Yet another school shooting.

[BYU 14]

Having a 'discussion' with a Magahead on this today, who simultaneously rages against the inhumanity of abortion, while basically refusing to acknowledge the loss of school children is in that same category, pivoting instead to the Ukraine war as justification that citizens need AR-15s.

It reminds of an analogy I heard from a friend of mine that having these talks with some people is like playing chess with a Pigeon.

It flies in with a lot of noise, knocks over all the chess pieces, craps on the board, then flies away to its flock squawking about ‘victory.’

[Brian Swartz]

Interestingly that's what the opinions of a number of people in this thread read like to me.

I think we can have a relatively small impact with a number of the proposals that have been made, and we definitely should. But to really move the needle I think it would be necessarily to essentially disarm America wholesale. That's one of the few things that has a chance (unlikely, but possible) to actually start a civil war if it were attempted.

[molson]

I was sitting directly facing a big TV with Fox News on during a dive bar gathering last night - we non-confrontationally asked the bartender if we could switch it to "sports" (I'm sure there was something on), but they told us it was "stuck" on Fox News.

I think that's the first time I've ever actually watched Fox News. They were talking for a while with a guy with the heading "The Link Between Marijuana and Mass Shootings" on the screen. I caught something about how marijuana USED to be relatively harmless, but now consists of new strains that turn people into mass shooters. So that was enlightening. And then the commercials were mostly about prostates, and also a free Kid's Trump comic/activity book. I wanted to order one and sent it to someone's house but it felt like a dangerous rabbit hole list to go on.

[Kodos]

I would have walked out when told the TV was stuck on Fox “News.”

[stevew]

yeah, I'm out too. I got a job somewhere where they had OAN on in the break room. And Thankfully that didn't work out.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Interestingly that's what the opinions of a number of people in this thread read like to me.

I think we can have a relatively small impact with a number of the proposals that have been made, and we definitely should. But to really move the needle I think it would be necessarily to essentially disarm America wholesale. That's one of the few things that has a chance (unlikely, but possible) to actually start a civil war if it were attempted.

You don’t think mandatory background checks, closing the loopholes for private sales, increasing the penalties for providing access to firearms illegally used in crime and requiring more significant checks for owning an assault weapon significantly moves the needle? Or is that too far down the line of disarming America?

[Brian Swartz]

I think those are good ideas. When I say disarming America, I mean making it illegal to own guns period, handguns included. I think that's what it would take to make a major impact.

Those other measures will help, but I think most of the shootings still happen even with those in place.

[PilotMan]

Too many people speed. We constantly have speeding, no matter the limit, people always speed, and speeding claims lots of innocent lives every year. The only thing that will keep people from speeding is to have total control over their cars and physically prevent them from exceeding the limit. Anything else is pointless.

[bhlloy]

Yeah, we will just have to disagree. There will still be shootings and the US will still lead the world in gun crime, sure. But there is no way in my mind we wouldn’t massively cut down on these kind of mass casualty events with those steps.

[RainMaker]

Starting to think they shot one of the kids.

NEW - Journalists will face arrest, charges if caught reporting while on Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District propertyhttps://t.co/U8fgEjFlZJ

— Anna Giaritelli (@Anna_Giaritelli) June 1, 2022

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think those are good ideas. When I say disarming America, I mean making it illegal to own guns period, handguns included. I think that's what it would take to make a major impact.

Those other measures will help, but I think most of the shootings still happen even with those in place.

The (realistic) goal is to reduce the senseless violence (and suicides) as banning all guns is unrealistic (civil war indeed).

Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun deaths.

Before taking all guns away from law abiding citizens, let's see if we can stop all/most gun violence from non-law abiding people first. Then propose taking away all guns. My question is why take away the right/privilege from law abiding citizens first?

Definitely okay with more controls, do think it will make a difference (unsure the definition of "major impact" though). Not okay with "making it illegal to own guns period". But if that is what you want to propose, then start with non-law abiding people first, see where we are in 3-5 years, and if that is a resounding success, then let's talk about the Canada option.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

There will still be shootings and the US will still lead the world in gun crime, sure.

Glad to say the US is not #1 here.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

How does the gun death rate in the U.S. compare with other countries?
The gun death rate in the U.S. is much higher than in most other nations, particularly developed nations. But it is still far below the rates in several Latin American countries, according to a 2018 study of 195 countries and territories by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

The U.S. gun death rate was 10.6 per 100,000 people in 2016, the most recent year in the study, which used a somewhat different methodology from the CDC. That was far higher than in countries such as Canada (2.1 per 100,000) and Australia (1.0), as well as European nations such as France (2.7), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6). But the rate in the U.S. was much lower than in El Salvador (39.2 per 100,000 people), Venezuela (38.7), Guatemala (32.3), Colombia (25.9) and Honduras (22.5), the study found. Overall, the U.S. ranked 20th in its gun fatality rate that year.

[PilotMan]

Ahh yes, the US is behind 3rd world, somewhat unstable countries that we're at least partly responsible for destabilizing due to ....wait for it.....guns.

[Edward64]

We can debate how much culpability the US has here. But nevertheless, we are #20 baby.

Interestingly, the article also said US gun deaths have decreased as a % of population. The high was back in 1974? This kinda surprised me, article didn't state any reasons for this.

While 2020 saw the highest total number of gun deaths in the U.S., this statistic does not take into account the nation’s growing population. On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Ahh yes, the US is behind 3rd world, somewhat unstable countries that we're at least partly responsible for destabilizing due to ....wait for it.....guns.

The bar doesn't get much lower.

And we have another....

Tulsa police say man with rifle opened fire at medical building, causing multiple injuries and fatalities. "At this time, we can confirm the shooter is dead"

— BNO News (@BNONews) June 1, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

"Members of the Oklahoma media and government officials are asking for patience as they confirm the race and political leanings of the shooter and victims before formulating their official response . . ."

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Too many people speed. We constantly have speeding, no matter the limit, people always speed, and speeding claims lots of innocent lives every year. The only thing that will keep people from speeding is to have total control over their cars and physically prevent them from exceeding the limit. Anything else is pointless.

Nobody said anything else is pointless. I actually specifically said otherwhise multiple times. It's hilarious that you have as much of a problem with the way I post here, and then engage in such blatant misrepresentations.

[Ksyrup]

Too many doors on a hospital, I assume.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

"Members of the Oklahoma media and government officials are asking for patience as they confirm the race and political leanings of the shooter and victims before formulating their official response . . ."

On the anniversary of the Tulsa massacre? Yeah, we'll see.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Too many doors on a hospital, I assume.

Only answer is to have one entrance, then arm all nurses and doctors. If you can give somebody a tetanus shot, you can give them a gun shot.

Sarcasm aside it is shaping up to be a long summer.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Before taking all guns away from law abiding citizens, let's see if we can stop all/most gun violence from non-law abiding people first. Then propose taking away all guns. My question is why take away the right/privilege from law abiding citizens first?

I think we have enough information based on having different laws in different places at different times to conclude that a lot of gun violence is going to remain regardless of the lesser measures. It's not a matter of trying other things first, it's a matter of what level of gun violence we are ready to accept as a nation. As your rightly point out, mass shootings are small compared to the larger picture. It's also true that in the 90s the homicide rate was almost twice what it is now.

If we say 'you know, if we could stop the upward trend in mass shootings or maybe even reduce the current amount somewhat' and we'd be happy with that, yes policies like background checks have a shot at making that happen.

If we want to get anywhere remotely close to where other major industrialized nations are around the world, we just need to have a lot fewer guns in circulation, or have a far more moral population.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Nobody said anything else is pointless. I actually specifically said otherwhise multiple times. It's hilarious that you have as much of a problem with the way I post here, and then engage in such blatant misrepresentations.

Did I quote you? Did I say it was about you at all?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think we have enough information based on having different laws in different places at different times to conclude that a lot of gun violence is going to remain regardless of the lesser measures. It's not a matter of trying other things first, it's a matter of what level of gun violence we are ready to accept as a nation. As your rightly point out, mass shootings are small compared to the larger picture. It's also true that in the 90s the homicide rate was almost twice what it is now.

If we say 'you know, if we could stop the upward trend in mass shootings or maybe even reduce the current amount somewhat' and we'd be happy with that, yes policies like background checks have a shot at making that happen.

If we want to get anywhere remotely close to where other major industrialized nations are around the world, we just need to have a lot fewer guns in circulation, or have a far more moral population.

I'm not opposed to having less guns in the population.

I was just disagreeing with your "illegal to own all guns period" statement. In retrospect, I'm not sure if you are really advocating for that or it was just a rhetorical proposal?

Nevertheless, my key point to that statement is start with the non-law abiding people first before taking away *all* guns from law abiding citizens.

Some can say the root of this problem is too many guns out there. On the face of it, I agree and okay with additional restrictions. But isn't the real root of the problem too many guns being used by criminal elements and those with mental health challenges? and not, as a whole, law abiding citizens (there are admittedly exceptions)?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Did I quote you? Did I say it was about you at all?

You didn't quote me but pretty clear your response was to my post about US being #20.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Did I quote you? Did I say it was about you at all?

The inference seemed obvious and still does. I apologize if I concluded incorrectly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The inference seemed obvious and still does. I apologize if I concluded incorrectly.

Oh. Ditto for me also then.

[GrantDawg]

You're so vain. I bet you think this post is about you.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I’m pretty sure Brian ain’t no Warren Beatty (?)

[Brian Swartz]

Of that you can be certain. I most definitely am not.

[miami_fan]

Sorry I am popping in and out of this conversation and I have not been keeping up with every detail of the shooter. Wasn't the shooter a law abiding citizen right up to the point that he shot his grandmother? As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that.

It is also why I also find the take the guns away from the non law abiding citizens first argument so troubling. Provided that everything I said is correct, he was law abiding. He was "one of the good guys." Whether we like it or not if you own a gun (which I do), a member of OUR community was the monster, not the mysterious bad guys down the road. We protected his right to purchase and own his guns. He betrayed that trust and gunned down children. Similar to what is demanded of others when we ask the question "What about Chicago?" (Yes I know this is not usually a serious question but still.), what are we law abiding gun owing citizens willing to do to ensure we are not enabling bad actors within our gun owning community?

[Lathum]

How about instead of focusing on the fact he purchased those guns legally we focus on why it is legal for him to purchase a weapon and an overwhelming amount of ammo capable of murdering 19 school children in 90 seconds?

There is literally no reason for anyone to own such a weapon, and "because it is his right" is not a valid reason.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that.

What about this one from last page?

I feel like a good first step might be some kind of graduated licensing system similar to driving. When you turn 18 you can start using a gun with a bunch of restrictions: type of gun, ammo, locations, times, etc. Then as you get older and your record stays clean and maybe you pass a couple of firearms courses you slowly gain additional access. Maybe it take 5-10 years without any infractions before you are given carte blanche. It doesn't prevent citizens from arming and defending themselves, creating militias, or otherwise being allowed to bear arms, it just puts up some reasonable barriers to going from 0 to 6000 rounds of ammo and a machine gun on your 18th birthday.

[Lathum]

Tulsa hospital shooting: number of wounded not known after four killed | Oklahoma | The Guardian


Just a blip on the radar. Of course he used a rifle and handgun so the pro gun morons will use this as a defense for why we should just allow all guns to be out there.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Sorry I am popping in and out of this conversation and I have not been keeping up with every detail of the shooter. Wasn't the shooter a law abiding citizen right up to the point that he shot his grandmother? As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that.

It is also why I also find the take the guns away from the non law abiding citizens first argument so troubling. Provided that everything I said is correct, he was law abiding. He was "one of the good guys." Whether we like it or not if you own a gun (which I do), a member of OUR community was the monster, not the mysterious bad guys down the road. We protected his right to purchase and own his guns. He betrayed that trust and gunned down children. Similar to what is demanded of others when we ask the question "What about Chicago?" (Yes I know this is not usually a serious question but still.), what are we law abiding gun owing citizens willing to do to ensure we are not enabling bad actors within our gun owning community?

Yes, I love this every time it comes out of the mouth of someone like Abbott. He wasn't yet a "bad guy!" He may not have been a good kid or person, but he appeared to be "law-abiding."

(Of course what "law-abiding" really means is white, but I think that's been covered and we all pretty much know this.)

[Ksyrup]

The Jordan Klepper "good guy with a gun" bit is great. I knew it was easy in some states to get a conceal carry permit, but I didn't realize you don't even need to be a citizen of the state issuing it or how many states it transfers to.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The Jordan Klepper "good guy with a gun" bit is great. I knew it was easy in some states to get a conceal carry permit, but I didn't realize you don't even need to be a citizen of the state issuing it or how many states it transfers to.

This is so good. He’s amazing.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The Jordan Klepper "good guy with a gun" bit is great. I knew it was easy in some states to get a conceal carry permit, but I didn't realize you don't even need to be a citizen of the state issuing it or how many states it transfers to.

Here is how easy it is in Arizona. Buy a gun, put it in your pocket, you are good to go.

You can still get a CCR here, but when it is not required why bother. I was talking about this with my wife last night. I used to semi-mock people that toted their guns everywhere with them. Since last year I am one of them as I almost always carry my .380 because it is easy to conceal.

It is disturbing that I feel I need to do this.

[BYU 14]

Just watched that good guy with a gun, it is awesome

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Sorry I am popping in and out of this conversation and I have not been keeping up with every detail of the shooter. Wasn't the shooter a law abiding citizen right up to the point that he shot his grandmother? As far as I know, he did not have a criminal history and bought the guns legally. This is where I agree with Brian. I don't know what gun control proposals solve that.

It is also why I also find the take the guns away from the non law abiding citizens first argument so troubling. Provided that everything I said is correct, he was law abiding. He was "one of the good guys." Whether we like it or not if you own a gun (which I do), a member of OUR community was the monster, not the mysterious bad guys down the road. We protected his right to purchase and own his guns. He betrayed that trust and gunned down children. Similar to what is demanded of others when we ask the question "What about Chicago?" (Yes I know this is not usually a serious question but still.), what are we law abiding gun owing citizens willing to do to ensure we are not enabling bad actors within our gun owning community?

Although I did not explicitly say it in all my posts, I did refer to the problem in the bolded section as including non-law abiding and also with mental health challenges.

Some can say the root of this problem is too many guns out there. On the face of it, I agree and okay with additional restrictions. But isn't the real root of the problem too many guns being used by criminal elements and those with mental health challenges? and not, as a whole, law abiding citizens (there are admittedly exceptions)?

I will still contend the "argument" still holds. What is the % of gun deaths (excluding mental health which I include suicides) is done by law abiding citizens up to that point of senseless killing? Dunno but I'm sure it's a small compared to criminal elements.

Should that small fraction of law abiding citizens actors (up to that point of senseless killing) result in the elimination of all guns as Brian proposed? And why not start with the bad actors (which there are many) first.

Specific to your question on what law abiding citizens with guns do to help stop the senseless killings? Definitely eliminate the background check loopholes (e.g. gun shows) and support the enactment of what (I think) we all agree are sensible steps (reduce magazine size, provide more mental health support, require periodic training etc.).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Here is how easy it is in Arizona. Buy a gun, put it in your pocket, you are good to go.

You can still get a CCR here, but when it is not required why bother. I was talking about this with my wife last night. I used to semi-mock people that toted their guns everywhere with them. Since last year I am one of them as I almost always carry my .380 because it is easy to conceal.

It is disturbing that I feel I need to do this.

FWIW, I feel no need to carry a weapon on me. I'm perfectly okay leaving them at home locked up. I guess if the lights go out for a long period of time, I would carry one but I am not usually in an environment where I feel the need.

Out of curiosity, what is your rationale?

[flere-imsaho]

If there were fewer guns in circulation, would more or less guns be available for use by "criminal elements"?

If penalties existed for having insufficient security for you gun, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

If the penalties for illegally selling guns and/or if the "gun show loophole" was closed, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

If the only guns available for sale had limited magazines and fire rates, would there be fewer casualties in mass shooter events?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How about instead of focusing on the fact he purchased those guns legally we focus on why it is legal for him to purchase a weapon and an overwhelming amount of ammo capable of murdering 19 school children in 90 seconds?

There is literally no reason for anyone to own such a weapon, and "because it is his right" is not a valid reason.

Specific to your criteria of "purchase a weapon ... capable of murdering 19 school children in 90 seconds?". That would eliminate most semi-automatic weapons (e.g. we'll be left with bolt weapons). So not just "assault weapons" but regular hunting rifles too.

On the other criteria about ammo. The shooter had about 1,600 rounds on him or in the car. I have 2,000+ ammo in the house. Not because I need it but because I buy them on sale and want them readily available when I go shoot (2-4 times a year) vs stopping by a Dicks Sporting which may not have it when I need it. Yeah, someone with 50K of rounds is probably a survivalist and possibly not seeing things clearly, but I would propose 2,000+ rounds is reasonable.

[Lathum]

The "more mental health" is such a bullshit attempt at a solution. Not one person who promotes it can explain why other countries have virtually no mass shootings. Do they not have mentally ill people? Do they have significantly better access to mental health?

This country obviously could do better regarding peoples mental well being, especially with homeless, vets, addicts, etc...but thats not the solution to these shootings. It is the guns. Period.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Specific to your criteria of "purchase a weapon ... capable of murdering 19 school children in 90 seconds?". That would eliminate most semi-automatic weapons (e.g. we'll be left with bolt weapons). So not just "assault weapons" but regular hunting rifles too.

On the other criteria about ammo. The shooter had about 1,600 rounds on him or in the car. I have 2,000+ ammo in the house. Not because I need it but because I buy them on sale and want them readily available when I go shoot (2-4 times a year) vs stopping by a Dicks Sporting which may not have it when I need it. Yeah, someone with 50K of rounds is probably a survivalist and possibly not seeing things clearly, but I would propose 2,000+ rounds is reasonable.

Legitimate question, there are hunting rifles capable of killing 19 kids in 90 seconds? If so, why?

As for the amount of ammo you keep. Too damn bad. We live in a society where we all have to sacrifice for the greater good. I would love to drive 140 miles on the Garden State Parkway but I can for the safety of myself and other citizens.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If there were fewer guns in circulation, would more or less guns be available for use by "criminal elements"?

If there were fewer guns in circulation in the hands of criminal elements, there would be less guns.

If there were fewer guns in circulation by law abiding citizens, I think there is negligible impact to how many guns criminal elements would have unless you foresee criminal elements stealing guns from law abiding citizens (which I'm sure happens but does that really move the dial?)

So work on the criminal elements first.

If penalties existed for having insufficient security for you gun, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase or provide more context to the intent of your question.

How I'm reading this is it would only make a difference if you suppose criminal elements would steal alot of guns from law abiding citizens to make a difference. I don't think that happens so I would answer negligible but unsure if I understand your question.

If the penalties for illegally selling guns and/or if the "gun show loophole" was closed, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

Good question. Welcome any stats that anyone has.

If the only guns available for sale had limited magazines and fire rates, would there be fewer casualties in mass shooter events?

Absolutely on fire rates. If all we had were bolt-action rifles, it would be a lot slower to reload and fire. On limited magazines, possibly. A shooter that trained can probably swap out magazines pretty quickly.

I would ask you the question I've been asking. Why not start with criminal elements (and mental health) first before eliminating all/most guns from law abiding citizens?

Based on your line of questioning, I'm thinking you believe if we started with criminal elements first, they would steal the guns they want from law abiding citizens?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The "more mental health" is such a bullshit attempt at a solution. Not one person who promotes it can explain why other countries have virtually no mass shootings. Do they not have mentally ill people? Do they have significantly better access to mental health?

This country obviously could do better regarding peoples mental well being, especially with homeless, vets, addicts, etc...but thats not the solution to these shootings. It is the guns. Period.

You are focused on these mass shootings. I am focused on gun deaths. The majority of gun deaths are suicides and hence the mental health aspect.

I am not an expert on this subject but there are plenty of other countries (that don't have easy access to guns) leading the US on suicides per capita. In other words, they find other ways. This indicates to me that our suicide challenge is not guns but mental health.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Legitimate question, there are hunting rifles capable of killing 19 kids in 90 seconds? If so, why?

Because its not specifically the rifle like the big bad AR15 vs a hunting rifle like a Remington. It is the "action" of the weapons typically semi-automatic (not full automatic is very limited from what I know).

Essentially a semi-automatic is one trigger pull, one shot until magazine is empty. A bolt-action is one trigger pull, one shot, manually rechamber and rinse and repeat.

I'm thinking these were developed before the craziness we have now and there is not enough will power to try make everything bolt-action.

I'd ask you same question as I've ask Flere. Why not start with criminal elements (and mental health) first before eliminating all/most guns from law abiding citizens?

As for the amount of ammo you keep. Too damn bad. We live in a society where we all have to sacrifice for the greater good. I would love to drive 140 miles on the Garden State Parkway but I can for the safety of myself and other citizens.

So give me a # of bullets you believe is reasonable to keep at home?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, I feel no need to carry a weapon on me. I'm perfectly okay leaving them at home locked up. I guess if the lights go out for a long period of time, I would carry one but I am not usually in an environment where I feel the need.

Out of curiosity, what is your rationale?

It is the climate here, and I am by no means a timid guy, or ill equipped to handle myself. But all the martial arts/combat sport training in the world doesn't help you against an unstable individual with a gun. The political climate here is far from stable and a shockingly high number of people buy into the BS espoused by people like Kelli Ward, Paul Gosar, Kari Lake etc.

Because of that, I generally, at least have a gun in my car. I rarely carry it on my person outside of my car, but in some circumstances I do. It may be somewhat paranoid, but I don't ever want to be in a situation where I can't protect my family and I would rather that by on equal footing with someone, vs just stepping in front of someone with a gun and taking 3 to the chest while my family looks for cover.

In the long run the odds of this ever happening to me or my family are small, but with the craziness it has gotten like brushing my teeth. I can brush them once a day and the odds of getting a cavity may be small, but why not brush them 2 or 3 times and make it smaller. Strange analogy I know, but it just gives me a greater feeling of security.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You can still get a CCR here, but when it is not required why bother. I was talking about this with my wife last night. I used to semi-mock people that toted their guns everywhere with them. Since last year I am one of them as I almost always carry my .380 because it is easy to conceal.

I took the CCW class just because it's the formalized gun safety class, and I had no experience with weapons at the time. I have a semi-automatic handgun, but I don't carry it anywhere.

I shoot things in the desert with friends. I don't really feel I'm in danger at home, though, I do work in criminal law so maybe I should. I take it on trips to the rural parts of the state.

The more practical purpose that has dawned on me over the last few years is that I think there is a significantly greater than zero chance that the U.S. will go through some temporary or indefinite breakdown of society in our lifetimes - whether caused by climate change, economic collapse, political unrest/coup, terrorism, or a pandemic more deadly than COVID. If the grocery store trucks stop moving, it really wouldn't take very long for things to get ugly. (Edit: Not necessarily a Mad Max scenario, but just a drastic reduction of available resources creating localized situations were crime is many times more prevalent and severe).

If COVID was just twice as deadly, that might have brought us to that place. I'm not a full-on prepper or anything, but, I've thought more about being prepared for emergencies, and that includes at having a couple of reliable firearms and a good amount of ammo. And ammo was almost impossible to find for most of 2020, and what you could find was way more expensive than usual. Once there's an emergency, even a lower-level emergency, it's too late to stock up.

I'd happily comply with any gun control legislation regulating that ownership.

[BYU 14]

I will answer your ammo question as well Edward.

I never have more than 200-300 at a time. When I go to the gun range, I typically shoot 200 rounds, and don't feel the need to overstock. On my way home from the range, I stop at my local gun store and replace the rounds I just expended.

I don't feel the need for more than this because that is the amount I go through and if, god forbid, I ever had to fire on a home intruder, if the 15 round mag in my 9mm isn't enough to neutralize the threat, I need more training.

In my option high volume ammo purchases should absolutely be one of the red flags and by that I mean anything over 500 rounds in a specified period.