9 ms·

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However,

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.

hansthehorse 9y ago
I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.
- ythn 9y ago
  Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    I think you'll find that both sides in this particular debate see the other in that way. At times it seems like the pro-gun folks will take nothing less than civilian access to the nuclear launch codes, and that any restriction or hindrance of access to any weapon is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law. It turns out the loudest (read: most visible) people on both sides of any given debate are the least likely to compromise.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Have you ever worked with machetes?
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.
        mirimir 9y ago
        I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).
        mirimir 9y ago
        No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot. We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker. I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Given that this is exactly the strategy of the opposing actors, I can see why 2nd amendment advocates take this stance. If you look at basically any other country where there's still a debate open on this topic, you'll note that it is indeed a slippery slope. Here in Canada, the RCMP (equiv. FBI) can arbitrarily reclassify any firearm and demand that it be confiscated and destroyed (not sold). For example, the other year they reclassified the Ruger 10/22 (IIRC the most popular target shooting rifle in Canada) as a "restricted weapon", requiring an RPAL instead of a PAL. Funny thing about the Restricted Possession and Acquisition License is that if you have one, you forfeit your chartered protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The government can literally search your home and take your things at any time for any reason without providing justification to a court or record. In fact, they often do. Let's say the nice lady down the way purchased a 10/22 to do target shooting, and didn't get the memo from the RCMP (10+ years later). Now, she either contravenes the law (most long guns still do not require registration, just license) and lives in fear that the authorities might find that she has a 10/22; or she finds an RFSC to get her RPAL, and the RCMP decides arbitrarily that she should be allowed to have an RPAL (because they have no obligation to issue one, even if they have no reason not to), and now she has no protection against search and seizure in her home. I might also add that firearms laws in California are basically the same as they are in Canada in many practical senses, except the classification and search and seizure stuff (which would be even more obviously unconstitutional). Most of the firearms used in crimes here in Canada are smuggled or illegally manufactured. Nonetheless, Californians kill each other far more regularly. It's almost as though the argument for gun control is thin and questionable, and the only way to prop it up is through deliberate dishonesty or accidental ignorance.
  - simonh 9y ago
    So are gun ownership rates and the types of weapons owned in California similar to that in Canada as well then? If they are, ok you might have a point, although I'm not quite sure what you think the reason for the difference in outcome in Canada and California might be.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership". So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?
      - TallGuyShort 9y ago
        Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO. edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly. The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about. The NRA is strange and uncomfortable to a lot of people, I think. I share your complaint, but they have strong stances on so many different issues that I've met people who object to them for half a dozen different reasons.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.
  - adamsea 9y ago
    > It's almost a rule that regulation always increases. This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      That is not an answer to the plain and direct question that was asked.
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  >I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates. When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side. That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.
  - angersock 9y ago
    > common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.
    - iamatworknow 9y ago
      You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say. But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations": I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows. Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place. The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm. And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that. Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable. And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.
- brianpgordon 9y ago
  If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here." By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing. I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.
  - Pinckney 9y ago
    >If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it. We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.
- uberchet 9y ago
  I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for. In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark. Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't. As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.
MrFantastic 9y ago
It's sad that wanting background checks is seen as anti-gun. The Conservatives think that HRC was going to their house and take all their guns. That wasn't her position at all. I agree that everyone should familiarize themselves with guns but for practical self defense purposes a shotgun and a rifle are not that different. A shotgun only spreads about 8inches at a self defense range ( 10m or so ). If the range is longer than that it's more a skirmish that Self Defense. .22LR is the most common caliber in homicides. I'd rather have a 9mm, but the best gun is the one you can access when you need it.
- bmelton 9y ago
  I personally don't see it as anti-gun, but I do see it as anti-civil liberties. It is for the same reasons I oppose voter ID, or any other hoops at discouraging the opportunity to exercise the right to vote that I oppose universal background checks. As background checks discourage the opportunity to exercise a civil right, I believe it should be viewed with the same degree of judicial scrutiny that voting should be. An imposition of fees or taxes on the right disenfranchises the poor, just as a poll tax does. An imposition of mandatory registration or waiting periods is an imposition of delayed exercise of the right, and I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. had the right of it when he proclaimed that "A right delayed is a right denied". The imposition of any sort of vetting or background checking process seems to me to be a violation of the presumption of innocence, which in turn diminishes the effectiveness of the first and fourth amendments, and seems ripe for opening the door towards warrantless searches, stop and frisk, etc. I personally could give two shits about guns, but because I'm a fan of the rights we're afforded as American citizens, I respect the second amendment. Failing to do so diminishes all of the other rights, as they're all subject to high-water mark interpretations of judicial scrutiny, and the lower the bar goes for bypassing scrutiny on one right, the bar is lowered for all our rights.

hansthehorse 9y ago

I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.

ythn 9y ago
Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  I think you'll find that both sides in this particular debate see the other in that way. At times it seems like the pro-gun folks will take nothing less than civilian access to the nuclear launch codes, and that any restriction or hindrance of access to any weapon is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law. It turns out the loudest (read: most visible) people on both sides of any given debate are the least likely to compromise.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Have you ever worked with machetes?
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).
        mirimir 9y ago
        No, saplings don't run away. But sometimes people don't either, especially when they're getting ready to shoot. We agree that both machetes and guns are dangerous. But I'm arguing that a machete can be more dangerous than a handgun, in the hands of a trained attacker. I was quibbling with the "physically work quite a bit" aspect of your comment.
microcolonel 9y ago
> In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Given that this is exactly the strategy of the opposing actors, I can see why 2nd amendment advocates take this stance. If you look at basically any other country where there's still a debate open on this topic, you'll note that it is indeed a slippery slope. Here in Canada, the RCMP (equiv. FBI) can arbitrarily reclassify any firearm and demand that it be confiscated and destroyed (not sold). For example, the other year they reclassified the Ruger 10/22 (IIRC the most popular target shooting rifle in Canada) as a "restricted weapon", requiring an RPAL instead of a PAL. Funny thing about the Restricted Possession and Acquisition License is that if you have one, you forfeit your chartered protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The government can literally search your home and take your things at any time for any reason without providing justification to a court or record. In fact, they often do. Let's say the nice lady down the way purchased a 10/22 to do target shooting, and didn't get the memo from the RCMP (10+ years later). Now, she either contravenes the law (most long guns still do not require registration, just license) and lives in fear that the authorities might find that she has a 10/22; or she finds an RFSC to get her RPAL, and the RCMP decides arbitrarily that she should be allowed to have an RPAL (because they have no obligation to issue one, even if they have no reason not to), and now she has no protection against search and seizure in her home. I might also add that firearms laws in California are basically the same as they are in Canada in many practical senses, except the classification and search and seizure stuff (which would be even more obviously unconstitutional). Most of the firearms used in crimes here in Canada are smuggled or illegally manufactured. Nonetheless, Californians kill each other far more regularly. It's almost as though the argument for gun control is thin and questionable, and the only way to prop it up is through deliberate dishonesty or accidental ignorance.
- simonh 9y ago
  So are gun ownership rates and the types of weapons owned in California similar to that in Canada as well then? If they are, ok you might have a point, although I'm not quite sure what you think the reason for the difference in outcome in Canada and California might be.
Clubber 9y ago
Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership". So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO. edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly. The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about. The NRA is strange and uncomfortable to a lot of people, I think. I share your complaint, but they have strong stances on so many different issues that I've met people who object to them for half a dozen different reasons.
Karunamon 9y ago
Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.
- adamsea 9y ago
  > It's almost a rule that regulation always increases. This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    That is not an answer to the plain and direct question that was asked.
iamatworknow 9y ago
>I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates. When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side. That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.
- angersock 9y ago
  > common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.
  - iamatworknow 9y ago
    You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say. But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations": I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows. Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place. The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm. And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that. Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable. And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.
brianpgordon 9y ago
If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here." By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing. I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.
- Pinckney 9y ago
  >If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it. We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.
uberchet 9y ago
I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for. In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark. Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't. As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.

MrFantastic 9y ago

It's sad that wanting background checks is seen as anti-gun. The Conservatives think that HRC was going to their house and take all their guns. That wasn't her position at all. I agree that everyone should familiarize themselves with guns but for practical self defense purposes a shotgun and a rifle are not that different. A shotgun only spreads about 8inches at a self defense range ( 10m or so ). If the range is longer than that it's more a skirmish that Self Defense. .22LR is the most common caliber in homicides. I'd rather have a 9mm, but the best gun is the one you can access when you need it.

bmelton 9y ago
I personally don't see it as anti-gun, but I do see it as anti-civil liberties. It is for the same reasons I oppose voter ID, or any other hoops at discouraging the opportunity to exercise the right to vote that I oppose universal background checks. As background checks discourage the opportunity to exercise a civil right, I believe it should be viewed with the same degree of judicial scrutiny that voting should be. An imposition of fees or taxes on the right disenfranchises the poor, just as a poll tax does. An imposition of mandatory registration or waiting periods is an imposition of delayed exercise of the right, and I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. had the right of it when he proclaimed that "A right delayed is a right denied". The imposition of any sort of vetting or background checking process seems to me to be a violation of the presumption of innocence, which in turn diminishes the effectiveness of the first and fourth amendments, and seems ripe for opening the door towards warrantless searches, stop and frisk, etc. I personally could give two shits about guns, but because I'm a fan of the rights we're afforded as American citizens, I respect the second amendment. Failing to do so diminishes all of the other rights, as they're all subject to high-water mark interpretations of judicial scrutiny, and the lower the bar goes for bypassing scrutiny on one right, the bar is lowered for all our rights.