before i get blasted for my "post count", please note i'm a log-time lurker who came here from across the hall many years ago. i don't post often....but i check here daily as i enjoy the generally informed folks who frequent here.

having said that...it takes a fair amount to get me to post on a forum. so here goes... to be clear, i am as disgusted and torn up about the near daily shootings as anyone. it breaks my heart to see the devastation and abuse within our society.

i'll state up front that i am a gun enthusiast who enjoys a variety of shooting sports - enthusiast, not a so-called "gun nut". i support 2A, but see myself as a supporter of personal freedoms and individual civil liberties first and foremost. and that means supporting those rights that may or may not apply, or even appeal to me. this is the thing that confounds me most when it comes to the gun issue and restrictive legislation - so often, those folks who want this legislation neither participate in shooting sports nor have any interest in firearms. yet they want to either severely limit or remove all access to a hobby that millions of americans enjoy lawfully on a daily basis. as citizens of our democracy their voice is equal, of course, but i am amazed at how few people who are against 2A and guns have such little understanding of the tool. this tends to limit any truly productive discussion on how best to manage gun control and maintain civil liberties, while ensuring safety for the populace. "ALL GUNS BAD! ZERO AR's!" is not a practical battle cry in the US.

i can assure you the vast majority of gun owners are all for better background checks, training, controlling person-to-person sales via FFL's, etc - but we are extremely concerned as to how those things will be implemented. the devil is in the details... gun owners and the NRA don't always push back "just because all legislation is bad", but more often than not it is one-sided and does not take into account the lawful gun owners. if i could be assured new regulations would limit access to folks at risk, but make it easier for law-abiding folks to move forward (for example: sbr's and suppressor purchases), then i'd be all about it. if you want my support i need to know some of the arcane and intricate laws of states like CA and NY won't be coming my way. you can't have it both ways: stricter laws on one hand and then re-shape the AR / pistol platforms in to unusable / unrecognizable tools for the end-user on the other. for nearly everyone i know screaming for red flag and background check laws i can't find a single one of those same people willing to discuss ways to make lawful ownership easier and more accessible. not one. in their second breath after more laws, they discuss ways to distort the platform in intentional ways to make it even more burdensome for lawful owners.

these are tragic killings done by remorseless monsters, no doubt. but if every time we encounter evil, abhorrent death and destruction and choose face it with cries to abolish civil liberties, where will that leave us? i'd like to pose 2 scenarios by which we could limit death and destruction (both to folks who do these things intentionally and who happen to impact innocent bystanders) and tell me if you'd be ok to limit these personal freedoms:

1. according to national stats on average 29 people die by DUI (alcohol specifically - not including drugs) each day. this is over 10,000 people, of which ~17% are <14yrs of age. clearly, we are not going to get rid of alcohol. BUT - would you be ok making it mandatory to have a breathalyzer in each and every vehicle which must be enacted for the car to start? would this really be ok with you as a law-abiding driver? or even as someone who may have 1-2 drinks at a friends house, but now have to use this tool to get home - even though you are in all likelihood "fine" to drive? (it's your judgement call, after all...)

2. nobody NEEDS a car that can accelerate from 0-60mph in under 4 seconds. or have a top speed of 150mph (or even 100mph). would you be ok limiting future car manufacture to simple, low horsepower autos that are truly safer and easier to control on our roads, especially cities? better yet, what if we installed simple software that governed your vehicles speed based on the speed limit in the area? we have that tech now - my WAZE app always tells me the speed limit for the road i'm on. it would be simple to tie that to my car so that no matter what i tried i could not speed - especially helpful when in those "pesky" school zones... here's a stat: from 1999 to 2017 199 people (50% under 20) died in high-speed street racing in LA county alone - the # of kids killed in school shootings for roughly the same period was 211 (before i get called on this, yes i think school shootings are especially horrific). speed kills. it's a fact. especially, when high powered vehicles are given to "children" and or other reckless adults. how many of the porsche enthusiasts on here speed daily? i know i do. but when i'm honest with myself, when i speed, i do open the possibility to take myself and others out. we don't NEED fast cars. but, we sure do enjoy the personal freedom and liberty they bring us.

i'm sure we could all find many other ways to limit abhorrent and needless deaths. but again, at what cost to personal freedom and civil liberty? it is not that i think gun-deaths are ok. but i do recognize no matter how true and just we feel our intentions are, we cannot legislate zero death in any arena of life. at least not without seriously affecting how we view the human necessity for choice, even if that choice often leads to violence.