Berrrrrrrrrt_the_A10

What will you do to not encroach further on the second amendment rights of Californians and all other law abiding citizens in the US?

You should seriously reconsider your stance on points 2 and 3. Don't be spoon fed what your party tells you.

I encourage you to do your own unbiased research behind the "assault weapons" bans in particular.

Woah there, I don't need a machine gun. I'm poor enough before even considering emptying a magazine in a few seconds.

Assault weapons though? Why would you care if I have a muzzle device and a pistol style grip (instead of thimbhole), detachable box magazine, an adjustable stock so that my kids and I can both shoot the same rifle confortably, a foreard hand guard to protrct me from burning my hands on the barrel, a bayonet lug because I like historical firearms and firearms that have military history and heritage, etc. Etc.

We can argue back and forth about this.

Ill say "why are you regulating me and my firearms in every aspect that doesn't alter their fundamental function"

And you'll say "why cant I regulate absolutely everything that doesn't alter the core function of the item?"

And then I say that most of those things are for user safety or other conveniences.

Conpetition shooting is a good and healthy thing, and these assault weapons bans hurt them the most.

Vecause high capacity is a subjective term that has no definition except what politicians choose.

Whats to stop 10 from being "high capacity" and then making it so you can only have 2 round magazines?

High capacity magazines and "assault weapons" bans are just methods from politicians to incrementally chip away at gun rights.

(I mean seriously, 10 rounds in a magazine? Why not have "high capacity" be magazines that are of a higher capacity than that which the firearm was originally designed to accept? That then is a nonsubjective definition that doesn't add extensive restrictions to consumers and the manufacturers. Instead it gets rid of only the novelty magazines. 30 rounds is not "high capacity". That is STANDARD capacity. High capacity would be putting a 250 round double drum magazine into a gun originally desigbed and manufactured for 30 round magazines.)

Anyways. I won't drag out this firearms stuff.

People who legitimately want discussion with an open mind, go to r/Firearms or r/guns. They tend to be able to hold discussions politely and not draw on emotions.

For suicides its clearly not fair to blame firearms, but instead the individual. If they didnt have a firearm, they would seek a myriad of other methods. That being said, an argument still made is that firearns are "too garunteed" as a suicide method. But I would argue that strangulation and blood loss are equally garunteed.

Suicide is a good topic to bring up because it is sometimes included in gun violence statistics, but in my opinion, it is a way to mislead and make the numbers more dramatic.

I'm not saying deaths by suicide are any less terrible for victims, but I think that the only way to reduce suicide by gun is to forcefully confiscate them from owners when they exhibit suicidal ideation. Legislation was proposed in WA about doing this, but it lacked appropriate and sufficient means for due process for the suspected suicidal individual. It essentially meant that any friends family or coworkers could report them as being possibly suicidal and then they would get their firearms revoked. The legal process wasn't well flushed out for presenting evidence, self defense in that process, the process for proving mental stability to receive the rights again, etc.

Analysis by a mental health professional should be central to it. Perhaps by two separate MHPs for more sure results. We can't just forget our ethos of innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of ones guilt. Same goes, in my opinion, of these depression and suicide cases because we're talking about revoking a constitutional right, not simply diagnosing and treating a sickness. There's more at stake.

The next thing to talk about amongst preventable deaths is accidentals. Adults or kids getting their boogerhooks on triggers. Or any other ignoring of the cardinal rules for gin safety.

I would be okay with a requirement to attend hunter safety courses before purchases. Or a requirement to schedule attending a class at the store for a date following the purchase. The issue is that these classes and testings need to then not cost anything for the individual. Or be heavily discounted. (Reason for this is that we don't want any gun control measures to de facto discriminate against those of lower socioeconomic classes, which also tend to be persons of racial minorities).

The thing is that even if someone makes a law requiring guns be locked up with either a chamber lock or trigfer lock or inside a case or safe, is that there cant be any enforcement of that law. Also, practically every gun that is purchased New In Box comes with a chamber/magwell cable lock. Clearly receiving them for free isn't good enough a solution for them to be used extensively. Anything short of a biological unlocking gun will fail to bring these accidental deaths of children to zero. Because enforcement cant be done until after the fact (and thats really just adding on a punishment to a family already grieving the death of a child). Education on gun safety being easier and more widespread would be hugely helpful. But people are human and make mistakes or forget. And I dont know how many gun owners go throigh the time of really drilling gun safety to everyone in their family. And this can't really be done with anyone under the age of 4.

So, the imperfect, potentially expensive, solution is to increase gun safety education. And not to do it like the sex education of teaching abstinence. Actually teach them hands on. And early. Maybe include it in school curriculum. Put it in with PE classes.

Edit: I wonder where the societal change occurred in the US where guns stopped being in 50% of households. What caused rifle teams to stop existing at high schools and colleges? Is the winter Olympic sport, the Biathlon, in danger within the next (1)50 years to be removed due to lack of interest and participation?