propositions, make no rational sense to me. Turning me into an overnight felon does not make my neighborhood safer. Restricting how many rounds I can load into a magazine (a clip is not the same thing, I have never seen a 30 round clip in my life) does not make my neighborhood safer. Scapegoating the rural population does not make my neighborhood safer. A person bent on massacring innocents will do so regardless of whether or not a particular firearm model is legal. They will get one through illegal ones, or simply make one. The types of guns people want to ban are nearing or over a century old depending on which specific one, it is not exceptionally difficult to simply make one yourself. There is no evidence that gun control laws in the US have ever worked; and much evidence that they do not.

Areas with the tightest gun control laws, most restricting there citizens from any real ability to keep and bare arms, have the highest murder rates. Chicago has gone pretty far in trying to eliminate their citizens rights to protect themselves, as the gang problem just gets worse and worse. These gun laws don't do a darn thing to stop a gang from using automatic rifles. It's just punishing the law-abiding and restricting them from protecting themselves from these criminals.

Personally, I think the problem is not guns, it is people choosing to murder. A murder is no more or less tragic because of the tool used in the crime. The Rwandan genocide, mostly conducted with cheap Chinese-made machete's in the era of the Kalashnikov is one of, if not the, most efficient mass murders in the history of the world. Solving murder is a goal as old as civilization itself, it is not a goal that is reasonable. Reducing it is a good goal. Making the ~100,000,000 Americans who responsibly own firearms criminals is a political measure, not any kind of a real solution or aid. It does nothing to actually save lives, only criminalizes people who live differently.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This wave of outrage and speechifying too shall pass. Even leaving aside the legal framework, there is no political will to do anything meaningful and at the end of the day almost no politician is genuinely willing to alienate constituents to take a stand on gun issues. So we'll have some virtue signaling for a while then go back to as we were. Meanwhile, gun company stock prices probably will go up.

[jingram058]

I don't care how many guns someone feels they need, as long as they are upstanding, law-abiding citizens. Every time one of these mass shooting events happens, after the fact we find the shooters threw out all kinds of red flags. So I ask, why is it so freaking hard to implement background checks? You got issues, you don't buy guns. Period. How does that violate the 2nd Amendment? Sure, no matter what, bad people will still find a way to get them. But I guarantee these shootings will decrease if you just make it very difficult for people with whatever bad issues to go out and buy guns.

[G1911]

I would like to note that purchasing a new gun already requires, federally, a background check. You fill out a 4473 and are run through NICS every time you buy a new gun.

Some states do not make it illegal to perform a PPT between individuals who are not dealers. If I decided I didn’t want my gun anymore in one of these states, it is legal for me to sell or give it to another private individual without going through a dealer and being subject to the NICS check and 4473. Many states also outlaw this and require deals of personal property to go through a dealer and NICS.

[Lorewalker]

Nearly all 2nd Amendment supporters are responsible gun owners who are qualified to own them. Just because we all have the choice/ability to be parents does not mean that we all should. We live in a very interesting time where the gov attempts to impose so many restrictions but at the same time allows so much freedom. They need to refocus those efforts where the impact is more meaningful.

Clearly background checks need to be more than a rubber stamping process and in the 21st century we have more than the ability to do that. It would hurt gun sales if people had a much higher bar to get over to demonstrate they are qualified to own one. Law abiding citizens would likely not care either.

The more shootings like this happen the more often they will happen. People are much more unhappy now, more detached and isolating. They turn to social media for the attention of people they do not even know. There is a serious disconnect that is dangerous and leads to violent behavior as was displayed in Uvalde. Gaining easy legal access to guns obviously did not help but guys like this very disturbed 18 year old will find ways to inflict harm on others even without a gun.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Clearly background checks need to be more than a rubber stamping process and in the 21st century we have more than the ability to do that. It would hurt gun sales if people had a much higher bar to get over to demonstrate they are qualified to own one. Law abiding citizens would likely not care either.

Federally required NICS checks are against mental health records for prohibited persons, and criminal histories for the same. How should the prohibited persons criteria be expanded to make it stricter?

My personal opinion is that it is not the states business what I do and do not own and which of my constitutionally protected rights I choose to exercise, but background checks I see as having some reason behind them. I don’t think they do a darn thing to stop planned massacres (someone planning a massacre does not care at all if they have to break laws to get their firearm from the black market and experience a time delay), but smaller scale crimes of passion it might have some impact.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Federally required NICS checks are against mental health records for prohibited persons, and criminal histories for the same. How should the prohibited persons criteria be expanded to make it stricter?

My personal opinion is that it is not the states business what I do and do not own and which of my constitutionally protected rights I choose to exercise, but background checks I see as having some reason behind them. I don’t think they do a darn thing to stop planned massacres (someone planning a massacre does not care at all if they have to break laws to get their firearm from the black market and experience a time delay), but smaller scale crimes of passion it might have some impact.

How many of the last however many perpetrators had an actual mental health record that would come up in a background check, as opposed to going to hell in the sanctuary of their parents' or their own home and on social media?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many of the last however many perpetrators had an actual mental health record that would come up in a background check, as opposed to going to hell in the sanctuary of their parents' or their own home and on social media?

Somewhere around: 0.

Like I said, I think they are clearly unconstitutional, and do absolutely nothing to stop a planned massacre. Firearms are the only object the state is constitutionally barred from restricting. Background checks may or may not reduce some crimes of passion (which are intensely personal killings and not broad massacres) by effectively instituting a time delay if a flagged individual attempts a purchase. I’ve not seen much accrual evidence either way there.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Nearly all 2nd Amendment supporters are responsible gun owners who are qualified to own them. Just because we all have the choice/ability to be parents does not mean that we all should. We live in a very interesting time where the gov attempts to impose so many restrictions but at the same time allows so much freedom. They need to refocus those efforts where the impact is more meaningful.

Clearly background checks need to be more than a rubber stamping process and in the 21st century we have more than the ability to do that. It would hurt gun sales if people had a much higher bar to get over to demonstrate they are qualified to own one. Law abiding citizens would likely not care either.

The more shootings like this happen the more often they will happen. People are much more unhappy now, more detached and isolating. They turn to social media for the attention of people they do not even know. There is a serious disconnect that is dangerous and leads to violent behavior as was displayed in Uvalde. Gaining easy legal access to guns obviously did not help but guys like this very disturbed 18 year old will find ways to inflict harm on others even without a gun.

https://youtu.be/iArRXahQE7k

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Federally required NICS checks are against mental health records for prohibited persons, and criminal histories for the same. How should the prohibited persons criteria be expanded to make it stricter?

My personal opinion is that it is not the states business what I do and do not own and which of my constitutionally protected rights I choose to exercise, but background checks I see as having some reason behind them. I donÂ’t think they do a darn thing to stop planned massacres (someone planning a massacre does not care at all if they have to break laws to get their firearm from the black market and experience a time delay), but smaller scale crimes of passion it might have some impact.

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.

[G1911]

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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

The more shootings like this happen the more often they will happen. People are much more unhappy now, more detached and isolating. They turn to social media for the attention of people they do not even know. There is a serious disconnect that is dangerous and leads to violent behavior as was displayed in Uvalde. Gaining easy legal access to guns obviously did not help but guys like this very disturbed 18 year old will find ways to inflict harm on others even without a gun.

Agreed. A multi-factor comprehensive bill that doesn't just look at guns is needed. Guns were his solution to a problem. Trying to solve and address his problem could help prevent tragedies like this in the future. Trying to address known societal ills might go farther toward preventing the next massacre than more gun laws.

Lots of stories and surveys coming out about how mental health got worse during COVID, and I think most people just think that now that restrictions have been lifted that mental health problems will go away. Very short sighted.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk