Gun ownership poll

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these people engaging in this conduct daily, to various degrees. And, most of the time, there is nothing illegal in engaging in any of the activities above online. And, "white-supremacist vitriol" is only one extreme. There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes. For a government agency to make a personal visit to everyone that has a "negative thought" would only exacerbate the situation and bankrupt the country as we would have to increase these government agencies by 100-200x their current staffing.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes.

-- Anti-abortion (edited: those who stalk, threaten, and attack doctors)
-- Environmental terrorism (not as popular anymore)
-- Bundy ranchers who want to end public ownership of land
-- Antifa (but I haven't heard much from them in two years)
etc etc etc

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

Peter, that's not what I meant to imply. I view as extreme some of those "tactics"; one could easily come up with something "extreme" on the other side, too... Imagine if a "blue" state instituted universally available over-the-counter contraception for women beginning at age 12. This would, in my view, rightfully be viewed by many as "extreme".

In a way, this ties back to the issue of our country as a whole. Things are just so polarized, that "extreme" doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition anymore...

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

I can see I opened a can of worms. What I meant with my post was to highlight extremes on both right and left. I don't condone violence. While I am actively religious, some efforts by some of my Christian brethren I deem damaging to Christianity. I disagreed with such close affiliation with Pres Trump. Those who were not religious and Democrat were very put off by this close connection. My sect of faith actively proselytes, and the four years of Trumps presidency I view as very negative years for any and all Christian sects. Now the possible overturning of Roe v Wade could further damage the Christian brand in the US as non-religious folk (an ever growing crowd in the USA) feel like religion is being shoved down their throat.

The sad events coming out with the sex abuse cover up with with Evangelical church I feel is seen as further hypocrisy to the same crowd. It makes me worried about tit-for-tat politics in the future that could negatively affect me.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

When it is overturned, David, when.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by todeen

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Fair enough, as I said I don't condone that and don't think it helps the cause. But I think that once the S Ct opinion is official, you'll see some pretty unpalatable stuff from the so-called "rights" advocates as well.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fair enough, as I said I don't condone that and don't think it helps the cause. But I think that once the S Ct opinion is official, you'll see some pretty unpalatable stuff from the so-called "rights" advocates as well.

Yes. I told my wife that since 2016, the political air and distrust feels ripe for an assassination. Those people who feel that the SCOTUS was stolen from Democrats could feel very victimized by Mitch McConnells stunt in 2015 that allowed a 3 judge flip of SCOTUS.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

It would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to step up security in schools. The government investigating every nut job who posts on Twitter? Good luck with that.

[Deertick]

If "constitutional carry" becomes the norm, a Rangers/Rays game may have the hit total surpassed by the shot total.
In my county alone, over a dozen handguns were stolen from unlocked vehicles in January alone. Zero repercussions to the "responsible gun owners". Every day there are posts on sites like Facebook and Nextdoor of people intimating that if someone were to "try" to steal their car/truck/cat/dog, they would be shot because of their mistaken interpretation of "castle doctrine" or SYG. This past year, there have been two CCP gentlemen who were deemed to have "accidently displayed" during arguments with unarmed persons.

Our current societal environment does not support unfettered carry. Any actions taken to try and mitigate any of the above instances gets squashed in a second. I have zero hope that situations like Columbine, Sandy Hook, LV, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde will become a thing of the past.

I own a Colt Special Agent Revolver loaded with .38 +P