Stance on gun control

[Excalibur]

It's never occurred to me to ask my fellow "co-workers" here about what their opinions are. We're all from different backgrounds from mostly in North America I think and all we do is essentially cataloging guns in media but...I've never asked anyone about their opinions on gun control and the current climate going on.

[Jcordell]

I'm forty-eight years old and I have been shooting since I was twelve. All of my adult life I've either been a soldier or a police officer. I am also married and a father (boy and girl - both now young adults). I collect vintage handguns and I'm a Lifetime member with the NRA. I have no solutions and I understand and acknowledge some of the concerns and arguments from the other side. I'm well aware of the carnage that has been caused over the past few years by individuals equipped with high capacity semi-automatic rifles. I also have first hand experience with the carnage that can be caused by a firearm. However banning and prohibiting firearms wouldn't work in the United States if for no other reason then there are too many guns and millions of gun-owners and case law that supports gun ownership (both directly and indirectly) and now the 2nd Amendment has been "incorporated" so that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't like gun control, but at the same time I have dealt directly with people who are dangerous, unbalanced and definitely should not be in possession of a firearm - ever. But banning firearms and going after private citizens will require some serious gerrymandering with the constitution and could lead to some serious blowback. Not all gun owners fit the stereotype of the big-belly blowhard who drinks too much beer and has a backbone of mush. Both sides tend to be intractable and often seem more focused on screaming at each other rather than trying to discuss the issue. But I was more willing to be flexible until 1994 and Clinton's Crime Bill. Suddenly with that thing passing the anti's just wanted more and more and I dug my heels in - hard. I've become more moderate in the past few years, but it comes with conditions. So does this help?

[Spartan198]

I consider mandatory trigger locks, background checks, and closing loopholes that circumvent such checks in any way to be reasonable. I also don't think civilians not affiliated with law enforcement or government agencies need "machine guns" as the AFT calls them or destructive devices such as grenade launchers. Beyond that, I consider everything else like magazine capacity limits, barrel length, and feature bans to be frivolous because they don't really actually prevent any crime from being committed.

[funkychinaman]

The "gunshow loophole" is a ludicrous term, because I don't know about you guys, I've never bought a gun at a gun show or even online without passing a background check first. They should call it the Craigslist loophole, and I have no idea how they would intend to enforce such a thing.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

The "gunshow loophole" is a ludicrous terms, because I don't know about you guys, I've never bought a gun at a gun show or even online without passing a background check first. They should call it the Craigslist loophole, and I have no idea how they would intend to enforce such a thing.

Same here. Now ,on the other hand, I have purchased several firearms through estate auctions and background investigations are not required. The auction company is merely acting as an agent in the sale of property. Legally it is considered to be a sale between two private citizens and ,so far, the Federal government is not messing with that. The only time that I have had to fill out the federal paperwork was when a longtime pawnshop went out of business in my hometown and I won the bid on my Webley. Since the pawnshop had an FFL the business was following Federal requirements. The last two handguns I've purchased have been at estate auctions. I don't see estate auctions being viewed as an "easy" way for badguys to obtain guns. The bidding can get pretty intense and the auction company has you provide information before you can get a number - which you need to enter into a bidding. I'm a collector and I can tell you that a typical lowlife will get steamrolled if they think they can obtain that Colt Python or even an Astra .357 magnum for just a few hundred bucks.

[SPEMack618]

I'm 29. Have spent the last 12 years in uniform of some sort for my country. Have a bunch of pretty ribbons, too.

And I think the BATFE is a bunch of corrupt jack booted thugs and should be disbanded yesterday.

I actually support the NFA '34, and would happily write a check to the IRS for a tax stamp, but don't think the BATFE should be involved.

The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA '86 is un-Constitutional and a threat to National Security.

I think that if I sell a rifle to Joe down the street the Government shouldn't give a damn.

However, making FFLs run background checks before new guns are sold is reasonable. However, I would do away with the paperwork. Too much potential for abuse.

I don't think safe storage and mandatory trigger lock laws are a joke; but, if Ruger wants to give me a trigger lock with every gun I purchase, cool beans.

[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.

[Excalibur]

It's good to know where some of you stand.

At least the most extreme so far is one of you thinking we lowly civilians shouldn't have "machine guns" or believe that there is such a thing as the gun show loophole.

I personally don't support a lot of gun control laws, including importation bans other than the scandal with Norinco in the 90s that lead to the ban on their guns.

A person in law enforcement or military is the same type of people who are just plain civilians. We should not be denied the right to have most weapons that the military has, which only limits us to cost since the average person can't really afford an Abrams or a Destroyer. I fine most limits such as short barrel weapons to be pointless and pretty much most laws to be an infringement of our rights. I believe it is our duty as good people to protect each other and not just simply hand over our freedoms for the sake of "safety"

[S&Wshooter]

Any form of gun control is an infringement on the 2nd. I should be able to go buy a factory new Norinco Type 56 from my LGS or even through the mail, full auto and all, with no extra hassle



Feinstein for jail, 2k16

[S&Wshooter]