Let me preface this by saying two things:
What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?
For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.
These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.
Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.
These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.
I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
- I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
- I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?
For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.
These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.
Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.
These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.
I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
Last edited:
