Gun ownership poll

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[steve B]

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.

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

[Butch7999]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

[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.

[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.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Feels to me like you want to argue/debate and I feel like we are on the same side of this. If I had specifics I would have posted them. How we got where we are today did not happen accidentally or overnight. I am simply thinking out loud on the topic. And sure you could have commented on my thoughts. Maybe that is the problem and why there is no reasonable answer. I think it might be important to understand what has happened leading up to this.

Are you suggesting that nothing should be done? Something needs to be done. I know my stating "something" rubs you the wrong way but we clearly as a society are not getting better at co-existing with one another.

As someone who owns 30 guns, if you had to wait 45 days to get your new Glock would you even give a fuck? And of course an extended wait period would have a positive impact but that on its own will not fix the problem.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Feels to me like you want to argue/debate and I feel like we are on the same side of this. If I had specifics I would have posted them. How we got where we are today did not happen accidentally or overnight. I am simply thinking out loud on the topic. And sure you could have commented on my thoughts. Maybe that is the problem and why there is no reasonable answer. I think it might be important to understand what has happened leading up to this.

Are you suggesting that nothing should be done? Something needs to be done. I know my stating "something" rubs you the wrong way but we clearly as a society are not getting better at co-existing with one another.

As someone who owns 30 guns, if you had to wait 45 days to get your new Glock would you even give a fuck? And of course an extended wait period would have a positive impact but that on its own will not fix the problem.

I think replying to people who reply to oneself is normal forum behavior… you quoted and replied to me specifically to continue an earlier discussion. Asking what specifically you are proposing is logical. I have no idea if we are on the “same side”.

I made specific propositions earlier in this thread. I’m unclear why you are offended I asked for what you are proposing, and in the next breath you ask me the exact same thing. Is asking this acceptable or not?

As for whether I’d “give a fuck” about a waiting period, I already answered that in the post you are unhappy about.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think replying to people who reply to oneself is normal forum behavior… you quoted and replied to me specifically to continue an earlier discussion. Asking what specifically you are proposing is logical. I have no idea if we are on the “same side”.

I made specific propositions earlier in this thread. I’m unclear why you are offended I asked for what you are proposing, and in the next breath you ask me the exact same thing. Is asking this acceptable or not?

As for whether I’d “give a fuck” about a waiting period, I already answered that in the post you are unhappy about.

If you cannot tell that we are on the same side then there is not much more to discuss since you simply want to poke holes in what anyone posts. Carry on.

And I must have missed the post if you actually proposed something.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If you cannot tell that we are on the same side then there is not much more to discuss since you simply want to poke holes in what anyone posts. Carry on.

And I must have missed the post if you actually proposed something.

Asking what you are proposing is not poking a hole. I doubt we are on the 'same side' as you are upset I asked you the same question that you asked me. Carry on.

[irv]

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.

"the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H.l. Mecken