Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Send out undercover agents to buy guns -> preform UBC with criminal history -> Catch bad sellers

You're completely missing the point. Undercover stings can happen even without a UBC. If an undercover agent tells a seller that he won't be able to pass a background and the seller still sells, then it's already a crime, even without a UBC law.

Do you see the ATF going out to do that now? No. So... what exactly would be different?

Perhaps it's also because the ATF would have to know about the seller before even setting up a sting. Not every shady gun seller is going to post a suspicious ad on craigslist or somesuch. A lot of those kinds of shady sales are going to be word-of-mouth. Even if the ATF somehow knew about every potential private gun seller, there isn't even remotely enough funding and/or manpower to perform that many stings operations.

Sorry, your entire concept here is utterly ridiculous.

[tombstoner139]

You're completely missing the point. Undercover stings can happen even without a UBC. If an undercover agent tells a seller that he won't be able to pass a background and the seller still sells, then it's already a crime, even without a UBC law.

Do you see the ATF going out to do that now? No. So... what exactly would be different?

Perhaps it's also because the ATF would have to know about the seller before even setting up a sting. Not every shady gun seller is going to post a suspicious ad on craigslist or somesuch. A lot of those kinds of shady sales are going to be word-of-mouth. Even if the ATF somehow knew about every potential private gun seller, there isn't even remotely enough funding and/or manpower to perform that many stings operations.

Sorry, your entire concept here is utterly ridiculous.

It comes down to the money spent vs. the crime prevented. If you collect data on all the crimes committed in your funding district are you going to spend 50% of you money enforcing 1% of the crimes. counter point is it depends on the crime. since each crime has a different cost function you might. The war on drugs is a great example of why you dont want to do that.

The US can through all the money it wants into drug interdiction but the truth is if drug interdiction worked availability should be going down... its not http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rt_final_1.pdf war on drugs..... lost.

People dont want to hear guns and drugs are not the issue. they are a symptom. We need mandatory gun safety programs along side addiction treatment, education and prevention programs. Not feel good interdiction and bans. We need to do what Spain did and accept the its people are going to use drugs. not everyone can be saved, but try and save as many as they can. Same can be said for gun control. Safety with access... not some form of psudo ban on all guns = 100% safe. This is a lie. you will never be 100% safe... ever, just ask any victim of the Boston marathon bombing or mass shooting.

We are wasting our time and money on things that are not very important ito the pig picture, but are strong hot button political issues. it's just easy game for politicians. With law abiding people caught in the middle.

One thing that stands above all else is very simple, we need jobs for people. not every one can handle the amount of freedom and wealth we have in the 1st world and resort to drugs to cope. guns are used to control distribution area's. get rid of the demand for drugs and the need for guns goes down.

[Deleted]

You're completely missing the point. Undercover stings can happen even without a UBC. If an undercover agent tells a seller that he won't be able to pass a background and the seller still sells, then it's already a crime, even without a UBC law.

Do you see the ATF going out to do that now? No. So... what exactly would be different?

Perhaps it's also because the ATF would have to know about the seller before even setting up a sting. Not every shady gun seller is going to post a suspicious ad on craigslist or somesuch. A lot of those kinds of shady sales are going to be word-of-mouth. Even if the ATF somehow knew about every potential private gun seller, there isn't even remotely enough funding and/or manpower to perform that many stings operations.

Sorry, your entire concept here is utterly ridiculous.

Well let's see. The criminal trying could simply lie and say he could pass a background check. He doesn't care if he is lying, because he is already breaking the law by purchasing a firearm he is not suppose to have access to. The seller has no way of telling wether the buyer is honest without the UBC. So yeah I think you missed the point completely.

Even the bad sellers can preform legal transactions as long as the criminal buyer lies or the question isn't brought up. If you just don't sell guns to people that openly advertise about being blacklisted how are you ever going to be to caught for selling guns to bad guys without some sort of massive sting operation? The ATF doesn't need to setup these massive stings to investigate people, all they have to do is show their presence once in a while to get the good sellers to be aware that there's a risk of being caught if they don't preform the UBC. As for word-of-mouth sellers you can catch those by getting the criminals that bought the illegal guns to give them up for reduced time in jail, this happens plenty of time with drug dealers giving up their druglords.

The entire point is that it would be easier to enforce and as such require less funding, because the good sellers would only sell to law abiding citizens, and the criminals with the illegal guns would leave a trail back to the bad sellers, instead of the mix of good/bad sellers, as it is now.

[Eroginous]

I love it. One UBC supporter telling another UBC supporter that his logic behind UBC support is ridiculous.

The internet doesn't get much better than this.

There's no requirement to ask wether the guy has a clean background, and even then you're putting your faith in his word.

There's no reason for me to know anything about someone I'm selling my stuff to. Do you run a background check on a guy buying your used car? How do you know if he's going to use that vehicle to commit a crime? Do you run a background check on a guy buying your camper? How do you know if he's going to set up a meth lab inside?

When it comes to private sales, the entire premise is that both parties have something each other wants, and a transaction can be conducted with a reasonable degree of privacy. If I come to your house to buy your old exercise equipment, you don't ask me what I'm going to do with it. All you care about is getting rid of something you don't want anymore, while getting some sort of compensation from it.

This is what we call free trade.

Also you didn't say how you could define a business seller from a private seller. There are no records, there is no nothing

And who do you think is going to keep those records if UBC checks are required?

Well let's see. The criminal trying could simply lie and say he could pass a background check. He doesn't care if he is lying, because he is already breaking the law by purchasing a firearm he is not suppose to have access to. The seller has no way of telling wether the buyer is honest without the UBC. So yeah I think you missed the point completely.

If a seller has any suspicions about a buyer, they can do the following:

1. Refuse to sell their private property to him.

2. Go to any licensed FFL and run a background check at the buyer's expense.

Passing UBC legislature does not change anything.

Aside from that, you have people who intend to commit crimes being able to pass a background check with no criminal record. Everyone at some point has no criminal record, even would-be criminals.

If you just don't sell guns to people that openly advertise about being blacklisted how are you ever going to be to caught for selling guns to bad guys without some sort of massive sting operation?

Do you not understand that the FFL is responsible for keeping a record of the transaction on a gun sale? No one else has that record. In order for the FBI/ATF to do anything about about a bad FFL selling a gun to a criminal, they have to physically show up at the FFL's shop, do an audit of his records, and then conduct an investigation.

That involves following a paper trail to find out who bought/sold what to whom. In order for a UBC done by a private citizen to even be useful, the citizen has to keep some sort of record of their transaction. How many private citizens do you know who are good at keeping records? Some people are pack rats and keep EVERYTHING, and that usually ends up with their house looking like a trash bin. Other people are lazy as fuck, and don't keep track of their most valuable possessions, let alone a slip of paper with some random persons information on it after a private sale.

I'm willing to bet that the kind of person who is going to keep a useful record of each and every gun they've ever sold to another person, are people who are already Licensed gun dealers, or people who have no use for a gun to begin with.

The entire point is that it would be easier to enforce and as such require less funding, because the good sellers would only sell to law abiding citizens, and the criminals with the illegal guns would leave a trail back to the bad sellers, instead of the mix of good/bad sellers, as it is now.

At the end of the day, the FBI/ATF will STILL have to conduct an audit/investigation involving the private citizen who sold a gun to another private citizen. At the end of the day, it will be just as involved as any other audit/investigation done on an actual licensed dealer, and won't be any easier/less expensive. Nothing about UBCs will be 'easier to enforce' or less expensive than not having them.

Either way, the end result becomes an undue burden to a private citizen exercising their property rights.

[Deleted]

I have no idea why u keep bringing up FFLs. I haven't mentioned FFLs at all, yet u keep mentioning them again and again. Also you compare a gun which requires a UBC to purchase from a dealer, to a dumbell which requires no UBC to purchase from a dealer, you do realize there's a difference? Every time you buy alcohol you also pass a requirement (age), you don't just go sell that alcohol to whomever without them also passing the requirement, unless you want to face potential consequences. If there was a extremely large portion of autocampers being used as methlabs i'm sure we would see regulation as to whom you could sell these to aswell. Free trade doesn't exist, it's a myth, certain items are regulated otherwise why can't I purchase nuclear weapons at my local grocery store if I wanted to, i'm sure there's gotta be some demand to own one of those babies.

Also there's no requirement for the seller to be suspcious, he is entirely able to sell guns to whomever he fucking wants, as long as he doesn't have knowledge that the person he is selling the gun to is a criminal and can't pass an UBC, and that's the whole issue. There are no requirement for the private seller to care. Why is it that an FFL has to care, but a private seller doesn't have to care? Going to an FFL and getting an UBC only works for good sellers if they are suspcious of ALL people and that's kidda what i've been trying to say for a few pages now.

I also don't get what these "records" are you are referring to. All i'm saying is that for you be able to sell your gun to someone you don't know is that the buyer can present an UBC that informs the seller that he has passed an UBC, i'm sure you could create a system that would make it simple and easy to manage.

Less enforcement required = Less resources required = more resources to spend elsewhere. There's a massive difference between doing a simple undercover purchase and a massive surveillance operation.

[PhaelixWW]

Well let's see. The criminal trying could simply lie and say he could pass a background check. He doesn't care if he is lying, because he is already breaking the law by purchasing a firearm he is not suppose to have access to. The seller has no way of telling wether the buyer is honest without the UBC. So yeah I think you missed the point completely.

No, you completely moved the goalposts here. We were talking about how easy or not easy it would be for law enforcement to catch bad sellers. Now you're talking about good sellers with bad buyers, and no law enforcement at all.

Hence why I say that you missed the point, since this point doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the statement I asked you to defend.

If you choose to actually back up your statement, then tell us in detail just how law enforcement will have such an easier time of catching bad sellers with a UBC law than without one.

And for bonus points, let me point out something from California. California is the only state, I believe, that actually has an Armed Prohibited Persons Database. This is actually a database of people who are known to own firearms, but who are legally not allowed to. So it should be a simple process of cleaning up those guns and prosecuting those people, right? Wrong. California recently passed a bill raising $24 million in order to help clear the backlog of those entries in the database, because law enforcement couldn't keep up with new entries. People were being added to the list faster than law enforcement could apprehend, confiscate, and prosecute.

How on earth do you think the ATF could perform countless sting operations to shut down "bad sellers" even if they already knew who they were?

Even the bad sellers can preform legal transactions as long as the criminal buyer lies or the question isn't brought up.

For the millionth time: that's not a legal transaction. It's no more legal without a UBC law than it would be if there was a UBC law. Even with a UBC law, a bad seller selling to a criminal buyer... dude, that's shady already, so good luck making a difference there.

If you just don't sell guns to people that openly advertise about being blacklisted how are you ever going to be to caught for selling guns to bad guys without some sort of massive sting operation? The ATF doesn't need to setup these massive stings to investigate people, all they have to do is show their presence once in a while to get the good sellers to be aware that there's a risk of being caught if they don't preform the UBC.

Yeah. A UBC law would tend to make the good sellers and good buyers do the UBC, which won't affect anything since they're both honest. A bad seller will still be able to find criminal buyers and avoid the UBC. Any method that you could use to sting said bad sellers would also work now, without a UBC.

As for word-of-mouth sellers you can catch those by getting the criminals that bought the illegal guns to give them up for reduced time in jail, this happens plenty of time with drug dealers giving up their druglords.

Jesus, you've been watching too much TV. Now you're saying that we have to catch the end-user criminal, find the firearm, and convince him to give up his source rather than just lock away the criminal forever? What's the motivation? Who would DA really rather have behind bars? One shady seller or a criminal with a gun possession charge and who knows what else? Get real.

And if this supposed oft-used tactic is so effective, then why hasn't it worked for the war on drugs, hmm? Also, the conceptual difference between a "druglord" and a shady occasional gun seller is ridiculous. We're not talking about gunlords with thousands of warehoused guns that they're selling one-off to criminals in back-alley deals.

The entire point is that it would be easier to enforce and as such require less funding, because the good sellers would only sell to law abiding citizens, and the criminals with the illegal guns would leave a trail back to the bad sellers, instead of the mix of good/bad sellers, as it is now.

Good lord. The good sellers already pretty much only sell to law-abiding citizens.

Ultimately, the real area of benefit to a UBC law is in the borderline: good sellers selling to seemingly-honest criminals. And yet, it's observably true in California that even good sellers will often ignore the UBC law because of the hassle and because they think that the person they're selling to is not a bad person anyway. And all that may happen is that you might start squeezing these bad buyers more to bad sellers, of which there are plenty.

Having underground crimes go more underground doesn't make them easier to catch, man. I don't know how you can't see that.

---------- Post added 2013-06-18 at 10:35 AM ----------

In an aside, I guess that HuffPo, in a desire to fill the void of reported gun violence so far this year compared to last year, has now redefined "mass shooting".

Catholic Mass Shooting: Charles Richard Jennings Shot Father-In-Law At Utah Church, Police Say

OGDEN, Utah — A 35-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of walking into a Catholic church and shooting his father-in-law in the back of the head during Mass.

Charles Richard Jennings Jr., 35, was captured Sunday afternoon in nearby Box Elder County after fleeing in a stolen pickup truck, investigators said.

Witnesses say they heard one gunshot during the 11:30 a.m. Mass on Sunday at Saint James the Just Catholic Church in Ogden, and that parishioners immediately hit the floor.

So let's recap. Guy pulls out a gun, shoots only one round before being caught. The man who was shot is even expected to survive.

And yet this is a "mass shooting".

Great job, HuffPo.

Edit: Oh, hah. They meant "mass" as in church mass. Yeah, that's not going to be a misleading title. Better, but not great.

[Eroginous]

I have no idea why u keep bringing up FFLs.

There are only 3 ways to legal obtain a firearm:

1. Through an FFL.
2. Through a private citizen.
3. By making one yourself.

The very nature of your argument requires that we discuss FFLs, since you keep trying to draw a parallel to background checks required by a licensed dealer and the effects they would have if also required by private citizens.

I'm trying to get you to understand there is a difference between someone running a gun selling business (licensed FFL) and a private citizen. There's a reason we can required background checks on guns sold by one, and not the other. You don't seem to understand that.

Also you compare a gun which requires a UBC to purchase from a dealer, to a dumbell which requires no UBC to purchase from a dealer, you do realize there's a difference? Every time you buy alcohol you also pass a requirement (age), you don't just go sell that alcohol to whomever without them also passing the requirement, unless you want to face potential consequences. If there was a extremely large portion of autocampers being used as methlabs i'm sure we would see regulation as to whom you could sell these to aswell. Free trade doesn't exist, it's a myth, certain items are regulated otherwise why can't I purchase nuclear weapons at my local grocery store if I wanted to, i'm sure there's gotta be some demand to own one of those babies.

Checking for ID is to make sure we aren't selling alcohol/cigarettes to minors, we don't run background checks on people to make sure they aren't buying alcohol/cigarettes just to turn around and give them to minors. Also, I was specifically talking about private sales, not public sales. When you list your [insert X item here] on Craigslist, you just want to be rid of that item. The first guy who comes along with the right money is the guy who is going to get it. You don't want to know anything about him, and he doesn't want to know anything about you.

That's the nature of private sales. Guns are no exception.

Also there's no requirement for the seller to be suspcious

Why would there be? Please explain to me how you pass a law requiring people to feel a certain way.

he is entirely able to sell guns to whomever he fucking wants

Of course, that's the entire point of having private property rights.

as long as he doesn't have knowledge that the person he is selling the gun to is a criminal and can't pass an UBC, and that's the whole issue.

No, the issue is that you are expecting something completely unreasonable.

Why is it that an FFL has to care

The FFL doesn't have to care. He/she only has to follow a set of laws designed specifically for businesses that sell firearms. Laws which are not applicable to private sellers.

Going to an FFL and getting an UBC only works for good sellers if they are suspcious of ALL people and that's kidda what i've been trying to say for a few pages now.

Thank you for finally understanding the problem with requiring UBCs.

I also don't get what these "records" are you are referring to.

The point of a background check is twofold:

1. To avoid selling guns to prohibited persons.
2. To create a paper trail a gun can be traced by.

In order for the first one to be effective, the potential buyer has to supply enough accurate information to the seller in order for them to properly identify the buyer and determine whether or not they are prohibited from owning a firearm. A system could be implemented allowing private citizens to run background checks on their own, but a system would have to be complex enough to provide accurate results. The more complex the system, the more training a person would need in order to correctly use it.

If the system were too simple, then there would be too much room for error and the increased possibility of a prohibited person obtaining a firearm (system ineffective). This leads to the suggestion of letting someone who is already trained run the background check (a licensed FFL). To that point, any private citizen can already go to a FFL and have them run a background check. The citizens who would take the initiative to do a background check now, while it's not required, are the same ones who would do it even if it were required. Conversely, the same ones who aren't willing to do one now, are the same ones who won't be willing to do one if they were required.

You have a net gain of essentially 0. With that in mind, what happens when a private citizen doesn't submit a background check? To even catch someone, you have to enforce the law. Which means surveillance, investigation, ect. All things they could be doing now, but choose not to.

Going back to the two points, in order for the second purpose to be effective, there has to be paperwork. When a FFL sells a gun to someone, there is a paper background check form filled out by the potential buyer. This form is then submitted to the FBI. Once it comes back clean, the buyer receives his gun, and a file is created at that gun shop which links that particular gun to that person. On top of that, there is paperwork that links that gun back to the factory/distributor it came from.

In the event of a crime, authorities can run the serial on the gun, figure out who made it, where it was distributed to, and where it was sold. From there, they can contact that gun shop, find out who bought it, when, where they live, and a lot of other information. This is called the chain of custody. For a public gun sale, the person responsible for that paperwork is the FFL. If Private citizens are all of a sudden required to do background checks, they will also be required to keep all this paperwork in order to keep a traceable paper trail.

At what point do you think that process will be an undue burden?

Less enforcement required = Less resources required = more resources to spend elsewhere. There's a massive difference between doing a simple undercover purchase and a massive surveillance operation.

In order for an undercover purchase to be admissible in court, they have to have surveillance. Like I've told you before, there is no difference between the work required to catch bad gun dealers or bad private citizens. Also, we don't want less enforcement. We want MORE enforcement.

[Mazar]

Pick up my gsg522 .2lr on Thursday, stupid 10 day waiting period. Gun controll will be small groups on my target!

[Svifnymr]

There's no requirement to ask wether the guy has a clean background, and even then you're putting your faith in his word. I somehow doubt someone with a criminal history trying to get access to a gun is going to be honest (at least not the 2nd time he tries).

As I said, I'd like a voluntary, easily accesible background check system so that a concerned seller could call a number or use an internet ap to run a quick background check. "Approved" if it's fine, or "See Dealer" if there's an issue.

Also you didn't say how you could define a business seller from a private seller. There are no records, there is no nothing, if you wanted you could buy large collections and sell them away by just answering the ATFE that you have a aqquired a large collection at home with several thousand of guns (which is legal!).

They are not going to enforce a law on a singular basis, by it's nature they're targeting large sellers. If they can't figure out which large sellers at a show are not licensed, they're idiots and should hand in their badges. From there we have the watching them to see if inventory is replenished, if they're buying guns and reselling, or possibly a sting operation whereby you offer up the information that you are prohibited and if they still sell then you bust them for it.

All I have to say is good luck to the law enforcement that has to catch these illegal gun sellers that are hiding in the shadow of the legal private sales. Unless the seller is dumb it's virtually impossible to catch him.

As I mentioned, that seller that was so stupid he was bragging to an undercover agent? He had come to the attention of law enforcement twice before as the article says. They knew he was selling guns illegally, over a period of at least a year, but did not investigate him until after the cop was shot.

[Roxinius]

Pick up my gsg522 .2lr on Thursday, stupid 10 day waiting period. Gun controll will be small groups on my target!

you made a mistake should have went with the Umarex mp5 clone it feels so much better and shoots a hell of a lot better then the gsg

[PhaelixWW]

I thought this was an interesting graphic. Despite this common belief that mass shootings are more common and more disastrous these days, the truth is anything but.



That graphic sure makes it look like mass shootings have been fairly consistent over the last few decades. And those are incident counts, not rates. Considering that the population of the US grew by more than a third between 1980 and 2010 (from 226m to 309m), then the mass shooting rates would actually be declining.

From the original source:

Over the thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass [shooting] murders have occurred annually in the United States with an average death toll of about 100 per year.

And from another source that links the above article:

The number of deaths from mass shootings in 2012 thus far is reportedly 68, which is actually less than Fox's figure for 2010.

And then where are all the mass shootings we've been told to expect so far in 2013? Wasn't this type of incident supposed to be rising dramatically? Didn't we need legislation to prevent it?

We're about halfway through 2013 and so far I see, what, three events? The South Valley, NM familicide with 5 deaths in January. The LAPD shooter with 4 deaths in February. And the Santa Monica, CA shooting spree with 5 dead in June.

[Tinykong]

I thought this was an interesting graphic. Despite this common belief that mass shootings are more common and more disastrous these days, the truth is anything but.

Gun control legislation has died at a national level because contrary to all the chicken little's squawking about how the sky is falling...

...it isn't.

The data about the decline of violence and gun crime isn't being reported because it will undermine the news cycle of reporting the stories of violence and sensationalizing them.

The gun control crowd is left with hyperbole, conjecture and fear mongering. I don't even see the need to have this thread any longer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The gun control crowd is left with hyperbole, conjecture and fear mongering. I don't even see the need to have this thread any longer.

The irony is overwhelming, especially that last part. Fear has been used to drive gun sales for awhile now.

Both sides want to reduce gun related crime. It's just that one side seems to believe that MORE guns is the answer. That same side also opposes any kind of legislation whatsoever, despite facts and figures. You know, with hyperbole and conjecture.

[rhandric]

The irony is overwhelming, especially that last part. Fear has been used to drive gun sales for awhile now.

Both sides want to reduce gun related crime. It's just that one side seems to believe that MORE guns is the answer. That same side also opposes any kind of legislation whatsoever, despite facts and figures. You know, hyperbole and conjecture.

One side wants to regulate away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution for no actual impact. The other side wants to guarantee those rights, as removing those rights would not solve anything and would likely increase other, non-gun-related crime. Simple as that.

[Tinykong]

The irony is overwhelming, especially that last part. Fear has been used to drive gun sales for awhile now.

Both sides want to reduce gun related crime. It's just that one side seems to believe that MORE guns is the answer. That same side also opposes any kind of legislation whatsoever, despite facts and figures. You know, hyperbole and conjecture.

Why does it matter if gun manufacturer's use fear and hyperbole about things like zombie outbreaks and roaming packs of criminals ala Mad Max to sell guns? They aren't in the business of writing laws, they are in the business of selling guns.

Gun related crime is down, despite being "awash in guns" (channeling Wells here.) Millions of guns will be used responsibly this year, and every year. Gun crime and illegal use is the exception, not the rule.

[Cthulhu 2020]

One side wants to regulate away the rights guaranteed by the Constitution for no actual impact. The other side wants to guarantee those rights, as removing those rights would not solve anything and would likely increase other, non-gun-related crime. Simple as that.

Channeling tons of pro-gun arguments, background checks apparently don't stop criminals despite...

you know...

stopping over 100 gun sales a day to criminals, felons, and illegals.

No impact? Not solving anything? It's already been proven that current measures are effective, and need to be made universal, and the not-a-loophole loophole needs to be closed.

The pro-gun side parrots NRA and things that pundits say that oppose these measures cause they sound good, but don't really hold up in the light of facts.

---------- Post added 2013-06-20 at 03:09 PM ----------

Why does it matter if gun manufacturer's use fear and hyperbole about things like zombie outbreaks and roaming packs of criminals ala Mad Max to sell guns? They aren't in the business of writing laws, they are in the business of selling guns.

I hope you at least see the extreme irony of criticizing one side for using fear to push an agenda, when the other side is far more liberal in their use of fear to oppose that legislation and sell guns.

Gun related crime is down, despite being "awash in guns" (channeling Wells here.) Millions of guns will be used responsibly this year, and every year. Gun crime and illegal use is the exception, not the rule.

When comparing the US with every other first world country, gun violence rates are abysmally high, so something obviously isn't working.

[Tinykong]

I hope you at least see the extreme irony of criticizing one side for using fear to push an agenda, when the other side is far more liberal in their use of fear to oppose that legislation and sell guns.

Do you understand the difference between what private enterprise does and what government does?

Hint: one of them controls what people can do, and one does not.

[PhaelixWW]

The irony is overwhelming, especially that last part. Fear has been used to drive gun sales for awhile now.

I'm sorry, I laughed out loud at that.

Fear may be driving gun sales, but where did that fear come from? People aren't buying guns because they're suddenly afraid for their life. I mean, people sometimes do buy guns for that purpose, whether or not there's a specific tangible fear or simply for protection from the unknown. But you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the recent surge in gun sales is due in any part to that.

No, the fear that's driving gun sales is simply the fear of not being able to get said gun later if certain legislators have their way. And let's be honest, that fear was created by the vast amounts of pointless gun control legislation put forth by elected officials all over the country. Legislation that in many cases won't even pass, and wouldn't have been effective even had it passed.

Had the various city, state, and federal government legislative bodies confined their efforts to a few areas where a law might actually make a real difference, that fear wouldn't have been as widespread. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with a law-abiding person exercising their right to own a firearm legally.

So, then, here's a question? Do you think this "fear" you're talking about has led more criminals to be armed? Do you think this "fear" will lead to more criminal shootings? If so... where are they?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well I suppose if making people fearful of zombies/boogiemen/the government and telling them that they need to buy guns, is their choice, then you're right.

I still hope you see the absolute irony in criticizing people for using fear, when it was used to both push unnecessary numbers of gun sales and oppose legislation that was equally being pushed by fear.

[Toxigen]

Truth: places in the US where "open carry" is permitted / encouraged has much less crime.

Gun control is bad for America.