LogFAQs > #976878321

DnDer posted...

Your second paragraph contradicts your first, because gun owners will plug their ears and repeat the manta, "Shall not be infringed."

Your fourth paragraph contradicts your third. Red flag laws include petitioning a panel (sometimes of judges) of experts of you need to have your guns temporarily taken from you for red flag reasons.

I'm not saying your solutions are wrong, because I like restrictions and licensing and red flag laws. But you're not going to get those if you don't understand they're going to be a compromise of rights and privileges of gun owners.

I'm not opposed to restrictions but any time or fee based licensure that you place gun ownership behind will disproportionately and negatively affect poor and working class people, which happens to be the demographic who are most likely to need a firearm to use for self defense.

The same with red flag laws, these won't work the way you want them to. How many times do rich assholes get away with any number of crimes because they can afford to hire a high priced lawyer who can get them a sweet plea deal? Rich people who should lose their guns to red flag laws won't while the demographics most likely to need them will.

Another good example of this disarming a group more likely to be in need of a defensive firearm would be the Trans community. Whom a chunk of the population wants to commit violence against solely because they exist. Gender Dysphoria is still classified as a mental disorder and chuds will absolutely push for them to fall under red flag laws.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to gun ownership restrictions, but it's not simply a matter of picking a line and placing gun ownership behind it because of how deeply broken and unequal our society is as it relates to race, class, and other minorities.