I bought a gun

[Peace]

Bought my first gun a few months ago. A Sig Sauer P225A-1, if anyone is into these sort of things.

I live in Virginia, and I have to say that it was super easy to buy. It was like, I decided at 1pm that would buy a gun. At 2pm I was leaving the store with the gun. I am not sure because I did not try, but I am pretty sure I could have picked up an AR-15 and a few shotguns to throw in my trunk just as easily. I'll probably buy a shotgun at some point. The AR-15 I can do without for the moment.

Obviously I bought a gun so I am not an anti-gun person, but at the same time at least here, I feel like it may be too easy to buy. You do not have to register your guns in VA, so I think I could easily give or sell my gun to any other person of my choosing. And I wonder if there should not be some form of psychological testing for gun ownership. I mean, I don't think that someone should need to take a psych exam to buy a handgun for personal defense, but I think at least the way it is set up now, a person who is truly mentally unstable, could probably stockpile a bunch of weapons in his home pretty easily, if he does not have any criminal record. I feel like there should be some king of limit on the amount or type of weapons that people can buy without subjecting himself to more extensive background checks.

[Guest]

The people don't care. Not even when innocent kids get shot up in school and beg for safer regulations. People are only pro-life on issues that suite them.

[Anomaly]

It is a State level law that regulates hand gun waiting period.  That’s what baffles most people.   In Florida, it’s three business days and a mandatory background check.    No waiting in VA is a shock, because I can’t imagine an effective background check. 

Most long guns (shotguns and rifles) don’t have a waiting period as they’re rarely used in crime. 

Mist people support background checks, but it falls apart when it comes to deciding what the thresholds are to deny purchasing a gun and then “anti-any-guns-at-all” lobbying shuts down any reasonable compromise because they activate the extreme “unrestricted-gun-access” nut jobs.  

Everything devolves to the polar opposite extremes causing gridlock. 

I’d  like to see people having to pass a gun competency test, a background check, and then be licensed to own a gun.  Period.   Just like a driver license.   

[linate]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It is a State level law that regulates hand gun waiting period.  That’s what baffles most people.   In Florida, it’s three business days and a mandatory background check.    No waiting in VA is a shock, because I can’t imagine an effective background check. 

Most long guns (shotguns and rifles) don’t have a waiting period as they’re rarely used in crime. 

Mist people support background checks, but it falls apart when it comes to deciding what the thresholds are to deny purchasing a gun and then “anti-any-guns-at-all” lobbying shuts down any reasonable compromise because they activate the extreme “unrestricted-gun-access” nut jobs.  

Everything devolves to the polar opposite extremes causing gridlock. 

I’d  like to see people having to pass a gun competency test, a background check, and then be licensed to own a gun.  Period.   Just like a driver license.   

 

have you evolved on the gun issue? i remember you being a pretty big pro gun dude. but that might have been more in the abstract or something. 

[Anomaly]

I haven’t changed.  

I’m pro gun and pro standard competence requirements.    I’m against outlawing any guns.   Of course I’d come across as an NRA nut to an anti-gun nut.  And I’d seem an anti-gun nut to many in the NRA.  

[Dimitri]

It's quite an interesting cultural difference really. Arguably, most countries in Europe have a more communist stance, believing that it is the task of the government to protect its citizens. In this view, the United States has failed in this, since why would one need a gun, if his safety is taken care of already? Being brought up this way, the sheer thought of owning a gun legally baffles me - and I believe it to be a disgrace. I imagine I would have come to another conclusion if I grew up in a state where they are allowed, though. We should always consider the circumstances and time we are born in.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Dimitri said:

It's quite an interesting cultural difference really. Arguably, most countries in Europe have a more communist stance, believing that it is the task of the government to protect its citizens. In this view, the United States has failed in this, since why would one need a gun, if his safety is taken care of already? Being brought up this way, the sheer thought of owning a gun legally baffles me - and I believe it to be a disgrace. I imagine I would have come to another conclusion if I grew up in a state where they are allowed, though. We should always consider the circumstances and time we are born in.

That's an interesting take on it. I could be murdered walking the street in any European city. As good as the governments in those cities may be, situations still arise where the only means of preventing harm to oneself is self-defense. I'd rather have a gun in one of those situations. Would you not?

[Maximilianus]

I built a gun today. 

 

that is all, carry on

[Guest]

I am an Aussie - great gun laws.  

[Dimitri]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

That's an interesting take on it. I could be murdered walking the street in any European city. As good as the governments in those cities may be, situations still arise where the only means of preventing harm to oneself is self-defense. I'd rather have a gun in one of those situations. Would you not?

I suppose you are right in a  way. Maybe I broadened it a bit too much, there are indeed places in Europe where you could be murdered walking down the street. It is still hard for me to imagine such a thing where I live though, while terrorist attacks are quite imminent sometimes, like school shootings in the USA. Such a thing could occur, but unless you are a high-profile criminal, you won't just be shot point-blank. 

Perhaps I am young and naive. I believe in the good heart of men, though sometimes it does get difficult to believe. Yes, if such a situation arises where self-defense would be the only option, I would like to have a gun. At the same time, must you not turn your other cheek? (Forgive me if I misinterpret the Bible). It could simply be the will of God that you will die in this situation, and the likelihood of all that happening stays rather small.

 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Dimitri said:

I suppose you are right in a  way. Maybe I broadened it a bit too much, there are indeed places in Europe where you could be murdered walking down the street. It is still hard for me to imagine such a thing where I live though, while terrorist attacks are quite imminent sometimes, like school shootings in the USA. Such a thing could occur, but unless you are a high-profile criminal, you won't just be shot point-blank. 

I feel pretty safe here. But yeah, it sounds like there is more crime here than where you live. That probably shapes our different views. I have been through Europe though. There were definitely some parts of France, Germany and England where I did not feel safe.

4 hours ago, Dimitri said:

Perhaps I am young and naive. I believe in the good heart of men, though sometimes it does get difficult to believe. Yes, if such a situation arises where self-defense would be the only option, I would like to have a gun. At the same time, must you not turn your other cheek? (Forgive me if I misinterpret the Bible). It could simply be the will of God that you will die in this situation, and the likelihood of all that happening stays rather small.

I will avoid confrontation when I can, but unless I receive a direct message from the Lord to allow someone to cause me harm, I plan on defending myself. I do not think that contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches concerning that:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

[Ash Wednesday]

On 9/8/2018 at 3:04 PM, Dimitri said:

It's quite an interesting cultural difference really. Arguably, most countries in Europe have a more communist stance, believing that it is the task of the government to protect its citizens. In this view, the United States has failed in this, since why would one need a gun, if his safety is taken care of already? Being brought up this way, the sheer thought of owning a gun legally baffles me - and I believe it to be a disgrace. I imagine I would have come to another conclusion if I grew up in a state where they are allowed, though. We should always consider the circumstances and time we are born in.

I am American and I live in the UK now and am married to a European, and there is a vast difference between Americans and Europeans in terms of attitudes about government and how much the government can be trusted, and I think that manifests itself in the differences in gun laws. Americans have a much deeper rooted mistrust of the government that goes all the way back to the revolution, and Americans tend to not trust that the government would do a sufficient job in protecting its citizens. 

Personally I am in favor of gun control, probably similar to Peace's stance, where I don't think they should be as easy to obtain as they are now. I'm not sure that the founding fathers really envisioned the kind of weapons that would be available in the future when they drafted the second amendment. That said, I don't favor them being banned outright, in situations where people have a serious need for them (especially rural areas, protection against things like wolves and bears, farmers needing to protect their livestock from predatory animals, or people that hunt for food) Though I'd say America is in a difficult situation as far as realistically expecting a gun-free society, because it's hard to convince Americans that they don't need a gun and could safely live without a gun when it's in the constitution and so many of the wrong people also have their hands on them. Europeans have this gross stereotype of American gun owners as being total violence-loving loons and it's completely uncharitable and false. A lot of Americans of good character have guns simply because they do not feel safe, given the way things are, I can't say I blame them. In a lot of places in America, it's pretty much every man for themselves, and I get a little sick of Europeans acting so morally superior and passing judgment on how Americans are, when it's a lot easier to run and oversee the safety needs of a smaller European country than it is a very large country like the U.S.

That said, if these shootings continue, Americans may reach a point where they become completely fed up, especially if attitudes towards guns and the interpretation of the second amendment change among future generations. 

[Kateri89]

I used to say I was for “gun control” until I did some research on all the different firearms.  Aside from the already existing ban on fully automatic rifles (for the most part, since it’s technically still legal but extremely restricted), I don’t see the use of banning any other type of firearm.  I absolutely support a waiting period provided it’s not too long in case someone is trying to buy a gun where they think they might be in more imminent danger.  I also definitely support further psychological screening as well as some sort of test to ensure that the person knows how to properly assemble/clean/disharge the firearm. It’s also important to talk about transfer laws, etc.

 

I do think that we need a massive overhaul of our mental health system in this country though in order to see any change.  In many mass shooting cases, the perpetrators were reported to authorities multiple times before the massacre occurred.  It’s possible that those authorities either a) ignored the reports or b) were hamstrung because of how overloaded mental health institutions are.  I was a psych nurse in an inner city hospital for a few years and I’m a firm supporter of state psych hospitals where the most severely mentally ill should live.  This would free up beds in acute care units for people who need help in the short term.  Plus, at least in my state, if someone is involuntarily committed to a psych unit, they are legally never allowed to purchase a firearm again.  So if we could get these people involuntarily committed and then in the future they tried to buy a gun, there would be a red flag to prevent the purchase.

Lastly, if you look up the government statistics, I think people would be surprised at how many murders and other crimes are prevented by law abiding, gun owning citizens.  So it could be argued that in some ways our society is safer because of guns.  Of course everything is a trade off; you’ll never stop crime altogether.