3 ms·

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I own multiple semi automatic rifles and enjoy them very much. At the same time no one "needs" to own one of these

I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I own multiple semi automatic rifles and enjoy them very much. At the same time no one "needs" to own one of these. I think anyone attempting to buy any type of firearm should have to: 1) Attend a safety training course; 2) Present some type of proof that they have met with a trained counselor, psychologist, whatever, that says they are not a danger to themselves or society (tricky! I know, very, very tricky); 3) Limited to how many they can purchase in a given time frame; 4) Waiting period of 2 weeks or some definitive cooling off period. That's all going to be very, very controversial. Personally, I don't want it, any of it, but as a responsible owner of high capacity, semi automatic rifles, I'm willing to at least meet the other side halfway. I love going out to the range and blasting away at old cars and crap, but I don't think an outright ban is the answer. We have to find a middle ground.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
These are controversial because firearms are deeply ingrained in American culture, and it is easy to see how such reasonable-seeming measures could be abused or counterproductive. For instance, if I'm suffering from mental health issues I might decide not to see anyone about it for fear they'd take my guns away. Anything that could be used to allow the government to keep track of who owns what can be --and has been-- abused to harass people or preemptively confiscate weapons. These don't seem like problems to people who don't have firearms as part of their culture, but they're important to those who do. I honestly don't know what a good solution would look like. I believe in the purpose of the second amendment, and I like knowing that I have the right and ability to defend myself, but it has become clear that society is not fit enough to handle the current state of things. I don't really know what a good solution looks like.
- Simulacra 8y ago
  You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom. Recently I heard a quote that might add some to this discussion: The police are there to protect the government and society, not you. So if we put that together and apply it to this issue, without a gun of your own, you're left dependent upon the police who may not protect you, per se, but they will protect civil order and the government. Who decides what that civil order is? I don't know the answer either but I accept the responsibility as a gun owner to come to the table, and find a solution.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 8y ago
    Let's not pretend all Americans, much less all American gun owners, subscribe to the "cold dead hands" mentality, are arming themselves against the government, or even oppose gun control. Despite what many people would say, it is even possible for Democrats, liberals and "leftists" to own guns for their own self-defense and to believe in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, that ideology describes a lot of (if not the majority) of outspoken gun owners, but "outspoken gun owner" tends to be a self-selected filter for pro-NRA identity politics.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

These are controversial because firearms are deeply ingrained in American culture, and it is easy to see how such reasonable-seeming measures could be abused or counterproductive. For instance, if I'm suffering from mental health issues I might decide not to see anyone about it for fear they'd take my guns away. Anything that could be used to allow the government to keep track of who owns what can be --and has been-- abused to harass people or preemptively confiscate weapons. These don't seem like problems to people who don't have firearms as part of their culture, but they're important to those who do. I honestly don't know what a good solution would look like. I believe in the purpose of the second amendment, and I like knowing that I have the right and ability to defend myself, but it has become clear that society is not fit enough to handle the current state of things. I don't really know what a good solution looks like.

Simulacra 8y ago
You have a point there, firearms and the idea of "you can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. I also think about those instances where we've had frightening scenarios of confiscation, such as Katrina. There's also the distrust of citizens in the government to both protect them, and protect their civil liberties, and freedom. Recently I heard a quote that might add some to this discussion: The police are there to protect the government and society, not you. So if we put that together and apply it to this issue, without a gun of your own, you're left dependent upon the police who may not protect you, per se, but they will protect civil order and the government. Who decides what that civil order is? I don't know the answer either but I accept the responsibility as a gun owner to come to the table, and find a solution.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 8y ago
  Let's not pretend all Americans, much less all American gun owners, subscribe to the "cold dead hands" mentality, are arming themselves against the government, or even oppose gun control. Despite what many people would say, it is even possible for Democrats, liberals and "leftists" to own guns for their own self-defense and to believe in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, that ideology describes a lot of (if not the majority) of outspoken gun owners, but "outspoken gun owner" tends to be a self-selected filter for pro-NRA identity politics.