Let's cut through the BS. Do GUNS kill people, OR...

[FlyingClayDisk]

...
As a member on the other site for many years. When ever this type of question comes up I've offered similar opinions as to my earlier post. Only to be chastized as "a Liberal trying to take our guns" because Im British by many posters. I've never posted that in my 20 years on that particular forum yet still got it as the first response everytime. I also suggested that if certain behavoiurs to do with mental health are flagged then maybe a system should but into action, and again, I was yelled at as a liberal. Never been a liberal.
...

Okay, well fair enough.  I am not going to attempt to defend the actions of others on said forum.  As we both know, online can be bizzarro-world sometimes.  In any case, I was a long time member of a very prominent firearms forum for years, so I do understand a bit about what you suggest thematically.  If you want to find some real hardcore types, that's the place to find some of the super-hardcore.  And, to a certain degree, I even got tired of it (thus my departure after 30k some odd OP's).

One observation I would make is that terminology is important in this discussion.  So too is not grouping too many things together presuming they are the same.  As an example, it's not a good idea to group topics like firearms storage in the home in the same sentence with education.  (This isn't directed at you personally, it happens often).  An avid pro-2A person is going to zero in on the storage subject exclusively and likely have a vocal counter argument based solely on this alone...even though the person mentioning it was innocently enough talking about two separate issues.  This too is an education issue.

Now, given you are not from the US, I will explain why these are separate issues.  The 'storage' issue is an area were the people who wish to ban firearms often go to get a foothold.  The follow on logic (again, not your doing) is...'well, if it's locked away and inaccessible, then why do you need a firearm at all...unless you want to KILL someone?'  When you say things like "every time" you got a negative response, I will also say, this... 'out of sight, out of mind and so lets just ban them' ...argument is something pro-2A supporters get..."every time".  You probably don't see this argument much, but it is a pretty common tactic for the anti-gun advocates.  So, as you suggest, it is a 2-way street.  Thus, including the storage argument in an argument where a person really just advocates for better education is met with immediate rejection, so you can hopefully see where I'm coming from here.

And, in the larger picture, it is other similar arguments like this which have been adopted by the anti-gun advocates; it's a form of incrementalism...take little bites at a time and before long they will have eaten the whole elephant (so to speak).  I won't go into a bunch of Constitution thumping here (you've seen enough, I'm sure), but please do understand that personal rights and the ability to defend those rights are underpinning principles surrounding the formation of this country (right or wrong).  It's not simply a black and white, all or nothing, issue.

I'm probably going to kick myself for saying this (later), but I don't necessarily agree with the most militant of 2A supporters, and I do think there is some room for...wait for it...common sense legislation.  Unfortunately though, this phrase, 'common sense legislation' is woefully misinterpreted by the anti-gun crowd.  Just look at the debate around "assault rifles"; there's no common sense in that debate with the anti-gun groups at all!  What is an "assault rifle"?  They say crazy stuff like "black" or "aggressive looking"; those are all just nutty subjective descriptors which can be used to ban anything they don't like today, only to change it tomorrow.

Yes, it's a difficult discussion, and I hope you can see that there are some reasonable people out there.  People who believe in true "common sense" things like requiring certain levels of education for different firearms and the like.  But in the same breath, when that discussion also goes as far as telling me how to lock firearms away in such a manner that they are no longer accessible, and people are unwilling to separate those two elements, then I too will reject the discussion.

Hopefully that makes some sense.

---

Long answer.

Gun control laws (and the push for them) are like banning sale of cough medicine to minors and moving it behind the counter after too many teenagers die from abusing it for its dissociative anesthetic effects.

It's Monday morning quarterback regulation to limit abuse outside intended purposes in hindsight. It's fueled by the stages of grief. All it takes is one parent sick of the permissibility of the thing they choose to blame for their loss. It's more direct than any mental health issue that led to its misuse. Limiting access is just more direct to feeling better.

All stats in the world fall on grief stricken ears.

"If only they didn't have easy access to an AR they might have not been able to get to my daughters class room and she'd still be alive." Stuff like that.

And then it's up the crocodile tears of those that listen. And some media is all too happy to put them on to call attention to why they think their kid is dead. And what needs to change.

Heston's hands are cold and dead there. And one too many ever-popular AR powered mass shootings outweighs all else. There are triple and quadruple homicides daily from gang violence and handguns. They VASTLY outnumber rarer incidents of an assault rifle rampage.

But those shootings seem to start at 'quadruple' and escalate. Like 13 dead, 26 injured. Or 61 dead, 837 injured in it's most extreme yet recorded case. In that case, the argument is that it couldn't have been done from the Mandalay Bay penthouse without near-military grade weaponry being available. And it sticks out for casualty count and deadly capability when used by evil.

Pro gun lobby may say: "ARs are used for small game. And even if they weren't it's my upheld constitutional right to operate a well maintained militia, which entails rivaling the weapons of any tyrannical government soldier."

Gun control advocate says: "Oh use a .22 long rifle to shoot squirrels and quit trying to arm yourself like a goddamn paramilitary soldier because you fear government tyranny at any time now."

Gun lobby retorts: "Ain't that just the plan?"

I'm not pro weapons ban, but Jim-Bob a la Deliverance doesnt need them for them varmits unless he qualifies to own it.

I think the criteria for owning the contentious assault weapon should be:

• 21 year or older
• no criminal record (Including assault and domestic violence misdemeanors)
• psyche evaluation/no 5150s
• prerequisite training course run by certified professional.
• Registration in a dangerous weapon database.

* Like how you need to register a LEGAL RPG with the ATF as a destructive device in a process that disqualifies ALL bad seeds by the approval process alone.

Just my opinion. Don't hate me for it.

I don't think that's an unreasonable start at all.  Many good points.