Gun Controll question.

[Weird Harold]

Make one wonder where all the "illegal" weapons come from...

At the moment, they come from the same place as the legal weapons, by way of a few hijackings, smugglings, and simple corruption.

However, it really doesn't make a lot of difference where they come from; if you close down the big multi-national aarms manufaturers (which won't happen as long as there are nationl armies) almost any machine shop can turn out copies of almost any firearm they can disassemble.

With Modern CAD/CAM machine shops, a shop can reprogram to make two or three weapons during the lunch hour or night shift and still keep up their production of legitimate machinings.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

There are approx 300 600 000 people in the USA, 59 000 000 in the UK.

That's about five times the population for those that can't work it out.
Gun crime in the UK is roughly 0.5% of all recorded crime. The figure for 2005 ( the latest I could find ) was 50 homicides.

I was talking area.

 

[rgraham666]

I was thinking about the exchange about Buddhism and its effect on the martial arts.

And it occurs to me that what is involved here is two different ideas of freedom.

The Buddhist idea, as I understand it, is 'freedom from'. A Buddhist's idea of freedom is to free themselves from their baser natures and drives. They seek to be free from anger, free from hate, free from violence. They might use violence but only with regret. To use violence in the Buddhist mode is a failure, to revel in it, worse.

The Western idea of freedom is 'freedom to'. We are free to speak as we wish, act as we wish, love as we wish. We seek not to avoid our natures and drives but to satiate them. Violence is another way to satiate ourselves. And violence is not regarded as a failure, nor is to revel in it bad either.

Both ideas have their problems.

The Buddhist can separate themselves so much from the world that they can no longer understand it. And so lose their humanity.

We conflate our idea of freedom so it becomes freedom to hate as we wish, freedom to hurt as we wish, freedom to kill as we wish. We lose our humanity on this path as well as our darker natures take over.

Shrugs. I have no answers, just observations.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

I was thinking about the exchange about Buddhism and its effect on the martial arts.

And it occurs to me that what is involved here is two different ideas of freedom.

The Buddhist idea, as I understand it, is 'freedom from'. A Buddhist's idea of freedom is to free themselves from their baser natures and drives. They seek to be free from anger, free from hate, free from violence. They might use violence but only with regret. To use violence in the Buddhist mode is a failure, to revel in it, worse.

The Western idea of freedom is 'freedom to'. We are free to speak as we wish, act as we wish, love as we wish. We seek not to avoid our natures and drives but to satiate them. Violence is another way to satiate ourselves. And violence is not regarded as a failure, nor is to revel in it bad either.

Both ideas have their problems.

The Buddhist can separate themselves so much from the world that they can no longer understand it. And so lose their humanity.

We conflate our idea of freedom so it becomes freedom to hate as we wish, freedom to hurt as we wish, freedom to kill as we wish. We lose our humanity on this path as well as our darker natures take over.

Shrugs. I have no answers, just observations.

Buddhism emphasises spirit over matter. Western thought "tries" to balance both. Not always with success. A proper balance is good, but frequently, the West represses the more understandable and less disruptive primal urges, such as sexuality, in favour of the more dangerous ones like aggressive and malevolent brands of violence. Guns are good for self-defence. I applaud that, as you can see. However, their necessity is symptomatic of the tendency to favour violence over sexuality in our culture. I am all for defencive wars, but just how many wars have been truly about defence of late? The Western concept of balance is itself imbalanced, repressing one part of man's animal nature while exacerbating the other parts. Just my bloody take on it.

 

[R. Richard]

At the moment, they come from the same place as the legal weapons, by way of a few hijackings, smugglings, and simple corruption.

However, it really doesn't make a lot of difference where they come from; if you close down the big multi-national aarms manufaturers (which won't happen as long as there are nationl armies) almost any machine shop can turn out copies of almost any firearm they can disassemble.

With Modern CAD/CAM machine shops, a shop can reprogram to make two or three weapons during the lunch hour or night shift and still keep up their production of legitimate machinings.

During prohibition, the bootleggers would bribe or threaten a National Guard employee and rip off automatic weapons so that they could fight the other bootleggers who were doing the same thing.

Not only can a machine shop produce an entire weapon, they can run off by the millions the parts that they remove from assault rifles to make legal hunting weapons. Once the parts are added back in, the weapon once again becomes an automatic assualt weapon.

 

[R. Richard]

Yea well, how many kung-fu fighters you know who can kill 32 people in one morning, given the chance those people will fight back? It isn't like anyone can become as deadly as the legendary Wong Fei Hung.

I'd at least like to think that killing with knives is far more difficult than guns.

All full kung fu systems have a weapons set. The weapons are swords, staff, knives, meteor hammers, things like that, not firearms. However, a kung fu Master turned lose in a crowd with a sword could cause carnage!

As I have said, they didn't need to defend themselves. The monks had to vow not to interfere with politics. Through out fifteen hundred years, the times the temple was attacked can be counted without taking off your socks.

Yes, the monks were not to interfere with politics. However, the Shaolin Temple was burned by government forces. It wasn't burned because the monks were praying too loudly.

 

[Liar]

Yeah, it's not what's legal that is the problem: it's what is illegal. If you want to look to Europe for reasons for its low crime rate, look no further than its liberal attitude about drugs.

Um. Wrong. As much as I'd like for you to be right about that, you're not. The liberal attitude towards drugs is limited to a few places, whereas the rest is just as prohibititng as you are. If not more. Scandinavia being the prime example, where even access to alcohol and tobacco is more restriced than in the US.

 

[FatDino]

However, a kung fu Master turned lose in a crowd with a sword could cause carnage!

It takes tens of years of intense training to become that kind of a master while it only takes ten weeks to purchase 2 handguns and kill 32 people.

Yes, the monks were not to interfere with politics. However, the Shaolin Temple was burned by government forces. It wasn't burned because the monks were praying too loudly.

It was burned during the Qing dynasty, 18th century, because the monks were against the rule of a non-Han government. Had they kept out of it, they wouldn't have been attacked.

 

[Kev H]

It takes tens of years of intense training to become that kind of a master while it only takes ten weeks to purchase 2 handguns and kill 32 people.


It was burned during the Qing dynasty, 18th century, because the monks were against the rule of a non-Han government. Had they kept out of it, they wouldn't have been attacked.

I was exposed to this Dino-Richard side argument with perfect impartialness, but Richard, I think she has you on this one. Not sure what, exactly, that she has, or what point anyone should get out of this. So for those of us who don't give a fuck about the history of kung fu (got over that with my 20-page ninja essay when I was about 11), what's the practical point in all this? Making people train 10 years with a gun before giving them one? Adding in Budda-like teachings and making them wear funny clothes? Help us out here.

Back to the original questions: guns are incredibly destructive tools, and our fucked-up society makes gun control a hopelessly complex issue.

I have owned or shot guns since I was about 6 (my dad is an avid member of the NRA--of course he started me off on a pellet gun); I am confident, because of my extensive practice, that I could defend myself in a reasonable manner, but I have no illusions of being "safe" because of that. Life is always throwing curveballs. This Walther PPK .380 Auto (go go James Bond gun) by my bed gives me no false illusions of safety, and any scenario where I'd have to use it makes me cringe.

That being said, I'd not have a problem with stricter gun laws (my dad certainly does not share my view, but he's hopelessly entrenched in an inflexible mindset). Here's some key considerations:

I'm probably more open-minded than most gun owners, and while I don't think stricter gun laws would make it much harder for criminals, it would make it harder for the casual criminal, and would create a better barrier/buffer between those criminals who are serious about killing and those who are desperate for whatever reason.

Any laws should be crept up to and reviewed on all sides over time before even daring to propose something else--and noone should feel like a political failure if something does not work as intended. Fix it, don't point blame.

Citizens should not freak out, automatically assuming Big Brother scenarios and such--the government's core function is to protect us from both external and internal threats. Now, we all know it does a poor job of this, so the flip side of this coin needs to be more consistent protection from armed criminals. If the laws make it tougher to get a gun, then the immediate assumption that a cop should make upon seeing an armed perpetrator is that he's very serious about his perpetration. Shoot to kill, ask questions later. I have a cousin who's a cop, and many live by that mentality anyway ("it's called not being fatally stupid"). The second they see a gun, or a hint of one, their entire attitude toward that "citizen" changes, and rightly so.

Do the smart thing, with guards against going overboard. Common sense dictates that no armor-piercing rounds and .50 cal machine guns ought to be available for Joe Schmo, yet making it impossible to get a hunting/sporting gun is also stupid (there are many great hunting guns, like the .243, that could just as easily be great sniper guns, but assuming they will be used for that purpose is as over-reactionary as assuming the government is taking these steps to Hitler-ize us). Lengthy registration processes are no more than an insignificant inconvenience for those law-abiding citizens who aren't paranoid. Whether they actually do (or will do) what they intend to do is another matter.

Finally, I think it's an obvious statement that we could not have stopped Cho, or those like him, and we never will be able to. No reason to panic and say/do really idiotic things. Just take deep breaths, mourn the dead, and do the best you can, as a society, to help minimize this risk.

Think I'm irrational for accepting more gun control? Give me solid reasons why (leave off the big, bad government scenarios or I will be forced to roll my eyes at you and discount all you say).

Think I'm wrong for not wanting a total ban? Walk me through the social and philosophical reasons (leave off the "guns kill people" speech, or you will receive the same treatment as those paranoids).

I am the average citizen, willing to listen to reason with an open mind, and willing to approve certain measures in good faith (with monitoring to see if solutions actually work). I've heard all the arguments for each extreme before, and think those people are equally out-of-bounds. So, if you want to impress all the people like me, give reasons that use wisdom over personal/political agendas--that are grounded in reality and common sense.

 

[yevkassem72]

Um. Wrong. As much as I'd like for you to be right about that, you're not. The liberal attitude towards drugs is limited to a few places, whereas the rest is just as prohibititng as you are. If not more. Scandinavia being the prime example, where even access to alcohol and tobacco is more restriced than in the US.

Sad tale, that.

Some politicians can not resist meddling.

 

[FatDino]

So for those of us who don't give a fuck about the history of kung fu (got over that with my 20-page ninja essay when I was about 11), what's the practical point in all this? Making people train 10 years with a gun before giving them one? Adding in Budda-like teachings and making them wear funny clothes? Help us out here.

ROFL...

 

[rgraham666]

Well said, Kev. (Applauds)

 

[Weird Harold]

Think I'm irrational for accepting more gun control? Give me solid reasons why (leave off the big, bad government scenarios or I will be forced to roll my eyes at you and discount all you say).

What makes you think more "gun control" would be any more effective or better enforced than the laws that are in place now?

Who would actually be affected by "more gun control?" Would it be the responsible gun-owners like you and I or those who are already ignoring existing gun control laws?

As long as "gun control" is focused on the guns it does nothing except punish the wrong people for problems that have nothing to do them and at the deepest levels nothing to do with with guns and everything to do with control.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

What makes you think more "gun control" would be any more effective or better enforced than the laws that are in place now?

Who would actually be affected by "more gun control?" Would it be the responsible gun-owners like you and I or those who are already ignoring existing gun control laws?

As long as "gun control" is focused on the guns it does nothing except punish the wrong people for problems that have nothing to do them and at the deepest levels nothing to do with with guns and everything to do with control.

I don't think it's so much about "gun control" as it is about "people control."

I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends

Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky

 

[FatDino]

*boom boom cheng*

 

[yevkassem72]

I was exposed to this Dino-Richard side argument with perfect impartialness, but Richard, I think she has you on this one. Not sure what, exactly, that she has, or what point anyone should get out of this. So for those of us who don't give a fuck about the history of kung fu (got over that with my 20-page ninja essay when I was about 11), what's the practical point in all this? Making people train 10 years with a gun before giving them one? Adding in Budda-like teachings and making them wear funny clothes? Help us out here.

Back to the original questions: guns are incredibly destructive tools, and our fucked-up society makes gun control a hopelessly complex issue.

I have owned or shot guns since I was about 6 (my dad is an avid member of the NRA--of course he started me off on a pellet gun); I am confident, because of my extensive practice, that I could defend myself in a reasonable manner, but I have no illusions of being "safe" because of that. Life is always throwing curveballs. This Walther PPK .380 Auto (go go James Bond gun) by my bed gives me no false illusions of safety, and any scenario where I'd have to use it makes me cringe.

That being said, I'd not have a problem with stricter gun laws (my dad certainly does not share my view, but he's hopelessly entrenched in an inflexible mindset). Here's some key considerations:

I'm probably more open-minded than most gun owners, and while I don't think stricter gun laws would make it much harder for criminals, it would make it harder for the casual criminal, and would create a better barrier/buffer between those criminals who are serious about killing and those who are desperate for whatever reason.

Any laws should be crept up to and reviewed on all sides over time before even daring to propose something else--and noone should feel like a political failure if something does not work as intended. Fix it, don't point blame.

Citizens should not freak out, automatically assuming Big Brother scenarios and such--the government's core function is to protect us from both external and internal threats. Now, we all know it does a poor job of this, so the flip side of this coin needs to be more consistent protection from armed criminals. If the laws make it tougher to get a gun, then the immediate assumption that a cop should make upon seeing an armed perpetrator is that he's very serious about his perpetration. Shoot to kill, ask questions later. I have a cousin who's a cop, and many live by that mentality anyway ("it's called not being fatally stupid"). The second they see a gun, or a hint of one, their entire attitude toward that "citizen" changes, and rightly so.

Do the smart thing, with guards against going overboard. Common sense dictates that no armor-piercing rounds and .50 cal machine guns ought to be available for Joe Schmo, yet making it impossible to get a hunting/sporting gun is also stupid (there are many great hunting guns, like the .243, that could just as easily be great sniper guns, but assuming they will be used for that purpose is as over-reactionary as assuming the government is taking these steps to Hitler-ize us). Lengthy registration processes are no more than an insignificant inconvenience for those law-abiding citizens who aren't paranoid. Whether they actually do (or will do) what they intend to do is another matter.

Finally, I think it's an obvious statement that we could not have stopped Cho, or those like him, and we never will be able to. No reason to panic and say/do really idiotic things. Just take deep breaths, mourn the dead, and do the best you can, as a society, to help minimize this risk.

Think I'm irrational for accepting more gun control? Give me solid reasons why (leave off the big, bad government scenarios or I will be forced to roll my eyes at you and discount all you say).

Think I'm wrong for not wanting a total ban? Walk me through the social and philosophical reasons (leave off the "guns kill people" speech, or you will receive the same treatment as those paranoids).

I am the average citizen, willing to listen to reason with an open mind, and willing to approve certain measures in good faith (with monitoring to see if solutions actually work). I've heard all the arguments for each extreme before, and think those people are equally out-of-bounds. So, if you want to impress all the people like me, give reasons that use wisdom over personal/political agendas--that are grounded in reality and common sense.

The history of governments makes paranoia a perfectly sensible reaction to an encroachment on one's freedoms.

I do like Rob's idea of training and testing gun owners. Incompetent marksmen protect no one, least of all themselves. I also think that they should immediately be enrolled into a voluntary police force to have enough police on the streets at all times. A rotating roster of sorts.

 

[Kev H]

I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends
I've got a song, I ain't got no melody
I'ma gonna sing it to my friends

Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky

I believe the saying goes: "High as a kite"

And Harold, nowhere did I mention the control on guns in exclusivity. In fact, you can see from my tone that I call for comprehensive review and moderation. And yes, I actually think that stricter regulations (like the background checks and gun range tests required for concealed permits) might help some--if we try and we're wrong, then we should be able to analyze the reasons and try again. As you imply, it really is in the bureaucratic implementation, not in the actual policy proceedings, that everything goes to hell. So much of gun control would have to address those problems before it left the drawing board. Don't we have reasonably successful restrictions in place for the concealed-carry permit? (Not a loaded question, but an honest one.) What would be wrong with expanding that to apply to all gun purchases (much similar to what rg was listing)?

Maybe I am just too narrow-minded to see it, but I think:

Good enough to pass a shooting test? Check.

Any desire to own some crazy-nasty gun? Nope; check.

Willing to go through paperwork-hoops and a long wait if I actually want another gun? Yep; check.

So, could this actually hurt gun owners like me (I cannot speak for yourself, but can't see how it could)? Nah, that's just being fearful.

Will it hurt the criminals if applied with other procedures and consistent (as possible) implementation? No clue, let's take a baby step and find out.

Is there any rational problem with this way of thinking?

 

[yevkassem72]

I believe the saying goes: "High as a kite"

And Harold, nowhere did I mention the control on guns in exclusivity. In fact, you can see from my tone that I call for comprehensive review and moderation. And yes, I actually think that stricter regulations (like the background checks and gun range tests required for concealed permits) might help some--if we try and we're wrong, then we should be able to analyze the reasons and try again. As you imply, it really is in the bureaucratic implementation, not in the actual policy proceedings, that everything goes to hell. So much of gun control would have to address those problems before it left the drawing board. Don't we have reasonably successful restrictions in place for the concealed-carry permit? (Not a loaded question, but an honest one.) What would be wrong with expanding that to apply to all gun purchases (much similar to what rg was listing)?

Maybe I am just too narrow-minded to see it, but I think:

Good enough to pass a shooting test? Check.

Any desire to own some crazy-nasty gun? Nope; check.

Willing to go through paperwork-hoops and a long wait if I actually want another gun? Yep; check.

So, could this actually hurt gun owners like me (I cannot speak for yourself, but can't see how it could)? Nah, that's just being fearful.

Will it hurt the criminals if applied with other procedures and consistent (as possible) implementation? No clue, let's take a baby step and find out.

Is there any rational problem with this way of thinking?

Criminals won't bother with the red tape. And in the time it takes to go through it, a man's home can be invaded and he can be killed. Sometimes, speed is essential.

And I just do not trust politicians much at all, let alone with such powers.

 

[Weird Harold]

I do like Rob's idea of training and testing gun owners. Incompetent marksmen protect no one, least of all themselves.

Literacy tests as a requirement to vote also sound like a good idea, and in the absract they probably are at best harmless.

However, ask any afro-american how they feel about that issue.

Education is the key to resolving the "gun problem" but it isn't the education of those who want to own guns that should be required, but the education of everyone who knows nothing about guns.

My Generation (Baby Boomers) tended to grow up around guns and even the hippies and peaceniks who tried to make "Gun" synonmous with "Evil" mostly understood guns enough to handle even an unfamiliar one safely.

 

[Kev H]

The history of governments makes paranoia a perfectly sensible reaction to an encroachment on one's freedoms.

I do like Rob's idea of training and testing gun owners. Incompetent marksmen protect no one, least of all themselves. I also think that they should immediately be enrolled into a voluntary police force to have enough police on the streets at all times. A rotating roster of sorts.

I love ideas of civic duty, but in this society, that'd be downright disasterous, both from a standpoint of lack of caring (we're actually a very apathetic society, as a whole), and from all those curveballs nature throws us (it'd not take more than a week for some disaster to make everyone sorry this got implemented; of that I'm confident).

As for the history of gov'nment insanity, our new age (industrial-->computer-->internet) has made that increasingly difficult (at least in the US)--we have 320million people like the vast majority of the freedoms we have (consciously or not), and we have a military who are more loyal to the populous than they are to the government (I won't bring up the rumor that exemplifies that, since it's not well understood). But let's say, for wild example, if the government asked the military to back them in taking all the citizens' guns away (ie, their families), they'd say, "fuck you, government pussies, over our dead bodies." And that'd make the government back off faster than anything. I have a pretty wild imagination, but I am also grounded in reality, and there's no possible scenario I can see happening here that would threaten our fundamental rights. Our record trends toward more rights for more groups of people, as a whole.

 

[yevkassem72]

I love ideas of civic duty, but in this society, that'd be downright disasterous, both from a standpoint of lack of caring (we're actually a very apathetic society, as a whole), and from all those curveballs nature throws us (it'd not take more than a week for some disaster to make everyone sorry this got implemented; of that I'm confident).

As for the history of gov'nment insanity, our new age (industrial-->computer-->internet) has made that increasingly difficult (at least in the US)--we have 320million people like the vast majority of the freedoms we have (consciously or not), and we have a military who are more loyal to the populous than they are to the government (I won't bring up the rumor that exemplifies that, since it's not well understood). But let's say, for wild example, if the government asked the military to back them in taking all the citizens' guns away (ie, their families), they'd say, "fuck you, government pussies, over our dead bodies." And that'd make the government back off faster than anything. I have a pretty wild imagination, but I am also grounded in reality, and there's no possible scenario I can see happening here that would threaten our fundamental rights. Our record trends toward more rights for more groups of people, as a whole.

Tell that to any Arab living in this country today, not counting me.

 

[Kev H]

Criminals won't bother with the red tape. And in the time it takes to go through it, a man's home can be invaded and he can be killed. Sometimes, speed is essential.

And I just do not trust politicians much at all, let alone with such powers.

See? This is one of those horribly-thought-out, eye-rollers. In the time it takes to invade a man's home? He'd be shot dead in his bed, gun or not, so you actually hurt your argument by bringing up silly stuff like this.

We all know criminals can get guns/weapons(/learn kung fu, hehe), and we all know they are just dying to break into our houses to commit heinous atrocities. The percentage of people who are killed by criminals, who would have otherwise been fine had they not had to wait so damn long for their gun permit, is going to be zero. Not next to zero, or close, but zero. Here's why: real world.

#1 most home-owners who are worried about it already have guns;

#2 most whoo have guns wont have the time or nerve or skill to use them to save their lives (discounting luck, for the moment);

#3 things will have to get far worse here for someone to change their casual attitude about gun ownership and rush out to buy one (if the need is truly great, they may even obtain one illegally--the laws are set up in a way that if he didn't actually go on a killing spree, he'd not have his life ruined if he ended up defending himself with said illegal gun). If he carries a gun on him wihtout a permit, goes out to a questionable area, gets in a fight and uses his gun, then the guy is a criminal, as well. Criminally stupid. And I will pay good money to keep the guy locked up for a bit (better yet, I'll pay good money to try and keep that asshat from owning a gun).

 

[Kev H]

Tell that to any Arab living in this country today, not counting me.

This is a wah wah smokescreen, and not a very good one. You're loosing me here, Yevvy.

PS--there's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know how to explain it, but this is what I believe." No shame in it, other than it wont be very convincing. But then again, neither is the poorly-thought-out answers that make neutral people wary.

 

[Weird Harold]

Will it hurt the criminals if applied with other procedures and consistent (as possible) implementation? No clue, let's take a baby step and find out.

Interesting that you chose "baby-step" to describe measures that any reasonable person has difficulty indescribing as "a bad thing."

IIRC, it was Sarah Brady who characterized the Brady Bill as "a baby step on our path to completely eliminating handguns" -- or words to that effect.

I really don't think it's paranoid to expect ANY new measure to be twisted and corrupted by the anti-gun lobby or used as the "tip of the wedge" for further restrictions on gun ownership and use when the anti-gun lobby loudly, publically and triumphantly gloat about every "baby step" on the path to their stated goal of total elimination of ALL gun ownership.

FWIW, the much touted Brady Bill was quietly allowed to lapse without renewal because it proved to be absolutely useless at "controlling guns" -- it was no more than an annoyance to law-abiding purchasers and totally ignored by anyone who would have been inconvenienced.

 

[yevkassem72]

See? This is one of those horribly-thought-out, eye-rollers. In the time it takes to invade a man's home? He'd be shot dead in his bed, gun or not, so you actually hurt your argument by bringing up silly stuff like this.

We all know criminals can get guns/weapons(/learn kung fu, hehe), and we all know they are just dying to break into our houses to commit heinous atrocities. The percentage of people who are killed by criminals, who would have otherwise been fine had they not had to wait so damn long for their gun permit, is going to be zero. Not next to zero, or close, but zero. Here's why: real world.

#1 most home-owners who are worried about it already have guns;

#2 most whoo have guns wont have the time or nerve or skill to use them to save their lives (discounting luck, for the moment);

#3 things will have to get far worse here for someone to change their casual attitude about gun ownership and rush out to buy one (if the need is truly great, they may even obtain one illegally--the laws are set up in a way that if he didn't actually go on a killing spree, he'd not have his life ruined if he ended up defending himself with said illegal gun). If he carries a gun on him wihtout a permit, goes out to a questionable area, gets in a fight and uses his gun, then the guy is a criminal, as well. Criminally stupid. And I will pay good money to keep the guy locked up for a bit (better yet, I'll pay good money to try and keep that asshat from owning a gun).

So, it does not occur to you that a man might get killed during the waiting period or you just dismiss such a notion?

Also, my point is that the police state currently being formed is not reassuring me of the government's commitment to civil liberties.