4 ms·
The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I ho
by graedus 9y ago
The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.") I think that is the scenario -- actual confiscation of all guns -- user purple-again was addressing ("This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed").
This is different from outlawing or more tightly controlling certain classes of weapons, which seems to be what you're talking about. I think not being able to easily purchase fully automatic weapons or crazier stuff like rocket propelled grenades, stingers, 20mm cannons, etc is something a minority of gun enthusiasts grumble about but pretty much everyone basically accepts. Nobody that I know of is revolting about that, cops/feds have no problem enforcing it, etc.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoTaking guns away from people =/= complete been of all guns. Tighter gun controls requires taking guns away from people (or people giving up their guns willingly).
- graedus 9y agoRight, but if the type of people having their guns taken away (say repeat violent offenders) or the type of guns being taken away (say automatics) are reasonable enough in the eyes of the people, you don't see a ton of resistance. Gun laws have been incrementally tightened many times in the past. It's lobbied against, voted against, and there is outcry by some gun owners, but not mass rebellion. I think banning bump stocks, which are just a crude workaround of the longstanding automatic gun restrictions, are something we'll probably see without mass revolt or officers refusing to enforce.