Does that matter? If I am a responsible gun owner, and I see that my hobby is causing easy access and proliferation of weapons to those that will use them irresponsibly, and understand that there’s a need to change, then I get to be a part of the solution, even if folks want to shoehorn me into the same group as irresponsible gun-owners.
The thing is, gun owners who do not want change, thereby causing a proliferation of easy-to-access weaponry everywhere, are “irresponsible gun-owners”, AFAIAC.
Proliferation of weapons continues apace because “responsible gun owners” are pushing for them to continue to be easy to acquire, lest their hobby be infringed. the “unintended consequence” of that policy is about one mass-shooting a day.
IMHO, you fix that with actual responsible gun owners saying “Ok, this isn’t working”, and I applaud that mindset.
It does matter, because everyone is a Responsible Firearms Owner. Until they aren’t.
We are going through the same debate here, and many of our Responsible Firearms Owners are whining “It wasn’t me that shot up those mosques, why should I lose my firearms?” They’re getting no sympathy from me. Either help in the full recognition that you will be affected too, or just shut up and get out of the way.
This was America before Trump, he is a symptom. He is not the disease. Yes, we need to be rid of him, but that is only a bare beginning. This is a war, I’m just not certain we realize it yet. They certainly do.
The journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step. I’m of the mindset that we need to embrace people who take that step (and push when needed, to keep them moving in the right direction.)
I’m going to have to side with @orenwolf on this one. Given how many Americans own guns, it will be a legislative impossibility to make any meaningful changes unless at least some gun owners are on board.
Luckily even a majority of gun owners (including NRA members!) support stricter gun control measures than we have now, including universal background checks for all sales. That alone isn’t enough to get us where we need to be but it would be a start.
“Ice Ice Baby” (“ice” as in ICE) is already their anthem.
Shane Ryan Sealy, 34, was charged with menacing and reckless endangerment Saturday after pulling a gun on protestors gathered in a Huntsville, Alabama park to support immigrants. He shouted “Womp womp” and sang “Ice Ice Baby” to little attention before pulling out the gun. He was then chased off by those he sought to intimidate, according to reports.
That is not what the OP said. They said 1) they are a firearms owner and 2) that things need to change. IMHO, such folks are, in fact, the opposite of the individuals you’re mentioning are saying.
Trying to approach this issue in such a way that “if you are a firearms owner, you are simply an impediment to gun control” is probably a literal right-wing talking point in how they frame the discussion on firearms regulation. This problem is solved more easily when you involve actual users of firearms, and alienating those who want to be part of the solution helps no one, AFAIAC, except the right-wing bloviators who are repeating “Libruls don’t want to talk, don’t want to understand, they just want to take away all guns, period”.
My hobby of racing cars extremely quickly and dangerously is heavily regulated. Racetracks and Autocross courses exist so that I can explore my hobby safely. The vehicles I use to do so have to be put on a trailer to travel on the road. They are illegal to drive there. In some countries, GPS is used to limit vehicle speeds unless you are on a racetrack or private property.
These sorts of regulations exist because those interested in driving cars ludicrously fast and twistily worked with regulators to find solutions that don’t result in 1) people getting killed on streets and 2) irresponsible people having access to dangerous vehicles, or the right to drive them irresponsibly on the street.
Anyway, this is very quickly going to derail the topic. I disagree with your position that gun owners who understand the need for change are a net-negative.
Well you’re entitled to your opinion, of course. And I honestly don’t know how to fix the problem other than to just go full Australia.
One of the issues with that approach is the massive proliferation of firearms in the U.S… Lawful gun owners may voluntarily turn in their weapons, but there would be so many left, with a majority of them being untraceable and in the hands of a bad element. People who value their autonomy from the government would rightly be chuffed. I realize that’s a hard idea for some people to wrap their heads around. Long guns are still very necessary for people who own large tracts of land and raise livestock, and for hunters who prefer to get their own meat.
I would be in favor of outlawing handguns and extended magazines for rifles. Again you’d have the problem of so many just physically existing already, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.
The sooner we start, the sooner we reach a point where this shit doesn’t happen every day. Then maybe we can draw it down to less than one every 2 days! That would seem like nirvana.
Yeah, I know it has to begin somewhere. Like I said, outlawing handguns and extended magazines would be pretty effective in my opinion. Perhaps having only hunting rifles with a five round limit. Hard to conceal, cumbersome to reload…
That’s another possibility, sure. I think every person in Switzerland has to serve in the military and is trained to use firearms responsibly. Sometimes I think mandatory military service would be a good idea in the U.S… Politicians would be a lot less likely to send their sons and daughters into pointless combat. They need to have skin in the game.
That the Dayton situation looks a lot like “suicide by cop,” i.e. like the shooter intended to get shot, rather takes the wind out of the sails of those praising the officers for their quick response.
The Swiss also have the highest gun deaths in Europe and are in the process of not having folks keep their military rifles at home because they are used too often to kill spouses.
I agree with you on the numbers. Looking at what the Swiss have problems with, and taking that into account, is what I was suggesting. Saying: Well this is better than where we are now, and dismissing concerns out of hand, because it’s indeed a step up, is the kind of incremental change that is literally killing us right now.
