I still have guns at my mom's house. One of them is a pellet gun, so it doesn't count. The other is a double barrel shotgun my great-great grandpa had. It's too old to be safely shot, so I just have it for decoration. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure if anyone makes rounds for it anymore. 

My mom won't let me bring my Ruger .243 home. It'll stay at my grandparents' until I live somewhere else. Wherever I move to, my guns will follow, just like my knives will. Similar to my guns, I keep my knives sheathed and/or folded, and hidden away.

My mom is ok with knives, but not with guns. She participated in a few self-defense classes with me, where we learned how to use knives the right way. She feels safe with knives because she's educated about knives. She hasn't received much education on guns, however, and has more left-wing views on guns. I respect her opinions and choice to keep our house free of active guns, as I do anyone's opinions and choice to not have guns. I don't question her or anyone else's decision. 

What I don't agree with is pressuring other people to have or not have guns (or anything for that matter). Sure, machine guns are a little much for the average household, and I certainly don't want citizens to have access to RPGs and missiles. But because semi-auto, bolt-action, single-action, etc... guns are good and very popular tools for hunting, target practice, self defense, and more, I want citizens to have access to those firearms when they want access to them. 

I'm all for 3-day yearly background checks that include a mental health exam. At the same time, no one should have the ability to revoke your right to bear arms, even temporarily, purely by allegation. There have been some cases where a person's guns were wrongly taken away because someone falsely accused them of being dangerous. Due process must be followed before anyone's guns are taken away. 

At the same time, all allegations ought to be taken seriously. A case ought to be visited and processed quickly to avoid any trouble as much as possible. People who are on a watch list, have a dangerous criminal record, and/or have a strong history of severe mental illness, and/or are currently struggling with a severe mental illness, shouldn't have access to guns. But their 2nd amendment right shouldn't be terminated unless the court fairly deals with the case.

I don't want to pressure anyone into getting a gun either. Some people are just not comfortable with guns, and that is OK. What drives me nuts is when people call other people "anti-gun" simply because they don't want a gun. It happens too often over social media. If someone doesn't like guns or isn't comfortable discussing the subject, the subject should just be changed right then and there. 

Some people have called me "anti-gun" simply because I'm for stricter background checks. I know how strict background checks already are, but people like the Florida school shooter still got a legal gun through some sort of loophole. Those loopholes need to be closed off, so no crazy criminal can legally get a firearm. This doesn't make me anti-gun. If anything, it makes me even more pro-gun.

I want more good guys with guns, and less bad guys with guns. I also want less restrictions on what guns civilians can own, once those background checks are put in place, and less bad guys are getting access to guns. Sure, bad guys may always find a way to get a gun or wreak havoc some other way, but stricter background checks should bring down violent gun crime quite a bit.