Gun Control Poll

[Thanatos 2,847]

If you pick the "it's more nuanced" option, please expound further in your comment. I feel like we attribute to each other the rhetoric we hear from the extremes of each side. Let's see where TGP actually stands on the issue. I bet you we have a lot more in agreement than we think.

And to follow my own rule-

Question 2: Essentially, high capacity magazines are not needed by your average private citizen and thus should be banned from general purchase. But I completely understand the plight of farmers and others that have to deal with dangerous or simply irritating animals on a daily basis. The hog meme that took twitter by storm is based on a real problem. Sure, the dude was exaggerating a bit, but feral hogs are a major problem in the South. Having HCMs need a special permit to be applied for on, say, a bi-yearly basis, with justification for why you need it would be an acceptable solution to me. But the average citizen absolutely does not need HCMs. Shooting ranges having them is not an issue to me, either, so long as they are kept on the range. I could see the same compromise being acceptable for assault rifles. Again, the average citizen shouldn't own it, but a stricter background check and a justification for use to get a permit for an assault weapon could be a possible compromise.

Question 4: I am wary of allowing family members the ability to do this. I could see this being used by an abuser to remove the ability of the abused to potentially defend themselves. I would be more comfortable if it was just law enforcement that had this ability.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Thanatos

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I love guns, more specifically handguns, more specifically revolvers. A revolver is old school technology, but for a real self-defense situation, you can't beat a J-Frame Smith and Wesson or a small Ruger in .38 special. People call the .38 special weak, but to this day nobody has volunteered to stand in front of me while I shoot it. 

Other people can do whatever they want, for the most part. But my little 5-shooter is all I need to feel safe. If I'm too far away to use it, I'm in a good position to do the right thing in a dangerous situation: run. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Sarge

[RazorStar 4,025]

I think the idea is you want to make it as difficult as possible for mass shootings to happen. Background checks are a must, and any seller that doesn't do it properly has just as much blood on their hands as the mass shooter. if you restrict the ammunition a private citizen is allowed to have at one time, you're less likely to have mass shootings. I'm not entirely sure how Red flag laws would work in practice, but it seems pretty dangerous to have family members apply for a situation like that, especially in abusive households. The major reason why shootings are so common in america is a matter of ease. If they aren't going to use a gun, they might use a bomb, or a knife, but those things are either easier to track, or easier to stop, or harder to execute. And that's really what it comes down to. Reduce the problem one step at a time, rather than imagine you'll solve everything at once.

As for other major factors, everyone is 'mentally ill', that's not really an excuse in this day and age. You can easily claim that shit after the fact, so why does it matter. Violent media and bloodsport have existed forever, and restricting that by any degree will create blowback that creates a greater problem than the one you're trying to fix. America could try and fix the symptoms, or just wait till the cancer does it's job and kills the country properly.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I'll add comments to my answers when I can get to a computer. 

This is very well done, Thanatos. It's also exposing the truth of how much closer to similar thinking we all are on this issue. 

[BJORN 679]

I don't think banning ARs will solve the issue at all, it will just push those people to other alternative guns that actually serve a purpose in certain areas like hunting, home defense, etc. It is important to also note that a large amount of states already have regulations on the capability of ARs and high capacity magazines (for all guns). I support a ban on high cap mags, can't really think of a functional reason for them other than you are up to no good or are just trying to make your dick look bigger amongst your buddies. 

I have seen experts on the subject of mass shootings say multiple times that it is basically the media's fault and I agree. It's being carried out by people in isolation, seeking infamy/attention and the media enable them by giving them their time in the sun. It has become a mainstream thing now and we have had access to guns forever. Can someone explain why this wasn't a thing up until the past 20 years? We have always had access to highly lethal guns. We can't really regulate what the media does because then 1st amendment comes into play but we the people control what they push (clicks). 

 One other thing that bothers me, the statistics reported on this often lump in incidents that aren't mass shooting events so it makes it look way worse than it is. That's not to say hey, only .000001% get killed or whatever, it just frustrates me seeing misleading numbers pushed for a certain agenda. 

Lastly, Maryland already has made it a hoop jumping procedure to just get a gun and it has pissed off many gun owners I know since it is so difficult...I know you get/need a background check and it requires some form of training. So you know what they do? Go to PA or VA ...

[Thanatos 2,847]

On 8/18/2019 at 8:55 AM, BJORN said:

I don't think banning ARs will solve the issue at all, it will just push those people to other alternative guns that actually serve a purpose in certain areas like hunting, home defense, etc. It is important to also note that a large amount of states already have regulations on the capability of ARs and high capacity magazines (for all guns). I support a ban on high cap mags, can't really think of a functional reason for them other than you are up to no good or are just trying to make your dick look bigger amongst your buddies. 

I have seen experts on the subject of mass shootings say multiple times that it is basically the media's fault and I agree. It's being carried out by people in isolation, seeking infamy/attention and the media enable them by giving them their time in the sun. It has become a mainstream thing now and we have had access to guns forever. Can someone explain why this wasn't a thing up until the past 20 years? We have always had access to highly lethal guns. We can't really regulate what the media does because then 1st amendment comes into play but we the people control what they push (clicks). 

 One other thing that bothers me, the statistics reported on this often lump in incidents that aren't mass shooting events so it makes it look way worse than it is. That's not to say hey, only .000001% get killed or whatever, it just frustrates me seeing misleading numbers pushed for a certain agenda. 

Lastly, Maryland already has made it a hoop jumping procedure to just get a gun and it has pissed off many gun owners I know since it is so difficult...I know you get/need a background check and it requires some form of training. So you know what they do? Go to PA or VA ...

So when I say violent media, I am not talking about the press. That's probably on me, since we use that word to refer to them. I'm talking about video games, movies, etc. That would probably need to be a separate question. I certainly don't think it is responsible for the shooting in the first place, but I am a big fan of basically erasing the shooter from public memory- i.e. we don't name them, we don't say anything about them. The experts can know on a need-to-know basis to try to research and see if something was a problem. Otherwise, we focus on the victims.

And yeah, the Maryland law is just further proof why we need a federal law on this thing, otherwise you can just hop states and get them to give you one if they are laxer on their gun laws. Having mandatory training and mandatory background checks prior to purchasing a gun makes sense to me.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

"Nuanced":
2. I understand it for sport, competition, and the crazy wildlife defense Thanatos mentioned. Should be a lot of restrictions here, though.

7-10.I didn't like the wording choices here. Too much of a grey area between "major factor" and "not a factor". I believe that all of these are contributing factors of varying degrees, but not much in this world can be boiled down to one cause.

[Thanatos 2,847]

On 8/19/2019 at 11:54 PM, Zack_of_Steel said:

"Nuanced":
2. I understand it for sport, competition, and the crazy wildlife defense Thanatos mentioned. Should be a lot of restrictions here, though.

7-10.I didn't like the wording choices here. Too much of a grey area between "major factor" and "not a factor". I believe that all of these are contributing factors of varying degrees, but not much in this world can be boiled down to one cause.

I would say your answer would be "not a major factor" then. I guess I could have added- "not a major factor, but still a contributing one"- as that is what I intended that answer to mean.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Thanatos

[BwareDWare94 723]

1. Obviously no. There's no need to expand on this answer.

2. It's more nuanced because it clearly wouldn't end at assault weapons. It'd just be a starting point, especially when mass shootings continued to happen.

3. Obviously yes. There's no need to expand on this answer.

4. Unequivocally yes. And for that matter, family should be able to place grown adults in mental health facilities without their consent, too.

5. Obviously no. There's no need to expand on this answer.

6. It's more nuanced because it clearly wouldn't end at high-capacity magazines. It'd just be a starting point, especially when mass shootings continued to happen.

7. It's a factor, but not a major factor. I believe there are truly bad people in this world, and I refuse to associate henious violence with the vast majority of non-violent mental illness sufferers.

8. Violent media is a factor, but not a major factor. It's more to do with clickbait media, reliance on social media and technology, and forgetting what reality actually is.

9. It's a factor, but not a major factor. Unless part of ease-of-access is the failure to enforce already existing laws

10. It's a factor, but not a major factor. The cause of violence is our continued descent into depravity.

[Thanatos 2,847]

2 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

10. It's a factor, but not a major factor. The cause of violence is our continued descent into depravity.

What do you mean by "continued descent into depravity?" Japan is into some depraved shit, they have basically zero gun violence. 

[Omerta+ 1,206]

7 hours ago, Thanatos said:

What do you mean by "continued descent into depravity?" Japan is into some depraved shit, they have basically zero gun violence. 

 Yes but next to Russia we might have the most corrupt government on the planet. At least for a  developed nation.

 I won't speak for him commas I'm sure he has his own examples in mind, but if you'll permit I have one.

 

Jeffrey Epstein. This man was in the some of the most deprived, and deplorable acts that a human being can do to another human. That being said comment reached the highest levels of government. The people that are supposed to be there to protect the United States, and its citizenry. They are taking advantage of their positions, and they are raping young women.

 

When they are about to be brought to Justice, Jeffrey Epstein surprisingly commit suicide. I'm sure his ties to the clintons had nothing to do with it, but it just makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

I can't in good conscience hand my guns over to a government that I know is corrupt on that level. Instead of bringing the rats among them to Justice, they hide the rat. Can we win as sustained where against the government? Who knows, I think we could draw it out long enough to where would just destroy our country and there would be no form of government left. Either that or we could stretch out their supply lines and security forces so far, that it would leave these corrupt politicians exposed. Once we kill all of them, the war would either end, or there would be nobody left to direct it.  I think one thing nobody talks about either common is the fact that I seriously doubt the US military would be on board with their stupid plans, if anybody knows how corrupt this government is, it's a military official at a high level.

 

We may not be able to, hell they might just kick our ass. That being said I feel a hell of a lot better with my gun than without it. 

 Either way, it's a constitutional right, won't go anywhere for any meaningful period of time.

 Also I would like to leave you with this period Jim Jones killed 919 people with kool-aid.  Do you really think somebody would be above poisoning gator aids and hand them out for free on school campuses?

[BwareDWare94 723]

8 hours ago, Thanatos said:

What do you mean by "continued descent into depravity?" Japan is into some depraved shit, they have basically zero gun violence. 

 

We continue to move further and further away from living with any kind of moral compass. We celebrate life choices that lead directly to individual misery. We push people further and further away from traditional family values, resulting in many lonely people. Without a moral compass, without a direct greater purpose, anger and bitterness and other bad things fester and evolve and then monsters are born. 

In the United States, we've lost sight of the true causes of individual freedom, which are things that develop emotional stability. Committed healthy relationships, genuine friendships, selfless kindness. Etc.

Without these things, most individuals begin a descent into bitterness. 

[Thanatos 2,847]

3 hours ago, Omerta said:

 Yes but next to Russia we might have the most corrupt government on the planet. At least for a  developed nation.

 I won't speak for him commas I'm sure he has his own examples in mind, but if you'll permit I have one.

 

Jeffrey Epstein. This man was in the some of the most deprived, and deplorable acts that a human being can do to another human. That being said comment reached the highest levels of government. The people that are supposed to be there to protect the United States, and its citizenry. They are taking advantage of their positions, and they are raping young women.

 

When they are about to be brought to Justice, Jeffrey Epstein surprisingly commit suicide. I'm sure his ties to the clintons had nothing to do with it, but it just makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

I can't in good conscience hand my guns over to a government that I know is corrupt on that level. Instead of bringing the rats among them to Justice, they hide the rat. Can we win as sustained where against the government? Who knows, I think we could draw it out long enough to where would just destroy our country and there would be no form of government left. Either that or we could stretch out their supply lines and security forces so far, that it would leave these corrupt politicians exposed. Once we kill all of them, the war would either end, or there would be nobody left to direct it.  I think one thing nobody talks about either common is the fact that I seriously doubt the US military would be on board with their stupid plans, if anybody knows how corrupt this government is, it's a military official at a high level.

 

We may not be able to, hell they might just kick our ass. That being said I feel a hell of a lot better with my gun than without it. 

 Either way, it's a constitutional right, won't go anywhere for any meaningful period of time.

 Also I would like to leave you with this period Jim Jones killed 919 people with kool-aid.  Do you really think somebody would be above poisoning gator aids and hand them out for free on school campuses?

I think you incredibly overestimate the average US citizen if you think we could actually do this.

A) The overwhelming majority of them would not be willing to die for anything short of the government trying to kill them. How many people would actually do these kinds of guerrilla tactics to stop a corrupt government? I'd wager less than 10,000. Sure, you'd have the bunch of rednecks who claim they'd never let them take their guns, but the instant the US military actually rolls out, they'd fold like a house of cards.

B) There are spy satellites and all sorts of ways to root out where you are hiding. This isn't like the Revolutionary War where you can go hide in the jungle. Your one chance is that a large part of the military refuses to follow orders, in which case the civilians having assault rifles doesn't really matter at all.

C) You are not refusing to give up guns, because as per our poll literally no one is asking that, but to give up assault rifles except in cases where you actually need them. You are putting up what is essentially an apocalyptic scenario versus the very real problem of gun violence and saying well, just in case this wildly implausible scenario happens and we somehow have enough people to actually put up a fight, that's worth the tens of thousands of lives lost every year to gun violence. We don't want to even try having restrictions that work perfectly fine in other countries because what if the government becomes Nazi Germany? 

Also what happened to the argument that criminals could still get their hands on guns easily? We're criminals in this scenario, so if we see the government going south, wouldn't we just go get our hands on guns via the black market?

D) (Gator Aids lol. Love your phone.) No matter how many times the pro-gun contigent brings it up, these extreme out there examples are not a logical attack on gun control. So one time we had 1k people in a cult drink poison so clearly we can't have gun control because people could poison gatorade on campuses and kill people. Like what even is this logic. Over and over again, it's brought up that there are other ways that people die. Yeah, sure, granted. I'll even grant you gun control doesn't stop deaths from guns entirely. Not even close. It does save a great deal of people, as proven basically everywhere its been implemented. The idea that the solution either has to stop everything or its not worth even trying is just loony.

It's not a constitutional right to own assault weapons or other military-grade hardware. Not for the average citizen. 

E) Epstein committed suicide in a prison run by a Trump appointee under the authority of another trump appointee. But yeah, totally the Clintons. I love how people forget that Trump and the Clintons were/possibly still are friends. Both of them are certainly breathing easier that Epstein is dead. Whoever killed him, doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on what is a totally separate matter of 40k people a year dying due to firearms.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Thanatos

[Thanatos 2,847]

2 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

 

We continue to move further and further away from living with any kind of moral compass. We celebrate life choices that lead directly to individual misery. We push people further and further away from traditional family values, resulting in many lonely people. Without a moral compass, without a direct greater purpose, anger and bitterness and other bad things fester and evolve and then monsters are born. 

In the United States, we've lost sight of the true causes of individual freedom, which are things that develop emotional stability. Committed healthy relationships, genuine friendships, selfless kindness. Etc.

Without these things, most individuals begin a descent into bitterness. 

This is a bunch of vague statements here bud. 

What life choices do we celebrate that lead to individual misery?

What are "traditional family values?" 

Why do you think we're moving away from living with a moral compass?

Do you have any research or evidence at all to back up these statements? That they are more true now than 50 years ago? You sound like a boomer on a Fox News show lamenting the good old days, tbh.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Thanatos

[Omerta+ 1,206]

4 hours ago, Thanatos said:

I think you incredibly overestimate the average US citizen if you think we could actually do this.

A) The overwhelming majority of them would not be willing to die for anything short of the government trying to kill them. How many people would actually do these kinds of guerrilla tactics to stop a corrupt government? I'd wager less than 10,000. Sure, you'd have the bunch of rednecks who claim they'd never let them take their guns, but the instant the US military actually rolls out, they'd fold like a house of cards.

B) There are spy satellites and all sorts of ways to root out where you are hiding. This isn't like the Revolutionary War where you can go hide in the jungle. Your one chance is that a large part of the military refuses to follow orders, in which case the civilians having assault rifles doesn't really matter at all.

C) You are not refusing to give up guns, because as per our poll literally no one is asking that, but to give up assault rifles except in cases where you actually need them. You are putting up what is essentially an apocalyptic scenario versus the very real problem of gun violence and saying well, just in case this wildly implausible scenario happens and we somehow have enough people to actually put up a fight, that's worth the tens of thousands of lives lost every year to gun violence. We don't want to even try having restrictions that work perfectly fine in other countries because what if the government becomes Nazi Germany? 

Also what happened to the argument that criminals could still get their hands on guns easily? We're criminals in this scenario, so if we see the government going south, wouldn't we just go get our hands on guns via the black market?

D) (Gator Aids lol. Love your phone.) No matter how many times the pro-gun contigent brings it up, these extreme out there examples are not a logical attack on gun control. So one time we had 1k people in a cult drink poison so clearly we can't have gun control because people could poison gatorade on campuses and kill people. Like what even is this logic. Over and over again, it's brought up that there are other ways that people die. Yeah, sure, granted. I'll even grant you gun control doesn't stop deaths from guns entirely. Not even close. It does save a great deal of people, as proven basically everywhere its been implemented. The idea that the solution either has to stop everything or its not worth even trying is just loony.

It's not a constitutional right to own assault weapons or other military-grade hardware. Not for the average citizen. 

E) Epstein committed suicide in a prison run by a Trump appointee under the authority of another trump appointee. But yeah, totally the Clintons. I love how people forget that Trump and the Clintons were/possibly still are friends. Both of them are certainly breathing easier that Epstein is dead. Whoever killed him, doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on what is a totally separate matter of 40k people a year dying due to firearms.

 Well, while we're talking about sensationalism. 3% of gun deaths in this country are caused by rifles come extrapolate that out to those that are carried out by an assault rifle, and you have 1.9% of gun violence in this country carried out by an assault rifle.

 

Now of the 40000 people that die of gun violence every year, only 15000 are homicides. People who commit suicide rarely do so with an assault rifle, so we really shouldn't be just using wild statistics to make a sensational claim.  Roughly 300 people die a year from assault rifles and pistols are  9 times more likely to be used in a murder, then the rest of the classes of firearms combined. It's 19 times more likely to be used in a shooting than an assault rifle.

 

I don't know if you're doing it to intentionally be dishonest/disingenous or not (doubt it), but you're bringing up the 40000 figure and assault rifles as if they are related. They are not. Again 300 people in this country died by assault rifles and this is some gigantic crusade, that has no real end game. Let's say you get exactly what you want which is an assault rifle ban, yous save 300 lives this year. 2 to 3 times as many people are going to die from auto-erotic asphyxiation.

 Statistically speaking you're not even making a Dent, no difference will be made.

 

You've still failed to explain how I don't have a constitutional right to an assault rifle. Nowhere in the Constitution does it put limits on what I can and cannot own as far as firearms are concerned. Your argument, at least as far as I understand it thus far,   Is that society as a whole has decided this for me. I don't remember you guys asking me, and remember you people asking anybody I know, you are just throwing out blanket generalizations to support a narrative that you see as pleasing. You have not taken into account any of the numbers, the real numbers, not the ones that sensationalize the issue that we're talking about.

 I would love to have this conversation, but it has to be had in earnest. We have to make sure we're framing what we're really talking about. You're talking about taking away the rights of millions of people, to save the lives of 300 people, that were taken by on average 8 perpetrators. 

 There is no other cause of death in this country that is so grossly sensationalized and over generalized as gun deaths. If I were to tell you that Chihuahuas cause 300 deaths a year, you would laugh and say who gives a shit.  You probably wouldn't laugh, but this is also not an issue that you would want every major politician talking about in this country. 

 There is a dishonesty in the way that the left and the far left frame this argument that is sickening. A to keep saying it, but seriously we're talking about 300 people here. It's sad, and it's tragic that kids die, but that being said 300  Deaths a year is so miniscule compared to the other things that kill people in this country every year.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Omerta

[BwareDWare94 723]

7 hours ago, Thanatos said:

This is a bunch of vague statements here bud. 

What life choices do we celebrate that lead to individual misery?

What are "traditional family values?" 

Why do you think we're moving away from living with a moral compass?

Do you have any research or evidence at all to back up these statements? That they are more true now than 50 years ago? You sound like a boomer on a Fox News show lamenting the good old days, tbh.

 

1. We literally push people to a) think in partisan terms politically=never happy b) run away from the idea of healthy, committed relationships= never happy c) choose to feel like a victim for our misfortunes when they're brought on by our own personal failings= never happy.  Essentially, we no longer push personal accountability.

2. Traditional family values are the nuclear family. Mother and father married, raising the children. Nearly every single mass shooter was fatherless. That's caused by 2 things--shitty men, and women who choose shitty partners. Raise your sons to be good men, raise your daughters to desire good men. It's really that simple. It shouldn't take til after 25 or 30 for a woman to realize she probably shouldn't fuck somebody who wouldn't make a good father or partner, and it shouldn't take til 25 or 30 for a man to grow the fuck up and realize that there's more to life than having as much meaningless sex as possible.

3. Do I really have to explain how we're moving away from living with a moral compass? Look around. Listen to the news. 

I'm much, much more well-spoken than some overweight slob on Fox News blabbing on about the good old days. I don't care about reverting back to anything other than teaching young people what really leads to happiness, and that is purpose. And the simplest way to have purpose is to have a family. Most people won't get to work in a field that they love, so they should worry more about a healthy, stable home life than anything. 

[Thanatos 2,847]

Crenshaw is an idiot, war hero or no. "If we have universal background checks, I can't loan my friends my gun!" No, d'oh, you shouldn't be able to.

[Phins4life 271]

For my "nuanced" responses:

4. Red flag laws ride a fine line between protecting the public from potentially dangerous people and stripping individuals of their inherent right to bear arms.  I believe law enforcement and family members alike should have to follow a process that would involve arranging psychiatric evaluation to confirm someone really is a danger to themselves or others.  If it is determined that they aren't, their right to own weapons should be instantly reinstated.  Even this process isn't flawless, but as long as people are relatively safe from knee-jerk armchair diagnoses, I think the right intentions are there. 

5.  I'm a firm believer that people can be rehabilitated, and for those who can, they shouldn't have to continually pay for their past misdeeds without a chance to vindicate themselves.  I think a good compromise is to establish a suspension period, and then a process or some kind of board evaluation that would give a member of society a chance to prove they are fit to own weapons.  Again, there's a fine line between keeping people safe and stripping people of Constitutional rights.  There needs to be a balance. 

9.  The driving force behind mass shootings in our nation is a combination of 2 things, in my opinion:

     - Easy access to high capacity weapons designed to take out multiple soft targets in a very short span of time (Dayton shooter is a perfect example of this lethal efficiency)

     - Unabashed hatred for the "other".  Lack of tolerance and the racial and cultural divides are painfully obvious in the wake of many of these types of shootings.  The Vegas shooter feels like an outlier...those situations where no motive is immediately obvious.  To quote Michael Caine, maybe some people really do just want to watch the world burn. 

 

I'm by no means an expert on gun violence or the causes behind it, but my biggest issue has been the ease of access to semi-automatic assault-style weapons.  For those who have never shot an AR-15 or M-4, let me make this point...I work a desk for a living, and yet I still manage to shoot expert every year on my qualification.  That's how easy it is...and I don't think civilians should own them.  They are offensive weapons designed specifically to inflict large amounts of casualties in a very short span of time.  I will always support the ownership of handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles...provided there are measures in place to ensure responsible people are buying them.  I like the idea of enforced waiting periods.  If you have to wait for a mandated period of time before you can finalize a divorce, you should have to wait a mandated period of time before you buy something that can take a life.  I also like the idea of having to have a license to own weapons, not unlike having to own one to drive a car.  And just like a driver's license, I think there should be a requirement to have to renew one for gun ownership.  It doesn't feel like that big of a commitment for those who have innocent intentions, and it would put me more at ease knowing those kinds of measures are being taken without completely stepping on our rights. 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Phins4life

[BwareDWare94 723]

20 hours ago, Thanatos said:

Crenshaw is an idiot, war hero or no. "If we have universal background checks, I can't loan my friends my gun!" No, d'oh, you shouldn't be able to.

Dan Crenshaw is wrong in this particular moment but the dude is awesome. He's the right kind of conservative. Check out the Joe Rogan podcast with him

[Thanatos 2,847]

I thought so too at one point because of the SNL thing. Then I actually looked into it. He's one of the more far-right people in congress.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

20 hours ago, Phins4life said:

For my "nuanced" responses:

4. Red flag laws ride a fine line between protecting the public from potentially dangerous people and stripping individuals of their inherent right to bear arms.  I believe law enforcement and family members alike should have to follow a process that would involve arranging psychiatric evaluation to confirm someone really is a danger to themselves or others.  If it is determined that they aren't, their right to own weapons should be instantly reinstated.  Even this process isn't flawless, but as long as people are relatively safe from knee-jerk armchair diagnoses, I think the right intentions are there. 

5.  I'm a firm believer that people can be rehabilitated, and for those who can, they shouldn't have to continually pay for their past misdeeds without a chance to vindicate themselves.  I think a good compromise is to establish a suspension period, and then a process or some kind of board evaluation that would give a member of society a chance to prove they are fit to own weapons.  Again, there's a fine line between keeping people safe and stripping people of Constitutional rights.  There needs to be a balance. 

9.  The driving force behind mass shootings in our nation is a combination of 2 things, in my opinion:

     - Easy access to high capacity weapons designed to take out multiple soft targets in a very short span of time (Dayton shooter is a perfect example of this lethal efficiency)

     - Unabashed hatred for the "other".  Lack of tolerance and the racial and cultural divides are painfully obvious in the wake of many of these types of shootings.  The Vegas shooter feels like an outlier...those situations where no motive is immediately obvious.  To quote Michael Caine, maybe some people really do just want to watch the world burn. 

 

I'm by no means an expert on gun violence or the causes behind it, but my biggest issue has been the ease of access to semi-automatic assault-style weapons.  For those who have never shot an AR-15 or M-4, let me make this point...I work a desk for a living, and yet I still manage to shoot expert every year on my qualification.  That's how easy it is...and I don't think civilians should own them.  They are offensive weapons designed specifically to inflict large amounts of casualties in a very short span of time.  I will always support the ownership of handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles...provided there are measures in place to ensure responsible people are buying them.  I like the idea of enforced waiting periods.  If you have to wait for a mandated period of time before you can finalize a divorce, you should have to wait a mandated period of time before you buy something that can take a life.  I also like the idea of having to have a license to own weapons, not unlike having to own one to drive a car.  And just like a driver's license, I think there should be a requirement to have to renew one for gun ownership.  It doesn't feel like that big of a commitment for those who have innocent intentions, and it would put me more at ease knowing those kinds of measures are being taken without completely stepping on our rights. 

I more or less agree with every point you made. I've shot an AR-15... That is scary power even for me as someone who likes guns. If I owned one, I would trust myself to be meticulously careful with it so that it didn't fall into the wrong hands at the wrong time.

That said I don't really like the idea of any Joe Schmo getting his hands on one. I carry a Smith and Wesson Model 442 for self defense. If I found myself in the middle of a mass shooting, there's no way I'd draw my gun and charge down a guy unloading an AR-15 into a crowd of people. Even as proficient as I am with my trusty revolver (my pap started me on his Model 19 when I was 12), my first instinct would be to escape the area entirely. If that were impossible, I'd find the best cover I could and THEN draw my weapon. The bad part is that if he compromises my cover, yea, he's within the deadly range of my gun, and I could probably put him down. But I'm still in more danger than him. 

All of this is to say: carrying a revolver for self defense doesn't make you Clint Eastwood. It is strictly a defensive weapon to be used as a last resort when escaping is impossible. I hope I never have to use it, not only because I'd have to kill someone, but my own chances of getting killed are high if it comes down to me drawing my weapon. 

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think that's what I hate the most about this. The left frames the other side as a bunch of out of touch gun nuts, and the right screams the left is nothing but a communist party trying to take our guns.

It generally surprises people that most people are much more moderate about this. We want background checks, strict regulations on assault weapons, and red flag laws at least for law enforcement. People don't just fall into two categories.

[BigBen07 285]

1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

I think that's what I hate the most about this. The left frames the other side as a bunch of out of touch gun nuts, and the right screams the left is nothing but a communist party trying to take our guns.

It generally surprises people that most people are much more moderate about this. We want background checks, strict regulations on assault weapons, and red flag laws at least for law enforcement. People don't just fall into two categories.

This 10,000%.^ It's so simple, but the extremes are so blindsided that it gets ignored, and therefore the ideas are thrown out.

I also hate it when a ban is proposed; it is too much of a knee jerk reaction by people and never solves anything at all. That happened up here when Toronto recently had an increase in shootings. Thankfully the idea of one was tossed out and different solutions are being looked at.

[BwareDWare94 723]

The loudest voices are usually paired with the least accurate information.

[seanbrock 1,684]

2 hours ago, Thanatos said:

I think that's what I hate the most about this. The left frames the other side as a bunch of out of touch gun nuts, and the right screams the left is nothing but a communist party trying to take our guns.

It generally surprises people that most people are much more moderate about this. We want background checks, strict regulations on assault weapons, and red flag laws at least for law enforcement. People don't just fall into two categories.

We're allowed to debate about guns because it's inconsequential of the larger political/Eoconomic picture. If people were presented with accurate information from genuine and/or rational people it would be a short debate. The same thing is true of abortion and immigration. They instead sensationalize and strawman to distract us while they walk out the back door with all the money.

@BwareDWare94 They have the largest voices because they're given a platform by the media and by politicians who want to distract us. Think about high school. How much time did you spend learning about economics or civics? Economics and personal finance were electives in my school and I went to a pretty good high school. It's psychological warfare in the media and just straight up control of information and selection for obedience in school. It is very much us vs them. Now the internet is being censored and the free flow of information is being cut off by large conglomerates that essentially own the internet. Google controls search results. YouTube censors and demonetizes any view that doesn't support the prevailing narrative. Facebook and Twitter are censoring content and banning those who do not support the prevailing narrative and companies like Comcast and Verizon have spent unspeakable amounts of cash trying to control who gets to use the fast lane and who doesn't. 

I really could care less about guns.