Are gun control advocates their own worst enemy?

[Nakura Chambers]

I've spoken to countless gun owners and gun rights enthusiasts (almost all of whom were NRA members) and they are all very reasonable people. Almost all of them said that they would be theoretically okay with having a firearms licensing system similar to that of Canada or Sweden, but the would never support it in the United States, because they know that anti-gun lobbyists would abuse the system. I find myself holding a similar position, I know that if there is a licensing or registration system, that eventually (be it 10, 30 or even 100 years from now) someone will want to strip away our guns (at least the semi-automatic and handguns).

I know that the anti-gun lobbies have moved their their rhetoric away from "ban handguns and semi-automatics" to "we only want registration, not confiscation," but nobody I have spoken with believes that registration won't be used as a stepping stone towards an eventual ban. The United States could have had a system in place where all rational people would still be able to own firearms (including handguns and semi-automatics), but where criminals and irresponsible people wouldn't be able to, if not for the anti-gun lobby holding the view that "gun owners are a plague that needs to be wiped out."

Wouldn't you agree that in many ways, the anti-gun lobby has destroyed any chance of compromise?

[zorkuus]

Wouldn't you agree that in many ways, the anti-gun lobby has destroyed any chance of compromise?

Wait what? So after all that you're saying the pro gun lobby is open for compromise?

[Deleted]

In an ideal world, you shouldn't have to compromise on your beliefs just to scrape an inch of progress through bureaucratic hell.

[TZucchini]

Wouldn't you agree that in many ways, the anti-gun lobby has destroyed any chance of compromise?

There's certainly a subsection of advocates on both side that do a fair amount of damage. Open carry demonstrations are completely counter-productive and damaging to the gun rights movement.

Your paranoia of confiscation, however, is completely unfounded. Gun rights throughout this country have increased significantly since Sandy Hook.

[Mazar]

INB4 Thread lock, there is already a huge gun control thread, you should add this there.

I will say I agree with the idea that any laws that take guns away or limits gun access to the public is a bad thing. I am a gun supporter. The reason I am against gun control is once you lose something it never comes back. You give little by little until its gone.

Look at the laws created in CA, the bullet button, the 10 round max magazines... It's all bullshit. Any moron with a screwdriver can pop out the bullet button and replace it with a normal mag release. Plus anyone can get large capacity mags out of state or from the many people who already own them in CA. The laws are only hurting the legal gun owners, criminals don't care about them

[Nakura Chambers]

Wait what? So after all that you're saying the pro gun lobby is open for compromise?

They would be if there weren't people who thought that nobody should ever own an AR-15, under any circumstances.

[ItachiZaku]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

[Activi-T]

It's all about perspective and blaming the other side for having to stay with the status quo.

Gun control advocates would argue that those gun supporters only hold that opinion in an attempt to look like the reasonable side to moderates but it's made from a place of paranoia.

[Nakura Chambers]

There's certainly a subsection of advocates on both side that do a fair amount of damage. Open carry demonstrations are completely counter-productive and damaging to the gun rights movement.

Your paranoia of confiscation, however, is completely unfounded. Gun rights throughout this country have increased significantly since Sandy Hook.

I wouldn't call it paranoia, but there definitely is a vocal minority in this country that opposes civilian firearms ownership, and a few of those individuals are in Congress, state legislatures and municipal governments across the country. I'm sure gun owners in the United Kingdom didn't think that anyone would ever try to take away their guns, but it eventually happened.

[GodlyBob]

There are an equal number of people who think that they should own all guns with no paper trail as there are people who think that every gun in the world should be destroyed and turned in to playground equipment. Unfortunately, those people on both sides are the ones who create the policies.

I'm personally in favor of a basic education and licensing program, kind of like getting your driver's license; where you learn basic gun safety, operation, and local laws before you actually get your hands on the weapon. One would also be able to purchase guns that have been typically deemed unfit for the public if they pass a more rigorous course and psych exam.

[Nakura Chambers]

INB4 Thread lock, there is already a huge gun control thread, you should add this there.

I will say I agree with the idea that any laws that take guns away or limits gun access to the public is a bad thing. I am a gun supporter. The reason I am against gun control is once you lose something it never comes back. You give little by little until its gone.

Look at the laws created in CA, the bullet button, the 10 round max magazines... It's all bullshit. Any moron with a screwdriver can pop out the bullet button and replace it with a normal mag release. Plus anyone can get large capacity mags out of state or from the many people who already own them in CA. The laws are only hurting the legal gun owners, criminals don't care about them

That's another thing, a lot of the gun laws passed have virtually no impact on crime whatsoever and only ban gun or magazine "features" that don't make the gun anymore lethal. Take California banning barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks for instance.

[zorkuus]

That's another thing, a lot of the gun laws passed have virtually no impact on crime whatsoever

Maybe the laws still aren't strict enough? Ever thought about that?

[Schmeebs]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

There essentially is a ban on civilians owning automatic weapons, there are so many hoops to jump through the people that actually can get through all those hoops are not the ones you need to worry about (Getting guns illegally is a completely different story, and has nothing to do with gun control laws)

an ar-15 is just a Semi-auto .223 rifle that has 'Tactical' characteristics. Bannings guns for cosmetic reasons is stupid.

[Nakura Chambers]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

The AR-15 is usually used for recreational shooting and small game hunting.

I'm not sure if I agree, but a lot of people would argue that the AR-15 is great for home defense and actually safer for home use (less penetration through walls) than handguns and shotguns.

Two videos on using the AR-15 for home defense:

[maezer]

I am pro-gun owner. I personal would care very little if they restricted gun ownership/operation like cars (simple basic test of skills renewed every decade that most who can graduate middle school can pass). Because I believe I could pass (and the people I know about and that have guns could also pass) But our political system favors stalemate and stagnation so much I find it very hard to fault the NRA's strategy. If you give absolutely no ground you don't lose anything, where as if you start moving they can slip last minute amendments in change the nature of the bill, and people vote for it believing its almost the same thing so it doesn't really matter. And its the small things that add up quickly.

[Rukentuts]

Maybe the laws still aren't strict enough? Ever thought about that?

It's why the thread should be "Are people that ignore scientific studies their own worst enemy?"

[Nakura Chambers]

Maybe the laws still aren't strict enough? Ever thought about that?

The particular laws they suggest though have nothing to do with stopping crime. How does having a longer stock on a rifle/shotgun stop crime? If anything, wouldn't a longer stock make the gun harder to conceal?

[Deleted]

The particular laws they suggest though have nothing to do with stopping crime. How does having a longer stock on a rifle/shotgun stop crime? If anything, wouldn't a longer stock make the gun harder to conceal?

Maybe that's what we should do. Make all guns have to have a 10 foot stock so they're really hard to use without some contraption involving levers and pulleys.

[Darksideblues42]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm...

There is already a near ban on Civilian Ownership of automatic weapons, unless they were manufactured before 1986. Some Police have them, and are CIVILIANS too....so.........

Existing laws are not enforced. It is that simple. Laws only impact the law abiding.

[PessimiStick]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

This is very "poe's law".

I genuinely can't tell if you're satirizing the stupidity of anti-gun people, or if you are one...