What worries you about gun reform?
Wanting better mental health checks and background checks seems like something everyone could agree to, but they don't. Is the fear that it will be a slippery slope leading to guns being taken?
Can gun reform happen without interfering with gun owners rights?
That it won't happen. We really NEED gun control in the USA. People are totally out of control on this issue.
President Reagan was surrounded by armed Secret Service - people trained to protect the president, and yet he was still shot, as was Brady. Why does it take a tragedy like this one before even small amounts of gun control are enacted?
If someone is determined to kill, they will do so. If guns are easy to obtain, they will use guns. But of course, that is not the only way to kill. We simply need to make it harder to get guns and other weapons.
The more hoops a killer has to jump through to get weapons, the better. No one is suggesting taking away the guns of law abiding citizens. Yet these gun rights supporters instantly jump to that conclusion.
We just need to make it harder or next to impossible for killers to get weapons! Period. End of sentence.
You are right, it seems the second someone suggests gun control they assume it means take guns away from good people. Reform doesn't have to be a bad thing if people would actually get involved instead of forming an opinion without facts.
I was going to answer this question, but it seems you have done it so well, that I have nothing to add.
Gun reform to me is mute. There are two sides of the fence that are outspoken while a very, very wide fence is silent. Prominent displays of the media keep this issue alive and well fueling those two sides of the fence. With reform in my IMO there are three elements:
For the purist those are at task not the issue of firearms. Firearms are the catalyst. Thus, the complexity of discussions regarding the 2nd amendment many times hidden are those three elements.
I am not going to argue gun control. I am only offering some things to ponder while for some is only fodder for debate.
For instance regarding mental health how does one constitute that? Today it is narrowly defined by federal law prohibiting gun ownership.
"Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”
Adjudicated simply means the courts proclaim one a mental defect with cause. You don't have to be a criminal to receive that. 'Committed' is an involuntary stay at a mental institution. That means two are arguing and one is arrested. That person is taken in for a 24 hour observation per a law enforcement officers determination. Not a mental health professional. The end result is everything is okay. Alas, that was involuntary. What is the next step? Voluntary stay?
Perhaps anyone who enters professional therapy? Anytime you go to therapy for them to bill the insurance company they have to state a diagnosis with a code. Will the professional therapist have to report certain codes to the ATF and/or a state agency? Does that mean if you enter therapy on the form you fill out you will have give notice you own a firearm(s). After all if the wrong code it (they) will have to surrendered or confiscated. Next, is filling out the form for purchasing a gun. So, you have to state that you were in therapy and what it was for?
I am not able to fathom how that can be regulated while not relinquishing individual rights as a citizen.
This is a very good perspective. The biggest issue determining any form of reform or law is who decides it is wrong and what constitutes wrong enough to count. I think there are ways around this issue. Unfortunately not room in this comment box.Thx
Is that a real thing? I can't tell with the way the world has been going. Being able to obtain a gun is just like buying a cheeseburger at McDonalds now. Anyone can do it.
I'm not even sure if this will really be able to happen. Where would they start? Take the guns that you see people with all over the country, but what about the ones people have hidden? It will be a huge undertaking that I am not sure we have enough resources for. And like your last question states: will it interfere with gun owner's right? Will they take all guns, and then reissue them? How will that work? If some of the crazies out here are able to obtain a gun, how do you then determine which gun owners should be given their property back? Will the gun owners be compensated or reimbursed for having their property taken? Sounds like this will be a tough decision and long, drawn out process no matter what side you are on.
My biggest worry is that they'll take away the guns from the law-abiding, responsible owners and then find out that it didn't make any difference after all.
by Marcy Goodfleisch3 months ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
by Leland Johnson2 hours ago
The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools. Gunmen attack soft targets. They like to...
by strengthcourageme3 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by Michael Collins4 years ago
Gun Control Do you care?Do you care about all the talk about gun control? Do you think anything will happen with all the talk?
by Cindy Vine6 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Earl S. Wynn7 years ago
Does gun control prevent crimes?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.