@Setec Astronomy, My post was written while I considered several recent thoughts posted in this thread but primarily meant to convey my feelings on only a few issues. These are: you can’t penalize the legal law-abiding gun owners to hamstring the criminal, that there is only so far you can go with background checks and registration and that the type or quantity of guns (i.e. the so-called assault weapon) owned by law-abiding citizens will not change the issues we face today. Admittedlly, I’m no wordsmith and often fall short when conveying in writing what I’m thinking.
I`m not going to go back through 65 pages of posts, but I must have missed the ones that suggested that you or Ron are untrustworthy or "the problem".
A few posts back it was suggested that it had been proven we can not trust another. In this post I (can’t speak for Ron) am suggesting that I’m the average gun owner. I further assert that we (the average owners) are not the problem and that blanket legislation affects every gun owner.
I think we`ve proven that over and over again. We can`t trust one another to be responsible with them. I only trust LFE and military (even ex) to be responsible to with them.
Setec Astronomy said:
Again, how has it been suggested that YOU should give more information or go through more training or background checks?
Gun control changes are typically considered in one of two ways, making it harder to get the firearm or limiting the firearms that you are allowed to own. I’m simply making a case that there are procedures in place that make it so one can’t simply pick one up off of the shelf and walk out the door. In stating the checks I’ve been through my point was to say, for what? How does all of this available information make a difference in the way I own a firearm or the type I own? Since
MY firearms are not a threat to anyone why should anyone care what I own. Changing the laws to acquire or own firearms affects all gun owners. I am one of the the
all, I am the YOU to which you refer, changing either of these affects ME.
Setec Astronomy said:
Perhaps if the Florida shooter, or other mass shooters, had gone through a fraction of the checks that you describe, HE would have been unable to obtain the weapon he used--that`s completely different from keeping YOU from buying a weapon of your choice.
As indicated, I’m all for background checks but to my point, I’ve been through enough.
Setec Astronomy said:
Is it impossible to see the difference between yourself and one of these mass shooters?
Absolutely, it’s the way I was raised, the things in which I believe and simply said, how I think. I see myself as part of a community and accept the responsibilities that go along with it.
Setec Astronomy said:
Your argument sounds a little bit complaining about the police doing drunk driving enforcement...when you never drink and drive. Or complaining about how you might have to wait 2 weeks after your birthday to get your driver`s license because that`s the first day you could schedule a test.
Sorry, I have no idea where you are going with this. I indicated that I do not have a problem waiting for a background check to go through.
Setec Astronomy said:
So what would happen to you or Ron`s ability to buy your weapon of choice, if in Florida, or any state, really, in order to buy a semi-automatic weapon (let`s for the sake of argument say that includes a handgun or an "assault rifle"), you had to interview with a police investigator, and he had to speak to your wife/gf and employer or parents/school principal (if you are 19 and still in high school)? That would seemingly have no impact on you, since that`s all been done, hopefully would have no impact on Ron, but might have kept this recent Florida kid from getting his weapon, or other recent wife-beating shooters from getting a weapon.
As I indicated, I’m all for background checks and I have no issues with involved background checks. That said, I’ve done that and can’t see how I could make information more available and don’t know of what real use it would be? Realistically, I don’t see a way to make every background check as involved as the list I’ve mentioned and I don’t think these steps are all necessary for simple gun ownership. We already know that we don’t even follow the red flags we have now when they’re right in front of us. More legislation will not change this. If we can’t do the “easy” do we really think we will do the “more difficult? Can you imagine the burden it would put on local law enforcement to interview a citizen for each and every gun purchase? Who would you have absorb the costs associated with these detailed checks, the law-abiding citizen? You may not think this but others do.
Setec Astronomy said:
I take your point about what is the definition of "assault weapon", but I think you would have to admit that this recent Florida kid was more efficient with his AR-15 or whatever it was than he would have been with a screwdriver. Would he have been able to get his count up to 17 with a screwdriver or a knife?
I cannot concede this point, one of the recent posts in this thread linked to an incident in China where more than 30 were killed with a knife. Bombs could easily boost that number. Where there is a will there is a way and the next choice of implementation beyond a gun may be more or less deadly.
At the end of the day, I suspect you and I both know that we won’t write that one particular thing that gives the other one an
epiphany moment. We see things the way we do. That’s why there will always be two sides of the isle.
I’m sure I’ve written quite enough. Now stepping off of my soapbox.
