What are some anti-gun ideas you can understand but don’t agree with? Can you explain what they are and exactly why they’re wrong, misinformed, or just straight-up not true?
I’m not sure I’m able to understand the questions…
Excuse me for my stupidity today. May I ask you to put that in another way?
Universal background checks. I understand it and anti-gun types almost always want it (along with some gun types) but personally I think it is an infringement of our rights.
Is this the type of thing you are asking @Liam?
Well, this qualifies as something from the anti-gunners that I don’t understand. I have a Florida CWL and still have to pass through the governmental approval system before I can buy a gun…it just takes less time, because I don’t have to wait 3 days. There’s no such thing as a “gun show loophole,” since I attended a gun show last weekend and saw signs EVERYWHERE reminding me that any gun sales/purchases had to go through a FFL holder.
Yes this is exactly what I’m asking. What is something that anti-gunners say that you can understand, but ultimately don’t agree with.
For example, if anti-gunners say countries with less guns have less crime, what would you say?
Even CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html), decries the US gun-related death rate while saying that our southern neighbors (Central and S America) see more gun-related homicides. This is partially borne out by independent research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - I know, it’s Wikipedia…). All that shows is that the US, in terms of per-capita gun ownership and gun-related death, is an outlier. However, if you remove suicide from the gun-related death numbers in the WIkipedia article, we drop significantly. Without delving into the numbers deeply (my last Statistics course was more than 30 years ago), I would have to say there is a weak to nonexistent correlation between the rate of gun ownership and gun-related homicides. YMMV
I would say BuLLShft
Universal background checks - I understand the concept of wanting everyone to go through a background check to ensure that individuals who shouldn’t have guns don’t get them. However I disagree with it from the aspect that it can be as dogmatic as prohibiting loaning a gun to a friend for hunting or at the range without an FFL transfer, or passing guns down to kids. Also, in order to enforce it, ALL guns would have to be registered (otherwise how would the Gov’t know a transfer has occurred) and I’m against registration in any and all forms.
Red Flag Laws - I understand the idea of wanting to get a gun out of someone’s hands that may have intention to harm themselves or others. However most of the ones I’ve seen don’t afford the “flagged” any type of real/fair due process.
Gun Free Zones - I understand the idea of having an area where no one brings any weapons in to and so everyone in that area is safe (relatively). However as we’ve seen time and time again criminals (by definition) do not follow the law and the results are a zone where the law-abiding are unarmed and the criminals are armed.
Dude, this is perfect. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
Red flag laws. I understand the concept, of trying to stop someone, who had the potential to harm others. Where I don’t agree with the ERPO’S, is this, if they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be walking around in society. Be it a mental health issue, or they are a criminal. Also, I don’t agree with taking away someone’s due process.