If you believe in the concept of live and let live, I'd call that liberal, which I'd consider a good thing.

Whilst I can mostly agree that gun owners need to properly secure their guns, it is not my fault if someone decides to break into my residence in order to steal stuff including guns, and proceed to use them in crimes. Most safes and vaults are not 100 % crackproof, so even if guns are locked away in one and a thug breaks in and steals it, won't do alot of good if said thug can crack the safe. What about accountability for the individual who stole the gun and used it in a crime? There seems to be no shortage of anger directed towards the gun owner in such scenarios, but not enough accountability directed towards the criminal who created the problem scenario in the first place, and I take issue with that. Being that I had never before used any of my guns to harm or kill another individual and that I mostly use my firearms for safe target shooting, I must disagree with your conclusion that guns are strictly a weapon meant for killing, as they clearly have other purposes besides maiming or killing.

As for home protection measures go, keep in mind that not everyone lives in a single residence that they own, some of us live in rented apartment complexes and I would not have the authority to setup certain measures you mentioned above. Suffice to say, I have taken some of those measures, and would take full advantage of all the above if I had lived in a single home that I owned. Not all gun owners have the mentality of shoot first and ask questions later, can't say I do. As for the need to carry outside the home, I'm still considering doing a post in this group explaining a personal story in regards to such situations, so I'm not going into that now for the sake of saving me some time.

Then that tells me gun control measures have and continue to fail, and thus we arrive to the reason why I do posts like this from time to time.

People reserve the right to end their own lives, it matters not how they do so, unless your reasoning is strictly for statistical purposes, but such should not be taken into consideration where gun control legislation is concerned, because at that point the situation would be ripe for abuse and what I refer to as "revenge legislation".

Care to elaborate a bit more there on the last part? I'd prefer a peaceful defense as opposed to an aggressive offense, but some folks would leave you no choice on the matter and force your hand. For what it's worth, I don't always carry wherever I go, sometimes I go out unarmed with only wearing a body armor vest, I would call that falling back on a decent defense. Like I mentioned above, I have reason for thinking and saying as I do based on direct personal experience, and as time allows me I'd like to share my story in this group. Also, as I had mentioned to @Pralina1 below that at one point I was a rather fanatical gun control advocate and in high school I did a lenghty essay on why I supported gun control legislation, so I have now been on both sides of this debate and there is damn good reason why I say what I say on the topic, as it is based on direct experience.

Thank you for taking the time to give feedback, much appreciated. Also thank you for answering in a civil manner and explaining your points clearly, that's more than what I can say for many others on this site who had responded to my posts in the past and who referred to themselves as "tolerant and liberal". Lastly, as was the case with Pralina below, I also noticed you didn't answer my original question in this post either, and you may or may not have a reason for doing so. Either way if you don't wish to answer that, I understand, all good. Cheers dude.

At times based on their actions, I don't think alot of those Democrats are truly liberal. Guys like you and me are liberal, liberal in the sense that we believe in the individual making choices for themselves as opposed to involving the Government into every problem. It astounds and concerns me to no end the people who claim to be liberal and yet support authoritarian actions or measures.

Why do we need more rules on guns. We have plenty of rules on guns already. Suicides shouldn’t even be counted as gun deaths like they are now as every person should have the right to end their own life.

What is wrong with having better rules in place? Criminals don't care about your rules which is why they are called criminals. Some of the biggest cities which are Democrat controlled and that have strict gun control measures in place also see some serious homicides by firearm. In Philadelphia alone this year there have been over 500 homicides by gun regardless of the fact that Philly is so restrictive you can't even order a slingshot online and have it delivered there. Yet, such laws have not stopped criminals. I have a personal story I could share with you later that could go a little deeper on the matter, but I don't have the time right now.

I see your point, but there already are strict gun control measures in most states, do you even have any idea what the average gun owner has to go through first before getting the new gun into his/her hands? You have waiting periods, background checks, licenses etc, and yet none of that seems to deter criminals.

Sounds like a parenting problem there. I grew up around and used guns, and never once did I shoot someone or myself. Never said there was anything wrong with the Government advising people of dangers related to either guns or drunk driving, what I question is just how effective is such? Last year there were over 110 million cases of alcohol-impaired driving accidents, despite the constant preaching from Government that drunk driving is bad. Their tactics don't appear to be working much.

Since when has banning anything made it go away permanently? We tried criminalizing recreational drugs, that hasn't worked out and created one hell of a black market. There was a time when gays could not get married, but did that stop them from getting together? There was a dark time when abortion procedures were outlawed, did that stop women from seeking out abortions? If anything, the laws at that time got women killed. Philadelphia has some strict gun control measures in place, but that didn't/has not stopped criminals and gangs from shooting each other up.

This isn't Europe. June of 2020 there were hundreds of BLM and ANTIFA protesters marching down my street, some of whom decided to pick a fight with my neighbor who was only minding his own business. Nevermind the fact ANTIFA has openly advocated for violence against anyone who does agree with their agenda, which is very concerning. When you've got a scenario involving hundreds of potentially violent protesters, that 30 round rifle sounds like a good idea to have on hand just in case. The fear and concerns on that matter are very real. Can't count on the police either, especially knowing the effort from many Democrats to defund police departments, and police are peace officers and not bodyguards, it is up to the individual to defend themselves.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the regulations part per se, I just question how much good is that really doing? Signs that say no guns allowed here or background checks have not done much to deter violent offenders.

Those you mentioned above are not inherently liberal or conservative, but rather if anything at all could maybe be considered authoritarian in nature, and again I ask... what good are your laws and rules if others will still circumvent such and commit crimes?

I know when my own rights stop, they stop if and when I attempt to impede on another's life and in particular by violent means. When you use your freedoms to negatively impact another, you deserve to lose yours then. Only thing is, I haven't nor desire to do that to another human being. With that in mind, as long as I remain peaceful and are not negatively impacting another, why should I lose my rights or face unnecessary restrictions? Is it really anyone else's business what I own?

As for what you typed making any sense to me, I can understand your points regardless if I don't necessarily agree on such, and I understand your commitment to what is humane, and any effort to go about things in a humane manner are certainly noble. As I am typing this response to you, please keep in mind that I was once like you in regards to the gun control debate, in my teens I was a raging gun control advocate, but as I got older and did some serious research on the topic, I changed my views based on evidence, with said evidence being that gun control legislation has largely failed and there's no guarantee that more of the same would solve the problem. The reason I do posts like this sometimes is to attempt to find reasonable solutions to the problems we face, solutions in which everyone would be satisfied. I say what I say for good reason. If time allows me to later tonight, have a story I'd like to share, and perhaps that would better help you understand why I take the stance that I take on the gun debate. Lastly, thank you for sharing your thoughts, much appreciated. You didn't really answer my question in the post above, how one could simultaneously claim to be both liberal and in support of what could be considered restrictive legislation where gun ownership is concerned, but if you don't wish to answer that's fine, I understand. Thank you for taking the time to give feedback.

@Trajan61 I certainly agree on the suicide part, does not make much sense. You're right about the rules too, but how do you convince someone otherwise who actually believes you could just waltz into a local WalMart lay your money down and a few moments later walk out of the store with a new gun? That's not reality, but try telling that to someone who has bought into the lies of the gun control lobby.

@Trajan61 By the way Trajan, I was recently browsing through various memes and came across a good one. Remember this one? While Star Wars may be fictional, that scenario is realistic in the sense that's how some evil people think, and scary it is.

@SpikeTalon That pretty well sums it up.