reforms acceptable to 70% of gun rights advocates?

Post Reply New Topic

I can see why people might want to keep a gun in their home for protection, and perhaps carry it with them.

I hope they have other skills. Like walking away from trouble and to an area with more people. And since this second part is opposite of movies, opposite maybe of human nature, I think it needs actual and real-time practice.

Also, good twist-toggle locks for windows un-doable in case of fire, probably a carbon monoxide detector, maybe a home burglary system. That is, I don't think guns provide the end all and be all of personal security. It helps to be informed and smart in other areas as well.

Alright, if you are a gun rights advocate and considering shootings say in the last ten years, are there reforms which in your judgment (1) will make a difference and (2) are acceptable in terms of personal liberty?

Guns don't drive violence, poverty, desperation, and honor culture drive violence. Work on those issues first, then we'll see where we're at, and maybe talk about guns. Trying to stop violence by cracking down on the tools without addressing the causes is doomed to failure, and will just lead to more and more restriction on more and more items as the proposals fail to make an impact, and I don't care to go down that road.

In my family, I have seen family members:
- use rifles for hunting
- use rifles to kill the rattle snakes when they get close.
- use shotguns to scare away the pesky animals like wood-peckers or bears
- use hand guns for scaring people (shoot gun in air while yelling, "Get the F*** off my property")
- one brother has many gun convictions & court restitution of shooting it randomly while drunk


Perhaps we need to teach children responsible gun use.

I'd curious as to what is so terrible about having to have a license to own & use a gun? As a certain politician pointed out, when people want to own and use a 2,000 lb, 400 hp weapon we make them take a written test, a practical test and get a license with fingerprints, photo and so on.

Also, I've heard repeatedly that people on the no-fly list / OFAC SDN should be prohibited from owning at least certain types of guns, but the list is too inaccurate. Seems the obvious solution would be to fix the list. Make it so that if a person can present enough proof that they are wrongly listed, they get taken off.

Finally, stop preventing the CDC from performing *any* studies at all on gun deaths. Congress really screwed up with that one.

Thank you everyone for your responses.

I've heard we're about medium on the 'honor culture' scale here in the U.S. It's not something I know a great deal about.

Some people have such an anger problem that they really shouldn't have guns. But they probably need to be the ones to make that decision.

I think a lot of street crime is driven by demographics. Pick some surging years of the baby boom, add 20 years, and then it shouldn't surprise us when we have a crime wave. And it's young men ages 16-25 much more than young women. Most probably because of misplaced ideas of what it means to be a man, which I guess circles us back to 'honor culture.'

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Honor culture tends to go hand in hand with poverty, since when you have nothing, your name and the respect it commands becomes worth fighting for. You can see it geographically, the violence in this country is fairly concentrated, if you broke a few cities out vs the country as a whole, we're not actually that violent.

I feel like we need to tighten up who gets guns, along with fixing the FBI watch list (which may require making another court to see if someone is worthy of being on the list to start with, rather than using suspicion alone. If not, the government could literally put everyone on that list).

You can make polls say whatever you want and especially is you do there immediately after a some massacre. Most proposed gun control is either oppressive and draconian or completely stupid and pointless.

It really seems like the gun control side is so desperate for a TD of any sort that they'll settle for anything but this is you typical leftist tactic of incrementalism, it's just the camel's nose and they all know that. The same was true for most supporters of Obamacare which has been a disaster, people supported that because they thought by killing the US healthcare system they could bring about single-payer.

The reforms that need to be made to reduce violent crime have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the crisis of poverty, mental illness, and drugs.

I wonder whether Clinton's proposal to stop terrorist suspects from buying guns is practical and morally acceptable. I'm not sure.

First up, that old cliché about criminals not being afraid to break the law seems to apply particularly to terrorists. If you're prepared to die for the cause then you're not going to worry about being arrested for owning an illegal gun - particularly because "arrest" might just give you a chance to shoot a few cops.

Secondly, wouldn't this potentially let terrorists know whether or not they are being investigated? Try to buy a gun, and if it goes through then you know you're under the radar. If not, you know they're onto you and either need to act fast or drop off for a few years.

Then there's the ethics. What about "innocent until proven guilty"? What about constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms? How often do the FBI investigate innocent people - presumably quite often, as I'd imagine they'd rather investigate too many people than too few? Would this actually stop many shootings, or just the most recent one?