Teamnelson: No, not really. I'm simply saying, most likely in a most convoluted way, that if we as gun owners do not do something to help control gun violence we will all lose. The general public will take just so much violence before they demand more restrictive measures to control the violence and both the Oregon law and the neu yawk unsafe act are two examples.
I doubt that the issuance of driver's licenses have reduced vehicular deaths but serious jail time might, if nothing more effective than getting drunk drivers or road rage jerks off the streets, if only for a while and then denying them future licenses.
As to guns, the 'rights' we have to exercise ownership are accompanied by responsibilities and either we set the standard for proper use and enjoyment or we lose to those who fail or refuse to act responsibly. We can't (and don't) go 'cowboy' on the street looking for the bad guys; it is neither our 'right', our job or our responsibility and if you do it's a sure way to lose that right when you run afoul of the law. I do not believe, as do some, that the number of guns, especially those properly owned and used drive the amount of violence we see today. However, the number of firearms improperly used and those used threateningly or violently by stalkers, abusers, gang bangers and criminals drive the public perception for the need of more restrictive laws. I am saying here that the improper use of firearms, as in using them as a weapon or as a threat during a violent domestic situation or during a domestic abuse situation, or just the improper and reckless use of them brings about the public demand for controlling them.
And yes, as responsible gun owners we dang well need to do something about this. Anytime there is a mass shooting or a domestic situation that has garnered public support we need to be the first ones to call for some action to help prevent further situations, not hide from the reality that if we don't, someone else will take the sort of measures that put us all on the defensive.
If politicians and public safety advocates seek background information on gun owners/purchases to assure them that our exercise of our rights will not endanger them then we need to ask for laws that gather enough information to protect us all from those who would abuse the right; and as often is the case, if something more personally draconian (like the review of mental health records or other 'invasions of privacy') is brought forward politicians have a tendency to back peddle to more practical approaches.
I stated above that the majority of mass shootings involve white males under the age of 25 with histories of mental illness and access to firearms whether legally owned or not. The Los Vegas shooter was a exception due to his age but yet he had a mental health history that nobody looked at or considered. He also made multiple purchases in fairly short periods of time that nobody questioned. And how many background checks did he go through, eh?? Very few I believe. When over 50% of stalkers and domestic abusers with guns commit violent acts then we should be the ones to call for inclusion of police and mental health records in the review of a individual's desires for firearms ownership. As it stands now, juvenile records are sealed and health/mental health information is protected under federal privacy laws and I firmly believe that had those histories been included in the review of ownership/possession in such a manner as to pinpoint afflicted individuals and their proximity to firearms, situations like the Newton, Conn. elementary school massacre could have been prevented. The same goes for the mass shooting at the Florida gay nightclub - the shooter had posted extensively about that but nobody listened or considered the correlation of stated hatred, firearms possession and the stated desire to commit harmful acts.
I also believe that the very perception by the general public of 'not caring' about women's safety leads the public to possibly think that gun owners are indeed bullies as in 'hey, you better watch what you say to me because I own a gun' or even worse, 'if you hadn't dressed like that you wouldn't have been stalked, attacked and abused'. Stalkers don't really care what you dress like, it is simply their perception that they can do what they want without concern or thought to their actions, and they want you (or their intended victims). Abusers victimize because they can, they have the either the emotional or physical power or they own something intimidating and can use it.
Gang bangers and organized crime, drive-by shootings are issues for police response. The use of appropriate background information to decide on firearms ownership or possession is necessary for us (legal gun owners) to enjoy our rights without being included with that group of criminals and in this regard I see no reason why juvenile records and mental health histories should not be included in a review of a individual's desire to own and posses firearms. At least this way we know that those most responsible will exercise that right properly and safely.
I know you to be a responsible gun owner (you most likely would not be here if you weren't), a veteran and family man. I am certain you would pass any background check anyone could devise. You may not always agree with your family members on some issue but you don't threaten them with your guns or pistol whip your children into submissive obedience but there are others, many others who would and do. You don't follow your neighbor Mohammed around the neighborhood at night because he's a Muslim and you think he's evil or something but there are many who would. Do you want to be lumped into the same pile of garbage as that? I don't think so, you are a responsible gun owner.
Congratulations on your erudition Bad Mike, but I cannot congratulate you upon some of your perceptions.
Not wishing to be combative, but hoping to clarify, I have noted in red a couple concerns.
The first concern "gun violence"
..we should refuse to use that term, and correct others when they do so. Guns are not in themselves violent, any more than baseball bats, frying pans or butcher knives. all of these kill many people each year...so why should we cave to the leftist insistence that guns commit violent acts?
So gun owners can do a good service by correcting those who use the term..gun violence
Another concern, when you point out.. "mass shootings involve white males under 25 with histories of mental illness"
...Why then are guns blamed when perhaps we may question what kind of mind-bending drugs they were on? Why don't the lefties ask this question?
Do you know how many were shot in Chicago this past weekend? It was a total of 30, likely all shot by black males under 25, without a history of mental illness! So why does the left not pursue these killing just as avidly as they harass legal gun owners? https://chicago.cbslocal.com/tag/weekend-violence/
Next notation.."not caring about women's safety"
.. I guess we honest gun owners are a bit different than the far left, in that we are concerned with EVERYONE'S safety. That is why I spent years teaching hunter safety classes...everybody bleeds red ! The left is not so concerned with safety as with using women and children to promote their propaganda.
Then.. "any background check anyone could devise"
. I hope you are not suggesting that we acquiesce to such a thing! Sure, I could also pass any such test..but I don't want any individual politician to have that kind of power over any citizen, since I am confident that Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer or many others could devise a backgound check that would take 12 years to complete !
We are supposed to be a government BY, FOR and OF THE PEOPLE. I for one, am not eager to hand my freedom as outlined by the constitution, over to a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats, whether elected or appointed.
The 'perceptions' many ill-informed people have are wrong, drip-fed into their minds by a crooked "fake news". The best thing we can do is to relieve them of their false perceptions.
You seem ready to take responsibility for what any vengeful lover, addict or spaced out kid does with a gun. I would hope that if you are one who consumes adult beverages, you do not feel responsible for what every drunk driver does..or what every drunken wife-beater does..
I for one, do not feel responsible for what any stalker or Sharia bound nut may do to an innocent woman. Just to put it in perspective, if the lefties are so concerned with women's safety, why then are they not heading up programs to arm women? Just as I said, they are USING women and children as foils !
Watch out..the devious discussions of the Social Democrats can be pernicious.
What more do you think honest gun owners can do to dispel these false notions? frankly Bad Mike, I think a disarmed America is just a stepping stone for the left toward a one-world government. A defenseless society is a helpless society..check with the Venezuelans.
I hope I didn't come off as being rude Mike..but that is one subject that truly riles me up .