[StanTheMan]

^ This I'm with in a nutshell, more-or-less.

That said, I have have a lengthy post that draws from many discussions I've had over the last few years. It'll be an amalgamation of a few types of posts Ive made elsewhere. Total TL;DR territory here, so forewarned and all that.

I will start by saying that as JCordell has loosed his heels over time, I've actually dug mine in more in recent years. Part of it is me being a young man but much of it is because I see where a lot of the discussion and sentiment is heading and it doesn't bode well for gun owners. Since the Crime Bill it's clear the 'other side' believes bans and infringement will work and will take an mile for every inch they are given to make it happen. What's more is they've quite successfully placed a negative stigma on gun-inclined folks. As said, not all or even most gun owners are beer-bellied rednecks. Unfortunately perception these days has many thinking otherwise, and perception is really the name of this type of game. Just as perception tells us the majority of police are racist thugs looking to gun down poor unarmed blacks every single chance they get, which I know isn't the case and I'm honestly not really a pro-police fellow myself.

Most times I've tried to speak about 'gun control' and my anxieties about it and wanting to own firearms, instead of understanding or even acknowledgement I instead get called a paranoid pussy and so on. The few times I talk about 'reasonable control' steps that don't involve wholesale bans on entire types and categories of firearms I've been shot down less on the merits of my points and more with ad hominems. Too many on the opposition focus too often on the perceived worst angles ('gun show loophole') which rarely apply to most cases and issues of gun violence, as well as things like firearm aesthetics and function that really have no relevance. Such focus in my estimation really only serves to further demonize guns and those inclined to them, rather than work out any of the issues at hand. Why? Simple, because it's simple and easy to do that, while actually tackling the myriad issues at hand here is difficult. Very difficult.

Gun ownership and possession has been climbing for years, while violent crime has been declining. The other side likes throwing out such outrageous figures like '32,000 people die every year from guns', forgetting to note most of those deaths are from suicide, and most of the wrongful (non-justified) deaths are done by gangs and criminals, and not nuts who shoot up places with ARs. But such details don't aid their narrative.

The 'loophole' point is one that is all but totally baseless. Saying that gun shows and Internet sales are responsible for gun violence is like saying that bartenders are responsible for underage drinking. Most underage drinking is done by kids who either steal the alcohol or have someone of age buy it for them. However no one in the opposing argument will even admit this when it comes to gun violence.

Mainly the thing is too many people, especially on the 'other' side, ignore the myriad social/socioeconomic issues that are at the root of most of these incidents and keep talking about guns, despite the fact killing, even mass-murder has been around far longer than firearms. Again, that's easy. They don't want to take the more difficult route and propose any real solutions to the factors that lead people to violence. (To be fair, many on 'our' side don't want to, either). We have a supposed WAR on drugs, they are 'illegal' - yet more people die of overdose every year than are killed by guns, that's not even considering indirect deaths caused by 'illegal' drug use (Prohibition worked so well back in its day..). We as a society need to stop scapegoating "things" for causing attitudes and actions.

And whenever anyone makes the point that guns make it easier to kill people, can't help but scoff - Just go back to what Timothy McVeigh did, and explain to me how difficult it is to fill a vehicle with commonly used products that are much easier to get than a gun - within seconds over 160 people including over 20 children were dead. Bottom line again is that where there is an evil will, there will be an evil way, we need to reduce the evil will instead of focusing on the way.

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, bearing arms is a right - And at certain level a right just isn't meant to be sensible or reasonable. And making it so lessens its inherent power which will spread to other rights. JCordell again noted this quite well. Now does this mean I think any Joe or Jane Citizen should be able to go into a shop and walk out with a Minimi no questions asked? No. Ignoring the fact that didn't/doesn't really happen anyway, most controls and regs we have in place are quite adequate, if anything we have some that are more irksome and infringing than they are helpful and could be done away with. Locks I don't think are any solution but wouldn't mind them if they had to be implemented, that's not something that can be misapplied and abused so much. Enhanced checks might actually have an effect, but even then I'm skeptical and that can be abused. Though I admit much of it's a mental health issue, I'm wary of putting much focus on that, it leads to a slippery slope - Which the anti side would love to exploit. And frankly that's real problem I have - Those on the 'anti' side will exploit what they can to diminish if not nullify the 2nd Amendment. They want and demand more than locks and checks, they are willing to sacrifice liberty for security (which is really only perception of security, but as I said that's the game), and have convinced many others that's ok - I just can't abide that, and don't.

In closing, basically I'm not hip on 'gun control' for the most part, and I stand firm on that. I freely admit some people shouldn't be allowed guns, ever, but the overwhelming majority of 'gun control' proposals I've seen don't really effect anything to that end. Locks? Eh. Mag limits? Inane. Bans on semiautomatic rifles? Absurd. Now there are some things I could deal - Deeper checks and even training prerequisites I would be fine with, among maybe some other things. I would deal even more If I didn't feel they would be abused and exploited to the point of infringement by the powers that be, simple as that. I hate being so obstinate and distrustful here but I didn't get this way in a vacuum. For all my yakkin' I really don't have many solutions or suggestions, at least not some that would be liked or abided by most. I wish I did, though.