Originally Posted by
Lady Quagga
As an enthusiast who has owned a collection of firearms (both historical and modern), I always find derogatory connotations like "arsenal" and "gun culture" amusing.
Being a gun owner and expressing grief and anger over a tragedy like this are not mutually exclusive.
Agreed - and I have no problem adapting the Constitution or the U.S. Code to accommodate the changes in modern society.
These questions and your answers to them make certain assumptions. While your happiness or sense of freedom & safety may be influenced by the other people's gun ownership, doesn't automatically make it true for me or anyone else.
I'd argue that there are other social factors which play just as much (if not more) a part in crime and violence than guns. That's not to say that there's no room for tighter regulation (I believe there is), but demonizing guns (or gun enthusiasts) will not prevent psychopaths like Paddock (or other "lesser" criminals) from engaging in violence against others.
The use of a weapon instigates violence against people? Or did you mean ownership?
Ugh, I won't argue the legitimacy of an citizen militia, which is a another can of worms altogether. I will point out one thing you mentioned - the subject of drones and nukes. In the grand scheme of things, neither has made much of an impact in our overseas conflicts, against enemy combatants using little more than small arms.
I think this is fair. I think we need a much more thorough review of potential gun owners, and would consider reasonable checks on existing gun owners to ensure they are a) compliant with local gun laws, and b) haven't had changes in their criminal/mental status which would precluded them from ownership.