Gun ownership poll

[ullmandds]

There is no question this country has a gun problem. I'm just looking to sample this community out of curiosity.

[Casey2296]

Got rid of my guns when I had my first kid. Don't currently own one but I do support responsible gun ownership. I come from a hunting background perspective and was taught to respect guns and people which is completely different than thug street violence and unstable kids having access to assault weapons.

[Smanzari]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

There is no question this country has a gun problem. I'm just looking to sample this community out of curiosity.

Zero. (edited as there could have been a hint of politics previously and I did not know that was a rule until mentioned below)

[BobbyStrawberry]

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

[G1911]

I own some guns.

Some of them are for fun sporting use.

Many of them are for historical interest + fun sporting use.

2 of them are for defensive use.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I currently own 5.

Three are Winchester Model 94s - my favorite gun of all time. It's a lever action repeating rifle that was first made nearly 130 years ago. The design hasn't changed much since then. One is a 30-30 and the other two are 44 magnums. One of the 44 magnums was my grandfather's that was passed down to me.

I own a Remington 870 Super Express 12 gauge shotgun.

I own a Glock 19 9MM (sometimes referred to as a "Baby Glock" because of it's smaller dimensions). It's small enough that it even fits in my front pocket and it's what a carry for personal protection. It's almost never more than an arm length's away.

[bnorth]

I own 6 and haven't shot any of them in many many years.

Beretta 32
Walther PPK 380
These are the same models James Bond used in the movies.

Ruger P89 9mm I have 30 round clips for this pistol and it used to be very fun to target shoot and hunt with.

Mossberg Ulti Mag shotgun 12 guage

Remington 30.06 bolt action rifle

Savage single shot 22 rifle. Got it from my great grandpa as a kid.

[maniac_73]

I already have one expensive hobby collecting vintage, I can’t afford another


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cliff Bowman]

I have never owned a gun in my life and I felt very uncomfortable whenever I had a loaded one in my hands and shot it. I'm cool with banning AR-15's and similar guns from anyone under 25. As far as confiscating legally owned guns from law abiding legal adult owners, no way. Go confiscate the stolen and illegal hand guns in the possession of gang members, thugs, and felons on the south side of a certain city.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

thats what the water cooler section is 4!!!!

[Jim65]

I own a few guns. Nothing more to say.

[todeen]

I own zero.

I was in Boy Scouts, had experience shooting shotguns and rifles. Been shooting with friends. Really enjoy shooting Ruger 10/22.

My father was an officer in the military, he never wanted a gun in the house. My mother's father committed suicide with a gun before I was born.

I thought about buying a Ruger 10/22 a few years ago but then I went thru some mental health issues. Probably shouldn't ever buy one now.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[JustinD]

.

[Carter08]

I own zero. Too lazy to learn how to use one properly so it would be dangerous to have in the house, especially with kids that find their way into everything.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by todeen

I thought about buying a Ruger 10/22 a few years ago but then I went thru some mental health issues. Probably shouldn't ever buy one now.

Originally Posted by Carter08

I own zero. Too lazy to learn how to use one properly so it would be dangerous to have in the house, especially with kids that find their way into everything.

I respect these two statements a lot and their admission why they don't own guns. You don't have to be a gun owner to practice responsible gun ownership. Sometimes responsible gun ownership is not owning one.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

thats what the water cooler section is 4!!!!

Good to know, Pete. A little bit to add, then–

The vast majority of Americans, including me, support the right of an individual to own a gun. The second amendment isn't going anywhere, and no one is coming to take away anyone's guns anytime soon as long as they were legally obtained. That said, law enforcement, educators, and the public overall think that something, however small, should be done in order to try and make mass murders of schoolchildren less of a regular occurrence in our country. Sadly, I'm not optimistic that anything meaningful will happen at the federal level, as lawmakers (on both sides of the aisle) are far more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about preventing needless deaths.

I'm sure people have heard about what Gabe Kapler is doing (on which I have no comment), but the quotes from other managers in this article about Kapler are notable:

1) "I think he's exactly right to be concerned ... with what's happening in our country... He's right there." -Tony La Russa

2) "I think we're all frustrated, especially in this country ... Nobody's happy" -Chris Woodward

3) "I do believe that we need to figure something that's better for everybody's lives because what we have now is not working at all." -Dave Martinez

4) "I don't think any of us are happy with what's going on in our country. " -Dave Roberts

It seems the one thing most Americans do agree on these days is that our country is in bad shape and getting worse.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The aftermaths of these terrible tragedies have become even more predictable than the tragedies themselves.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

That said, law enforcement, educators, and the public overall think that something, however small, should be done in order to try and make mass murders of schoolchildren less of a regular occurrence in our country. Sadly, I'm not optimistic that anything meaningful will happen at the federal level, as lawmakers (on both sides of the aisle) are far more concerned about losing their jobs than they are about preventing needless deaths.

I am a history teacher and have to teach factors. Not being political here, but gun violence has multiple factors. Other than new gun restrictions, all the others cost money that most people don't want to pay. Cheaper college is a factor that could lead to more teachers who are people of color. It could lead to more mental health experts. It could lead to lower wealth inequality. I'm not advocating college debt forgiveness, but fixing college debt for younger generations would go a long way to solving some of our societal ills as youth see the barrier of cost to entering these fields reduced.

In Spokane, WA, we have too few mental health beds for those who need supervision. They end up in our hospital system and puts a burden on our health care system. Nurses become one-on-one baby sitters.

Another factor is social media. Every study has shown social media makes life worse for majority of citizens. In schools, social media has a toxic effect. There certainly has to be something that could be done better than Elon Musk asking for fewer free speech restrictions on Twitter's platform.

This topic is so complex. I wish lawmakers would come together to create a comprehensive bill that addresses multiple factors. But as stated above, our current political climate makes that impossible. January 6 riots caused a lot of damage that hasn't been fixed. And I have no answers about how to solve that.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agreed. The synergy of social media platforms and portable devices is a huge problem for our society.

[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?

[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

[JustinD]

.

[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.

[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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

There are plenty of time place and manner restrictions on rights supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so let's leave that to one side for the moment just for the sake of discussion. If these perpetrators don't have records associated with them that would suggest risk, how as a practical matter can they be identified in advance of a weapons transaction? What specific measures have been proposed?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are plenty of time place and manner restrictions on rights supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so let's leave that to one side for the moment just for the sake of discussion. If these perpetrators don't have records associated with them that would suggest risk, how as a practical matter can they be identified in advance of a weapons transaction? What specific measures have been proposed?

If the perpetrators do not have records associated with them that would suggest risk, then it is, of course, impossible to accurately identify them in advance of a weapons transaction. The scenario dictates the answer. Again, I do not think background checks are constitutionally legal or accomplish much besides virtue signaling.

This is one of many reasons that I do not expect background checks to accomplish anything in resolving massacres (and the facts suggest it indeed does not do this).

As to what specific measures have been proposed as to background checks, it is generally unspecific proposals to strengthen them without stipulating specifically how, in the public debate. The left has advocated to close the 'PPT loophole' and to restrict individuals from doing private transactions without going through a dealer, and thus requiring a 4473 and NICS check, which I think would accomplish absolutely nothing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If the perpetrators do not have records associated with them that would suggest risk, then it is, of course, impossible to accurately identify them in advance of a weapons transaction. The scenario dictates the answer. Again, I do not think background checks are constitutionally legal or accomplish much besides virtue signaling.

This is one of many reasons that I do not expect background checks to accomplish anything in resolving massacres (and the facts suggest it indeed does not do this).

As to what specific measures have been proposed as to background checks, it is generally unspecific proposals to strengthen them without stipulating specifically how, in the public debate. The left has advocated to close the 'PPT loophole' and to restrict individuals from doing private transactions without going through a dealer, and thus requiring a 4473 and NICS check, which I think would accomplish absolutely nothing.

I suppose we could have some agency with superpowers flag every questionable social media post and track it down and put restrictions on the posters. Something tells me most people don't want to pay that price.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suppose we could have some agency with superpowers flag every questionable social media post and track it down and put restrictions on the posters. Something tells me most people don't want to pay that price.

That would be horrifying. Again, I am against background checks, not for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

That would be horrifying. Again, I am against background checks, not for.

I guess my position would depend on what the specific procedure was, and the evidence that it would have derailed some of these crimes. But I am pretty skeptical. At least some of these have been carried out with a parent's gun, yes?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess my position would depend on what the specific procedure was, and the evidence that it would have derailed some of these crimes. But I am pretty skeptical. At least some of these have been carried out with a parent's gun, yes?

Yes, and typically the parent has been shot shortly before the massacres in these cases of theft, as I recall. Once a person has decided to commit an atrocity, I don't know how any law can reasonably be expected to stop them. If a person is in the mental place where they want to kill a school room full of a children or a store full of random shoppers, they will not care if they need to acquire a gun through illegal means. All a law might possibly do, at absolute best, is delay the massacre a little bit while ignoring Constitutionally protected liberties by pushing a very, very small number of these shitbags to the black market or self-manufacture.

I don't think 'safe storage' laws do much of anything either. Most gunners already lock up their firearms when not in use or being carried, it usually just makes criminals out of people who don't live with children and keep a gun out on the table. None of them many shooters I associate with leave firearms out where kids can get them without being carefully supervised. I am not aware of a single case where a safe storage law, as many left states have, has stopped anything. It just makes it illegal for me to stop for lunch on my way home from the range in my state

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I respect these two statements a lot and their admission why they don't own guns. You don't have to be a gun owner to practice responsible gun ownership. Sometimes responsible gun ownership is not owning one.

That's where I am. I knew for years I was forgetful and disorganized. The add diagnosis was pretty much just confirmation.

That means I knew for sure I'd be the guy that left it in is pocket, or let it fall into the couch and shot himself in the backside. The easiest way to avoid that is to never own one, so... None owned.

I have friends who target shoot and have hunted, and I grew up in semi rural areas. So I'm comfortable with them as long as the people around me are responsible.

It's more than a little silly for someone living in a suburban area to tell someone living in a rural area they can't have a gun. We don't have much dangerous wildlife here in New England, but I've heard wild hogs, and mountain lions can be very iffy to be around. If I was hiking in areas where either were common, I'd want something, or to at least have a hiking partner who did.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's more than a little silly for someone living in a suburban area to tell someone living in a rural area they can't have a gun. We don't have much dangerous wildlife here in New England, but I've heard wild hogs, and mountain lions can be very iffy to be around. If I was hiking in areas where either were common, I'd want something, or to at least have a hiking partner who did.

I thought about a pistol for hiking, never very slowly though. But I threw out that idea. My hiking partner carries (I have also gone shooting with him). He likes to tell others I hike with Jesus. I've never told him why I won't purchase one, cuz I like that joke too much.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

If they are unconstitutional, then why do the NSA, FBI, etc., state after the fact, 100% of the time, that the shooter was throwing off this or that red flag? Why then do they collect the data? Maybe background checks is the wrong name for what I am talking about. Why not act on Intel before these c-suckers act. Is it their constitutional right.to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church? How much more of this BS before we truly mean it when we say we've had enough?

[scottglevy]

I do not own any but have shot many of them and enjoy going to the range from time to time. Just because I do not own a gun doesn’t say too much about my political views as I support the rights of Americans to own and use firearms in a responsible manner. Every single person that I know personally who owns one takes this responsibility seriously to the best of my knowledge.

[Smarti5051]

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these people engaging in this conduct daily, to various degrees. And, most of the time, there is nothing illegal in engaging in any of the activities above online. And, "white-supremacist vitriol" is only one extreme. There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes. For a government agency to make a personal visit to everyone that has a "negative thought" would only exacerbate the situation and bankrupt the country as we would have to increase these government agencies by 100-200x their current staffing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

It would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to step up security in schools. The government investigating every nut job who posts on Twitter? Good luck with that.

[Deertick]

If "constitutional carry" becomes the norm, a Rangers/Rays game may have the hit total surpassed by the shot total.
In my county alone, over a dozen handguns were stolen from unlocked vehicles in January alone. Zero repercussions to the "responsible gun owners". Every day there are posts on sites like Facebook and Nextdoor of people intimating that if someone were to "try" to steal their car/truck/cat/dog, they would be shot because of their mistaken interpretation of "castle doctrine" or SYG. This past year, there have been two CCP gentlemen who were deemed to have "accidently displayed" during arguments with unarmed persons.

Our current societal environment does not support unfettered carry. Any actions taken to try and mitigate any of the above instances gets squashed in a second. I have zero hope that situations like Columbine, Sandy Hook, LV, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde will become a thing of the past.

I own a Colt Special Agent Revolver loaded with .38 +P

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes.

-- Anti-abortion (edited: those who stalk, threaten, and attack doctors)
-- Environmental terrorism (not as popular anymore)
-- Bundy ranchers who want to end public ownership of land
-- Antifa (but I haven't heard much from them in two years)
etc etc etc

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

If they are unconstitutional, then why do the NSA, FBI, etc., state after the fact, 100% of the time, that the shooter was throwing off this or that red flag? Why then do they collect the data? Maybe background checks is the wrong name for what I am talking about. Why not act on Intel before these c-suckers act. Is it their constitutional right.to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church? How much more of this BS before we truly mean it when we say we've had enough?

It sounds like you are proposing more than a check against criminal and mental health records like a normal background check. I do not know how you would possibly look at every post a person has ever made and determine if there is something too objectionable. I do not see how one launches a massive FBI investigation like they do after a tragedy for anyone trying to buy a firearm. How would this work? What it would specifically do? I can’t really comment on a proposal with no specifics.


“Is it their constitutional right to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church?” - can we debate in good faith? I support firearms ownership and the right of myself to defend myself. You know damn well nothing I said provided any kind of support whatsoever for these tragedies.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

.

I think you are covering two different things here, rate of fire and magazine size.

First, almost nobody is defending themself with a machine gun. A machine gun that was registered before 1986 is legally transferable in free states. They cost many thousands of dollars and I am not aware of even one time they have been used in a self defense situation - they are for the rich hobbyist and carefully guarded. No home owner wants the cops to seize his $40,000 registered machine gun if he must protect his family. Machine guns are easily acquired or made with even limited mechanical knowledge - in a lot of ways it’s actually easier to manufacture a machine gun than a semi-automatic.

As for over 100 rounds per minute, this is not a real thing with the semi-auto’s 99.999% of self defense rifles and pistols are. It’s an RPM measurement, what the gun can mechanically fire. An AR can mechanically cycle 500 times a minute, but you don’t shoot at a semi autos maximum mechanical ability in the real world. If you somehow did, you’d set fire to it before you hit 500. 100 round drum magazines do exist (nobody is using belt feed guns for home defense) but are generally much less reliable and not used for serious purpose. The standard home defense setup in 2022 is an M4 with a 30 round magazine (often downloaded to 28 or 29 for smoother operation of the bolt and feeding).

As for the magazine capacity, my response would be why would I hamper myself to a disadvantage? The local gangs aren’t running around with 10 round magazines. More and more home invasions are conducted by more than one person (as was the one I survived). 10 rounds of 5.56 ain’t much if you’ve got 3 guys invading your home. I want a full mag in the well, and 2 more attached to my stock to reload. A criminal will not (and does not - many states have these restrictions and they have accomplished exactly nothing) respect a 10 round capacity limit, it only makes it harder for responsible citizens to defend their families. 10 round mags can also be a pain to reload, the designs just are not built for such a small magazine. Reloading an AK with a 10 round mag is a pain and people tend to screw up the rock in with them.