Poll: Would you and/or your household be willing to give up your firearms?

Get rid of all guns? Apparently you are not a fan of The Twilight Zone or the Simpsons.

CharminTide said:

This is pretty much it: there's no good solution. Not because there aren't ideas, but because one side of the issue just isn't willing to discuss them.

You could offer a buy-back program, but enough people would cling to their guns to render it only moderately effective. You could ban semiautomatic weapons, but then people would complain mere handguns cannot protect their family from criminals. You could ban the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but then people would oppose the government deciding who can and cannot purchase guns. You can go on and on, and there's always an excuse. It doesn't matter if children are murdered at school, kids are murdered in a nightclub, or concertgoers are murdered in the Vegas Strip.

Police recovered 42 guns from the guy's hotel and residence, and he used 23 of them last night. Is that not absurd? Is an arsenal truly necessary to protect your home?

Look, I'm not claiming to know the best solution, but enough people here and elsewhere aren't even willing to start the conversation. That's their right. But at the end of the day, these same people need to admit that they're okay with periodic massacres. Because that is the consequence.

Click to expand...

I am good with certain limits, as are most people.

For instance: Mentally ill people who re a danger to themselves or others should not own or possess a weapon. A mental health/medical professional or court should make that initial determination and due process rights should be preserved entirely. I'm also good with certain criminals, including those who are convicted of domestic violence, being unable to own or possess a firearm.

Conversation begun.

Now, are you OK with anyone owning any gun under any circumstance?

CharminTide said:

Absolutely.

But fully automatic rifles have been banned for decades, and we've accepted that. All kinds of weapons are okay for military use, yet banned for civilians. So who draws that line, and when does it ever get reconsidered?

Click to expand...

It is constantly reconsidered. Every election. Every time a vote occurs in legislative bodies across the nation. Every time something like this happens.

I'd venture to say that most people who own or advocate for guns to be legal are reasonable people who are fine with certain limits that preserve due process and are not truly for anyone owning any gun no matter what.

I'd venture to say many who want gun control - perhaps even most - are reasonable people who are fine with people protecting themselves with firearms and do not truly want to ban guns entirely.

The fringes get the most attention. Both sides are afraid to concede anything lest the fringes rush into the vacuum to fill it and take things that much further.

I don't know all the answers, but talking past one another isn't helping either side unless one likes the status quo.

I wish there was a magic answer that would keep this from ever happening. That's not possible. I'd settle for greatly reducing their frequency.

And there is much more to the problem than guns.

We treat mental health like it doesn't matter to the state or its citizens. We abandon the mentally ill and leave them to fend for themselves at our own demise. Whether that was an issue here isn't the point. Everyday crime is a problem in this regard as well.

I still don't believe you'll ever get rid of this type thing unless we go back to the pre-gun era, and that ain't in the cards.

NationalTitles16 said:

I am good with certain limits, as are most people.

I'd venture to say that most people who own or advocate for guns to be legal are reasonable people who are fine with certain limits that preserve due process and are not truly for anyone owning any gun no matter what.

I'd venture to say many who want gun control - perhaps even most - are reasonable people who are fine with people protecting themselves with firearms and do not truly want to ban guns entirely.

The fringes get the most attention. Both sides are afraid to concede anything lest the fringes rush into the vacuum to fill it and take things that much further.

I don't know all the answers, but talking past one another isn't helping either side unless one likes the status quo.

I wish there was a magic answer that would keep this from ever happening. That's not possible. I'd settle for greatly reducing their frequency.

And there is much more to the problem than guns.

We treat mental health like it doesn't matter to the state or its citizens. We abandon the mentally ill and leave them to fend for themselves at our own demise. Whether that was an issue here isn't the point. Everyday crime is a problem in this regard as well.

Click to expand...

Well said. Agreed on all counts.

For instance: Mentally ill people who re a danger to themselves or others should not own or possess a weapon. A mental health/medical professional or court should make that initial determination and due process rights should be preserved entirely. I'm also good with certain criminals, including those who are convicted of domestic violence, being unable to own or possess a firearm.

Conversation begun.

Now, are you OK with anyone owning any gun under any circumstance?

Click to expand...

Thank you for that. To answer your question, I agree with your limitations on the mentally unfit and those with a particular criminal past. As for the rest of adults in society, I have no real issue with handgun ownership.

If you support limiting firearm access to those unfit, then you must necessarily support closing loopholes that allow the public sale of firearms without background checks. Those two alone would be a winning piece of legislation in my book.

Now it gets a little more tricky. Do you agree with any limitation on the number and/or type of weaponry an individual should be allowed to possess? I imagine most people will find it absurd that this shooter apparently owned 42 guns. That's so far beyond any reasonable argument of self-defense. So the first question then becomes whether you allow a limit to be placed at all. And if you do, the much harder follow-up is where to place that limit.

Just speaking for myself, I can answer the first one, but I'm not sure I have an answer to the second.

CharminTide said:

Well said. Agreed on all counts.



Thank you for that. To answer your question, I agree with your limitations on the mentally unfit and those with a particular criminal past. As for the rest of adults in society, I have no real issue with handgun ownership.

If you support limiting firearm access to those unfit, then you must necessarily support closing loopholes that allow the public sale of firearms without background checks. Those two alone would be a winning piece of legislation in my book.

Now it gets a little more tricky. Do you agree with any limitation on the number and/or type of weaponry an individual should be allowed to possess? I imagine most people will find it absurd that this shooter apparently owned 42 guns. That's so far beyond any reasonable argument of self-defense. So the first question then becomes whether you allow a limit to be placed at all. And if you do, the much harder follow-up is where to place that limit.

Just speaking for myself, I can answer the first one, but I'm not sure I have an answer to the second.

Click to expand...

I would be willing to discuss this more at a later time. That's all I'll say for now. Too many emotions. That's why tragedies are a terrible time to begin the conversation. If it's that important it can wait until we bury people or it would have been front page in the days leading up to this. Sorry, don't mean to be...well, anything...I'm just not in the mood to continue.

NationalTitles16 said:

I would be willing to discuss this more at a later time. That's all I'll say for now. Too many emotions. That's why tragedies are a terrible time to begin the conversation. If it's that important it can wait until we bury people or it would have been front page in the days leading up to this. Sorry, don't mean to be...well, anything...I'm just not in the mood to continue.

Click to expand...

No worries, I understand. I appreciate your willingness to open the door.

crimsonaudio said:

Some of those restrictions make sense, imo but... no, most of us gun owners aren't willing to discuss further 'common sense' restrictions.

Click to expand...

That's kind of the issue in a nutshell.

CharminTide said:

That's kind of the issue in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

It's not really an issue at all when it comes to one's rights. Why anyone would see it as "an issue" that others aren't interested in giving up their rights or even discussing the hypothetical abdication of their rights is baffling.

CharminTide said:

This is pretty much it: there's no good solution. Not because there aren't ideas, but because one side of the issue just isn't willing to discuss them.

You could offer a buy-back program, but enough people would cling to their guns to render it only moderately effective. You could ban semiautomatic weapons, but then people would complain mere handguns cannot protect their family from criminals. You could ban the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but then people would oppose the government deciding who can and cannot purchase guns. You can go on and on, and there's always an excuse. It doesn't matter if children are murdered at school, kids are murdered in a nightclub, or concertgoers are murdered in the Vegas Strip.

Police recovered 42 guns from the guy's hotel and residence, and he used 23 of them last night. Is that not absurd? Is an arsenal truly necessary to protect your home?

Look, I'm not claiming to know the best solution, but enough people here and elsewhere aren't even willing to start the conversation. That's their right. But at the end of the day, these same people need to admit that they're okay with periodic massacres. Because that is the consequence.

Click to expand...

How many guns did Jack the Ripper use? I forget....

Tide1986 said:

It's not really an issue at all when it comes to one's rights. Why anyone would see it as "an issue" that others aren't interested in giving up their rights or even discussing the hypothetical abdication of their rights is baffling.

Click to expand...

"I think it's a good idea, but I'm not willing to discuss it" isn't a rational position. That is the issue I was referencing.

Now, I wouldn't expect you join the sort of productive discourse that our country needs (IMO, obviously). If the above quote is your position, just admit that you're fine with periodic massacres so long as you remain free to stockpile assault rifles and ammunition without inconvenience or limit. But if I'm mistaken and you don't find that an acceptable or unavoidable trade-off, then start a dialogue. It's one or the other.

bama_wayne1 said:

How many guns did Jack the Ripper use? I forget....

Click to expand...

Not a great comparison. Jack killed 5-10 people over three years. This dude killed up to 20 times that many in less than an hour, while injuring 500 more.

There was a lone wolf attack in France on the same day as the Vegas shooting. Since guns are not readily available, he used a knife and only managed to kill 2 people before being fatally shot. Contrast that with the amount of damage a lone wolf in the U.S. was able to do. People can make the philosophic argument that anyone set on murder will find some way to do it. But I'll take my chances on a dude with a rock or a knife over one with a bag filled with 42 modified rifles.

Again, I'm not saying I have the answers; I'm just trying to start a productive conversation. But that knife attack in France (or Jack the Ripper in London) and the massacre in Vegas are in no way equivalent events.

CharminTide said:

"I think it's a good idea, but I'm not willing to discuss it" isn't a rational position. That is the issue I was referencing.

Now, I wouldn't expect you join the sort of productive discourse that our country needs (IMO, obviously). If the above quote is your position, just admit that you're fine with periodic massacres so long as you remain free to stockpile assault rifles and ammunition without inconvenience or limit. But if I'm mistaken and you don't find that an acceptable or unavoidable trade-off, then start a dialogue. It's one or the other.

Click to expand...

It has been stated many times and probably much better than I will. Guns are not the problem, people are. It takes someone mentally ill to do kill for no reason. We need to address care for the mentally ill or mentally deficient. Mainstreaming everyone and treating them like they are normal is a problem for everyone. The sick and the well alike. I don't mean to be critical of the sick or disabled but we have turned our back on the mentally ill in this country.

bama_wayne1 said:

Guns are not the problem, people are. It takes someone mentally ill to do kill for no reason. We need to address care for the mentally ill or mentally deficient.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the mentally ill.

But I think the argument that "guns aren't the problem, mental illness is the problem" is a diversionary tactic. There are literal piles of evidence linking increased gun ownership to increased gun death. For every feel-good story about a gun owner who made a positive impact, there are ten more that show the opposite. It's just dishonest to say that the availability of guns in the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with us having the highest gun mortality rate of any developed country. One needs to accept this basic premise as fact before you can reach the actual hard part of deciding what, if anything, can be done about it.

I agree we shouldn't let mentally ill in danger of harm to themselves or others have semi-automatics. But implementation is tricky.
But who makes the determination? A government doctor? Will all gun owners seek a psychologist before owning? Who's to say 10/20 years down the road we have a school shooting and they change laws. Anyone ever diagnosed with depression can't have any. And where will the line be? Suicidal, sociopath, manic-depressive, ptsd, depression?
It's obvious that mentally ill people should have high powered weapons, but hard to regulate, and a slippery slope once it's in place.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

CharminTide said:

"I think it's a good idea, but I'm not willing to discuss it" isn't a rational position. That is the issue I was referencing.

Click to expand...

Which is why I don't hold that position. Nevertheless, I'm willing to discuss many things, but diminishment of my inalienable rights through the force of government, isn't one of them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...un-control-advocates-are-passionate-misguided

The images from Las Vegas are sickening. There’s the sound of gunfire truly worthy of a war zone as people scream and run and cower, with nowhere to go. This shouldn’t happen in America; it shouldn’t happen anywhere. But that doesn’t mean that the off-the-shelf obsessions of gun-control advocates would do the slightest thing to stop it.

Click to expand...

uafan4life said:

You're right that it's a very slippery slope. The key phrase is danger to themselves and others. Who makes that determination and is it a one-time evaluation?

You'd probably be surprised how many people, at one time or another, have been prescribed anti-depressants or mood stabilizers. If someone is ever diagnosed with depression, are they disallowed from ever owning a firearm? What about someone who was taking an unrelated, prescribed medication which caused them to have suicidal thought, get diagnosed with depression, take anti-depressants for it, and then come off the first medication, alleviating the need for the anti-depressants?

Trying to have the government - in any way, shape, or form - implement measures to attempt to prevent individuals being a harm to themselves or others is putting the responsibility on the government to determine what, generally, only an individual's closest family and friends and/or familiar medical professionals are in a position to adequately determine.

Click to expand...

Would you accept a test of psychiatric fitness administered by trained psychiatrists and/or psychologists? There is precedent for this. For instance, patients who are a seizure risk are forbidden to drive vehicles. However, once they have received treatment and been seizure-free for a certain period of time, they regain legal clearance to drive. The same structure could be applied to depression and other psychiatric illnesses.