Gun Paranoia (1 Viewer)

[Hawkeye21]

I'm curious where everyone actually stands on this.  For the most part I think people feel there are only two groups, those who own guns and those who don't but I know that is not accurate.

 

[[scooter]]

What, no option for "I am [not] a gun owner and I don't think guns will be confiscated, but I do care about the issue because I made a lot of money by investing in gun companies in 2008"??

 

[BroadwayG]

Own guns. Not concerned. (Don't own any semi-automatic rifles)

 

[Hawkeye21]

What, no option for "I am [not] gun owner and I don't think guns will be confiscated, but I do care about the issue because I made a lot of money by investing in gun companies in 2008"??

I tried to think of all the options but missed that one.  I like it though.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Taken away when, and how.  I don't think this will happen soon, or even in my lifetime, but yes, eventually I do believe it will happen.  I also believe it will happen without the 2nd amendment being properly addressed.  That concerns me.  If by concern do you mean I might feel less safe after confiscation, not that I can foresee.  Oh, I also happen to believe it will not be efficacious in reducing crime and victimization when it happens, but who knows?

 

[Hawkeye21]

Taken away when, and how.  I don't think this will happen soon, or even in my lifetime, but yes, eventually I do believe it will happen.  I also believe it will happen without the 2nd amendment being properly addressed.  That concerns me.  If by concern do you mean I might feel less safe after confiscation, not that I can foresee.  Oh, I also happen to believe it will not be efficacious in reducing crime and victimization when it happens, but who knows?

When I think of someone who owns guns and is concerned about them being taken away I think of someone like Stealthy.  I'm in the group of gun owners who is not worried about it happening.  When I say taken away I mean being confiscated from us in the near future like the NRA likes to say as a means of fear mongering.

This isn't about certain types of guns being banned or anything like that.  It's about the fear of liberals wanting to get rid of all guns like certain people seem to be paranoid about.

 

[KCitons]

When I think of someone who owns guns and is concerned about them being taken away I think of someone like Stealthy.  I'm in the group of gun owners who is not worried about it happening.  When I say taken away I mean being confiscated from us in the near future like the NRA likes to say as a means of fear mongering.

This isn't about certain types of guns being banned or anything like that.  It's about the fear of liberals wanting to get rid of all guns like certain people seem to be paranoid about.

I think you're missing a huge piece in the pole. I may not be worried about confiscation, because I don't believe our LE will have the resources or will to carry out such action. What I am worried about is the changes in laws that will force me to give up my guns in order to prevent being a criminal. 

I guess I'd call it passive or self inflicted confiscation. You can't get rid of all guns until you start with the first one. As DW stated upthread, what happens when certain guns are made illegal and the problem doesn't go away? The logical answer will be to expand the types of guns in hopes of achieving the desired result. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

I think you're missing a huge piece in the pole. I may not be worried about confiscation, because I don't believe our LE will have the resources or will to carry out such action. What I am worried about is the changes in laws that will force me to give up my guns in order to prevent being a criminal. 

I guess I'd call it passive or self inflicted confiscation. You can't get rid of all guns until you start with the first one. As DW stated upthread, what happens when certain guns are made illegal and the problem doesn't go away? The logical answer will be to expand the types of guns in hopes of achieving the desired result. 

You have a good point but my poll has the questions I wanted at this time.  I'm curious how many people are actually rational about this subject and not overreacting.

 

[KCitons]

You have a good point but my poll has the questions I wanted at this time.  I'm curious how many people are actually rational about this subject and not overreacting.

Fair enough. But, it sounds like you're adapting the question to get the answers you want. Not a real reflection of how people feel. It's like asking what's everyone's favorite color. But only giving the choices of Red, Blue, and Yellow. 

 

[NCCommish]

Well again we ignore nearly 200 years of precedent when we claim an unlimited right of ownership. No one believed that until very recently historically. So all this open carry crap would've gotten you jail time in many towns in the old west for example.

But to the question at hand.  I have owned guns and enjoyed them. I dont own one now due to the fact that I live with someone who is clinically depressed and the chances of suicide go way up when there is a gun around. I dont think they are ever going to confiscate any guns. 

 

[Quint]

i don't own a gun.

if the government decided to make a certain type of firearm illegal to own - i.e. you would face criminal charges if found in possession of said weapon - with the intent of reducing the number of weapons in the population, the next logical step to get these guns out of circulation would be to physically take them away.

sure, the government could offer a buy-back program or voluntary surrender system to encourage people to turn them over, and that's probably a good idea if something like this came to pass. but there are going to be people who will willfully decide to keep these firearms and be in violation of the law. and when someone decides to call law enforcement to report their neighbor has a [insert banned firearm type here] in their house, will LE just ignore it?

 

[Hawkeye21]

i don't own a gun.

if the government decided to make a certain type of firearm illegal to own - i.e. you would face criminal charges if found in possession of said weapon - with the intent of reducing the number of weapons in the population, the next logical step to get these guns out of circulation would be to physically take them away.

sure, the government could offer a buy-back program or voluntary surrender system to encourage people to turn them over, and that's probably a good idea if something like this came to pass. but there are going to be people who will willfully decide to keep these firearms and be in violation of the law. and when someone decides to call law enforcement to report their neighbor has a [insert banned firearm type here] in their house, will LE just ignore it?

My question is more directed towards there being paranoia towards all guns being confiscated from the government because of the liberal agenda.  Isn't that the fear that conservatives have and isn't that one of the main talking points of the NRA?

 

[jonessed]

When I think of someone who owns guns and is concerned about them being taken away I think of someone like Stealthy.  I'm in the group of gun owners who is not worried about it happening.  When I say taken away I mean being confiscated from us in the near future like the NRA likes to say as a means of fear mongering.

This isn't about certain types of guns being banned or anything like that.  It's about the fear of liberals wanting to get rid of all guns like certain people seem to be paranoid about.

So the purpose of the poll is to identify how many paranoid people have bought into the NRA fear mongering?  That seems rather disingenuous. 

 

[Quint]

My question is more directed towards there being paranoia towards all guns being confiscated from the government because of the liberal agenda.  Isn't that the fear that conservatives have and isn't that one of the main talking points of the NRA?

maybe i read the poll incorrectly.

i'm not paranoid about the government confiscating "...all guns..." or ones deemed illegal via [potential] legislation.

however, in my mind that would be the next logical step if legislation like i described were to be enacted and the government was serious about removing "illegal" firearms from the population that were not accounted for by the implementation of a buy-back or voluntary surrender programs.

it was kinda touched on here, though obviously NZ and USA aren't the same.

 

[abbottjamesr]

I answered "I own guns and am worried".  But I can be worried and not over react.  We all saw what happened in NZ recently.  I don't think it will happen soon and I don't think it will be a door to door confiscation.  However, more and more will be made illegal to own or at least harder to own and harder to acquire.  I will keep what I have hidden away if this happens as I truly believe that peaceful non-compliance with unjust laws is an appropriate response to my constitutional rights being eroded.

 

[McJose]

 

Didn’t Obama take them all already?

 

[rockaction]

I agree with DW, Quint, and KCitons. There is reason to believe that certain law-abiding citizens will become criminals in the future due to the regulation of certain types of weaponry. There is always a fear that without a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment that the authorities will come for certain or all guns, either federally or at the state and municipal level, which is where the groundbreaking Heller case and others sprung from (the municipal level).

This poll is seriously flawed and seeks a self-confirmation bias. It's really not even sneakily underhanded in its question nor application; it's just insulting to those of us with a ####### brain. 

eta* Not a gun owner, and frankly, I dislike them. But I sure as #### don't like them in the authorities' hands. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

I agree with DW, Quint, and KCitons. There is reason to believe that certain law-abiding citizens will become criminals in the future due to the regulation of certain types of weaponry. There is always a fear that without a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment that the authorities will come for certain or all guns, either federally or at the state and municipal level, which is where the groundbreaking Heller case and others sprung from (the municipal level).

This poll is seriously flawed and seeks a self-confirmation bias. It's really not even sneakily underhanded in its question nor application; it's just insulting to those of us with a ####### brain. 

eta* Not a gun owner, and frankly, I dislike them. But I sure as #### don't like them in the authorities' hands. 

It's insulting?  You have issues if you're insulted by a basic poll.  It was a simple attempt to see where people stand on how worried they are that the government is going to seize all guns from citizens.  I myself think it's pretty far fetched to see that happened and therefor I am not worried as a gun owner.  There are others that are very worried that it's going to happen.  If my poll did not meet your standards then I apologize.

 

[Sabertooth]

The government doesn't need to seize guns.  Why would they? If they really want to arrest somebody, they will just do it and confiscate all their belongings.  In the name of "Freedom" of course.  People will comply, they always will.  

 

[Sabertooth]

maybe i read the poll incorrectly.

i'm not paranoid about the government confiscating "...all guns..." or ones deemed illegal via [potential] legislation.

however, in my mind that would be the next logical step if legislation like i described were to be enacted and the government was serious about removing "illegal" firearms from the population that were not accounted for by the implementation of a buy-back or voluntary surrender programs.

it was kinda touched on here, though obviously NZ and USA aren't the same.

Why does their have to be a "next logical step?"    Is the next logical step for road speed laws simply to make everybody stop going at any speed?  Is the next logical step to abortion laws going to be killing babies up to 2 years old?  Of course not.  

 

[supermike80]

The endless whining by gun owners makes me care less and less about the 2nd amendment.   

 

[KCitons]

Why does their have to be a "next logical step?"    Is the next logical step for road speed laws simply to make everybody stop going at any speed?  Is the next logical step to abortion laws going to be killing babies up to 2 years old?  Of course not.  

Because the reason for the laws is to change behavior (shootings). Once the semi auto ban has been passed, and the number of shootings (specifically mass shootings) doesn't change enough, there will be a call for more action (the next logical step) in order to attempt to change behavior. 

Until people concentrate on the root cause of the behavior, they will continue to chase their tales trying to solve this problem. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

The endless whining by gun owners makes me care less and less about the 2nd amendment.   

Not all gun owners are that way.  There are plenty of people who own guns that are not infatuated with them.  The ones that are the most vocal about the 2nd amendment scare me a little.  Many of them are the type that do not respond well to criticism or threats.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Because the reason for the laws is to change behavior (shootings). Once the semi auto ban has been passed, and the number of shootings (specifically mass shootings) doesn't change enough, there will be a call for more action (the next logical step) in order to attempt to change behavior. 

Until people concentrate on the root cause of the behavior, they will continue to chase their tales trying to solve this problem. 

Wasn't there already a ban on those types of guns?  I don't remember them banning more guns afterwards.

 

[KCitons]

The endless whining by gun owners makes me care less and less about the 2nd amendment.   

Do you apply the same theory to every other social issue? It's a rather lazy and closed minded comment. Base your opinion on your beliefs, not the whining of other people. 

 

[rockaction]

It's insulting?  You have issues if you're insulted by a basic poll.  It was a simple attempt to see where people stand on how worried they are that the government is going to seize all guns from citizens.  I myself think it's pretty far fetched to see that happened and therefor I am not worried as a gun owner.  There are others that are very worried that it's going to happen.  If my poll did not meet your standards then I apologize.

Using the poll to gauge people's "paranoi[a]" about the government seizing guns sounds like a judgment already made about the holder of the subject and their views. It implies emotional or mental instability. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on me having issues because it was a "simple attempt to see where people stand."

"Paranoi[a]," you called it. Your words, not mine.

 

[supermike80]

Not all gun owners are that way.  There are plenty of people who own guns that are not infatuated with them.  The ones that are the most vocal about the 2nd amendment scare me a little.  Many of them are the type that do not respond well to criticism or threats.

I know not all are.....Thats true with pretty much every group.

 

[supermike80]

Do you apply the same theory to every other social issue? It's a rather lazy and closed minded comment. Base your opinion on your beliefs, not the whining of other people. 

I don't need your advice.  But thanks.

 

[KCitons]

Wasn't there already a ban on those types of guns?  I don't remember them banning more guns afterwards.

Yes there was. Wasn't there a ban on alcohol at one time as well?

Things are different from what they were 20 years ago. Both from a technology standpoint and from a social breakdown standpoint. 

Do you think that mass shootings will stop if we have an assault weapons ban? Do you think there will be a call to ban more guns as a result of continued mass shootings?

 

[KCitons]

I don't need your advice.  But thanks.

Then I suggest you soften your approach when you make a comment that's directed at me. You lumped all gun owners into a group with your above comment. That's lazy. I guess it's okay to lump all illegal immigrants as murderers, since some of them have committed murder. 

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Yes there was. Wasn't there a ban on alcohol at one time as well?

Things are different from what they were 20 years ago. Both from a technology standpoint and from a social breakdown standpoint. 

Do you think that mass shootings will stop if we have an assault weapons ban? Do you think there will be a call to ban more guns as a result of continued mass shootings?

There was a ban and it didn't work out, doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying back then.  I like the fact that changes were made and when they didn't work they were able to change it back.  Now days it's seems no one is willing to make any changes at all, as if they will be set in stone.  We have amendments for a reason, they're meant to be changed as time goes by in order to adapt with the rest of us.  I think the 2nd amendment is in some serious need of revising.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Then I suggest you soften your approach when you make a comment that's directed at me. You lumped all gun owners into a group with your above comment. That's lazy. I guess it's okay to lump all illegal immigrants as murderers, since some of them have committed murder. 

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. 

Sounds like Trump.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Using the poll to gauge people's "paranoi[a]" about the government seizing guns sounds like a judgment already made about the holder of the subject and their views. It implies emotional or mental instability. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on me having issues because it was a "simple attempt to see where people stand."

"Paranoi[a]," you called it. Your words, not mine.

I think there are a lot of paranoid gun owners.  They concern me.

 

[KCitons]

Sounds like Trump.

What's your point?

 

[supermike80]

Then I suggest you soften your approach when you make a comment that's directed at me. You lumped all gun owners into a group with your above comment. That's lazy. I guess it's okay to lump all illegal immigrants as murderers, since some of them have committed murder. 

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. 

again,.....I'm not interested in your suggestion.

I didn't say ALL gun owners in my post.....So you lumped yourself into the group.

And I will repeat myself so I am clear...Gun owners who constantly whine about their guns being taken away make me care less and less about the 2nd amendment.  Fact.   Not a personal attack there buddy, just how I feel about the issue.  Is that OK?

 

[rockaction]

I think there are a lot of paranoid gun owners.  They concern me.

Hence the poll being a function of self-confirming bias and slightly insulting to gun owners. I don't think I made any sweeping statements about your poll that you haven't implicitly or explicitly made yourself. 

 

[KCitons]

There was a ban and it didn't work out, doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying back then.  I like the fact that changes were made and when they didn't work they were able to change it back.  Now days it's seems no one is willing to make any changes at all, as if they will be set in stone.  We have amendments for a reason, they're meant to be changed as time goes by in order to adapt with the rest of us.  I think the 2nd amendment is in some serious need of revising.

100 years ago there was a ban. Are we saying that a ban today wouldn't be handled differently?

Regardless, I was just pointing out the we've had bans on other things as well. Then reversed it, because it didn't work. The number of assault weapons that have been sold since the end of the ban in 2004 is much higher than it was in 1994. Because people want to lump all semi automatic firearms into the ban, we could be talking about a very large number of guns. They, like alcohol, aren't going to go away. 

 

[KCitons]

again,.....I'm not interested in your suggestion.

I didn't say ALL gun owners in my post.....So you lumped yourself into the group.

And I will repeat myself so I am clear...Gun owners who constantly whine about their guns being taken away make me care less and less about the 2nd amendment.  Fact.   Not a personal attack there buddy, just how I feel about the issue.  Is that OK?

Look at the responses. Not only did I lump myself in the group, but @Hawkeye21 also called you out on it. 

It's also comical that you state "gun owners who constantly whine about their guns being taken away".  And yet mention the 2nd amendment in the same sentence. Do you care that little about the Constitution that you see defending it as whining? 

 

[supermike80]

Look at the responses. Not only did I lump myself in the group, but @Hawkeye21 also called you out on it. 

It's also comical that you state "gun owners who constantly whine about their guns being taken away".  And yet mention the 2nd amendment in the same sentence. Do you care that little about the Constitution that you see defending it as whining? 

How people respond isn't my issue.  My statement was unedited.  If you want to see it as me whining about ALL gun owners, that's your cross to bear.

I also commented on Hawkeye and agreed not all are like that.  this was before you went on your little rampage.  

I'm not sure how my comment was comical..Seems pretty straight forward to me.  

 

[Hawkeye21]

What's your point?

That you basically just criticized Trump because that's exactly what he does.  You pretty much called him lazy.  I completely agree with you by the way.

 

[KCitons]

That you basically just criticized Trump because that's exactly what he does.  You pretty much called him lazy.  I completely agree with you by the way.

Again, what's your point?

I have a feeling that you think I'm a Trump supporter. (maybe because of my stance on guns). 

You'd be wrong. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Again, what's your point?

I have a feeling that you think I'm a Trump supporter. (maybe because of my stance on guns). 

You'd be wrong. 

I always thought you were a Trump guy.

 

[KCitons]

I always thought you were a Trump guy.

Nope. I'm not a Trump guy. Or a Hillary guy. Or a Sanders guy. 

My political opinions are all over the board. I don't fit one party or candidate. By the time the primary arrives, the Dems will have a couple hundred candidates to choose from. Maybe one of them will align with my opinions. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Nope. I'm not a Trump guy. Or a Hillary guy. Or a Sanders guy. 

My political opinions are all over the board. I don't fit one party or candidate. By the time the primary arrives, the Dems will have a couple hundred candidates to choose from. Maybe one of them will align with my opinions. 

Nothing wrong with that.  I'm a bit spread out myself.

 

[Dickies]

 

Didn’t Obama take them all already?

He’s coming.

 

[Sabertooth]

Because the reason for the laws is to change behavior (shootings). Once the semi auto ban has been passed, and the number of shootings (specifically mass shootings) doesn't change enough, there will be a call for more action (the next logical step) in order to attempt to change behavior. 

Until people concentrate on the root cause of the behavior, they will continue to chase their tales trying to solve this problem. 

What's the root cause? 

 

[Sabertooth]

Nope. I'm not a Trump guy. Or a Hillary guy. Or a Sanders guy. 

My political opinions are all over the board. I don't fit one party or candidate. By the time the primary arrives, the Dems will have a couple hundred candidates to choose from. Maybe one of them will align with my opinions. 

Me too.

Pro gun but Anti-NRA.
Pro Life and also recognize others have the right to choose for themselves.  
Pro Women's Right - but also think Divorce favors women too much already.
Pro Racial Equality - Simple really....people are just people.  Every race has dangerous and mentally ill people.
Anti - Voter Suppression - people should get to vote on who leads them, Electoral College should go the way of the rest of the racist policies from 200 years ago. 
Anti - Space Force because it's dumb.
Anti - Citizens United - because it places corporations above people.
Pro Universal healthcare - because this current unique system is totally broken.  You shouldn't lose your life's work for getting sick.
Pro environment - we only get one Earth, no need to ruin it for a few more pennies on the stock.
Pro Union because it's literally the only way for people to get any kind of equal footing with corps.
Pro Education - because well how is anyone against this actually? 
I go to church, but I'm not sure how much I believe.  I am having my kids confirmed...just in case.  We are Lutheran although I was confirmed Catholic.  I left the Catholic church when they got busted for cover up kid rape back in Boston.  

Basically people come before money.  
 

 

[KCitons]

What's the root cause? 

Mental health. 

I can make the argument that every person that has committed a mass shooting is mentally ill. How else would you explain the ability to kill a bunch of strangers? With no motive, other than to kill as many people as possible. It's not the social norm. 

A guy threw a 5 year old kid (that he didn't even know) off the third floor balcony at the Mall of America. Who, in their right mind, does that?

 

[Sabertooth]

Mental health. 

I can make the argument that every person that has committed a mass shooting is mentally ill. How else would you explain the ability to kill a bunch of strangers? With no motive, other than to kill as many people as possible. It's not the social norm. 

A guy threw a 5 year old kid (that he didn't even know) off the third floor balcony at the Mall of America. Who, in their right mind, does that?

So how do we address that while simultaneously making profits the top priority in healthcare and cutting social safety nets?   I agree by the way. 

 

[msommer]

It's insulting?  You have issues if you're insulted by a basic poll.

Dude, don't poke the bear.