> But this is another, often willing, misconception the gun-people (for lack of better word) toss around. -“They want to take your guns away!” or -“They really hate guns and doesn’t understand criminals will have them anyways!” . Neither is correct.
Huh, when did I claim anyone wanted to take my guns away? I am talking about easy access to guns, no one said anything about taking them away. When your life is threatened people want to ensure they have access to guns and that someone isnt going to get in the way of that. When my life was threatened I needed a gun **now**, that means no chance a background check can find an idiotic reasont o stop me or waiting periods or any other barriers in the way, my life is in danger now, and if yours was you wouldnt want barriers either.
Already currently in the USA simply having an outstanding parking ticket is enough to prevent you from passing background check. How are the already stringent rules where a parking ticket from yesterday in any way reasonably should prevent me from owning a gun? The issue we have is that gun restrictions are rarely if ever sane and the ones that have already been passed have already shown how harmful and nonsensical they can be. In NJ just having an adjustable backstop (the piece that rests against your shoulder) is illegal. In fact most restrictions we have make guns more dangerous, THATS the problem.
> I’m not “anti-guns” (and you’d laugh at saying that if you knew where I was working). I’m anti-no background checks or sanity checks or criminal records checks.
In the overwhelming majority of situations int he USA we already have background checks. Yes there are a few rarely used loopholes like gun shows that represent a very small portion of the problem. As it stands right now almost everyone getting a gun is already background checked.
> I’m not saying “take the guns”. I’m not saying “no one can have guns” or “guns don’t have valid uses”.
No one in this conversation even hinted at the fact that you or anyone was saying take the guns. Sure that is a long-term concern, and a valid one, but not at all the immediate issue being discussed. As for valid issues, sure, again no one is saying legitimate concerns cant be addressed, but we already saw what happens when the people who want to control guns are allowed to.. they make them more dangerous for everyone and put lives at risk. So if you want to propose gun problems you need to understand the concerns on both sides, something virtually no one (or the proposals) do.
> Most of my friends have guns. Most have hunting rifles and shotguns.
We are talking about guns for protection here, largely hand guns.. not rifles. A rifle doesnt help you when someone is trying to kill you most of the time unless maybe in your home, but even then they arent well suited.
> We (Sweden) however have rigorous laws for who gets to have a gun license, which includes actual tests, and which has to be renewed, and for how guns can be carried and stored, but being surrounded by rural lands/farm lands, pretty much half of all I know own guns.
I have lived throughout most of europe, I am well aware of Sweden's gun laws. Since police in most of europe will generally try to help rather than murder me I have far less concern about easy access to guns. There is an actual working system of police there that make it far less neccesary. Of course if I had my way I'd still make them easy to access, but the stakes arent nearly as high.
> We’re not “anti-guns”. Most of us, including the gun owners over here, think owning/carrying a gun comes with lots of rules and regulations on how to handle the guns safely, both for their own sake and for the sake of everyone around them. We see this as a good thing, not a bad thing.
Most american gun owners thing the same. The rules just work different, here we believe in innocence until proven guilty, in other words, you loose yoru right to own a gun if you break the rules, rather than needing to prove you wont break the rules to get the gun. As it should be.