Gun Culture in the USA

The Gun Lobby is Winning

The USA is recognized as the bastion of freedom and that boils down to owning and using a gun as well. The USA is perhaps the only country in the world where it is extremely easy to own a gun, why some states also allow you to own a machine gun. Contrast this with China where a Chinese citizen will have to justify owning an air gun!

Much of this ease of owning guns is due to the powerful gun lobby that exists in the USA. A study will show that perhaps a stage has reached where some one will have to rein in the horse. Otherwise there could be fearful consequences.

Let’s look at some of the latest rights of the gun owners.

a) Guns in Bars. I would say this is one of the bizarre rights conferred on gun owners. Tennessee in 2009 is the first state to allow guns to be carried inside bars. As is well known bars are place where a man could get high on a couple of drinks and also lose his sense of reason. This decision is really perverse. The buck has not stopped with Tennessee, but 4 other states Virginia, Ohio, Georgia and Arizona have also followed suite. In addition another 20 states make no mention about this and in real terms it means that a man can take a gun into a bar by default.

b) Guns in Churches. A church is a hallowed place and really is no place for guns. But now 20 states allow guns to be carried to a church under the “Right to carry “laws propagated and supported by the gun lobby. There is no explicit law as to banning the carriage of guns inside a church.

c) Guns on College Campuses. This again is a bizarre connotation. One cannot accept that guns have anything to do with learning. It is an intellectual exercise, yet the Colorado Supreme court struck down the universities ban on guns. The positive news is that 23 states do prohibit guns on campuses and 23 leave it to the individual institutions to decide. With the spate of killings on campuses, maybe the Gun Lobby might like to soften its stand on guns in university campuses

Lastly one could die laughing on a bed of nails, if the decision to allow guns to offices was not a very serious matter. I understand OKlahoma in 2004 was the first state to allow guns to a work place. Now another dozen states have permitted it as well.

The USA is passing through troubled times. Perhaps what they need is a Martin Luther King or Gandhi to make the law makers realize the folly of indiscriminate use of guns. If there were some restriction the case like that of Zimmerman would not have happened.

More by this Author


Comments 36 comments

phoenix2327 profile image

phoenix2327 4 years ago from United Kingdom

Well that settles it. I'm never moving back to the US.


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you phoenix for sparing time to read this hub.


Longhunter 4 years ago

I live in Tennessee and have a Handgun Carry Permit. I carry everywhere it's legal and generally don't go where they're not allowed, unless necessary.

That being said, your point "A" doesn't tell the whole story, MG.

In the state of Tennessee, a state citizen who has a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) is over the age of 21, taken a course on the use of a handgun, qualified on the shooting range, then applied to the state. The application fee is $115. They then go through a background check with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). Then and only then is when an HCP holder legally allowed to carry into a restaurant that also serves alcohol and bars unless there is a sign posted on each door not allowing it.

The owner/manager of any business has the right to post those signs and HCP holders are required to adhere to those signs or be arrested.

A HCP holder is not allowed to drink alcohol at any time while armed. This includes even if they leave their firearm in the vehicle. If they are pulled over, found to have been drinking alcohol, and there is a gun in their vehicle, they will be arrested.

As to your point "B", you're right. A church is "a hallowed place and really is no place for guns." However, I carry while in church every Sunday. Our church is in a quiet part of town but has been broken into a few times. Obviously, the thugs and criminals don't really care that it's "a hallowed place."

Thugs also don't care if those aforementioned signs are posted on the doors of a business and carry their guns in no matter what. As a result, I tend to not give my money to those businesses that don't allow guns.

As to your point "C", I agree that a place of learning is no place for guns and, in Tennessee, no guns of any kind are allowed on campuses from grade school through college. Unfortunately, thugs really don't care about those laws, making these places "gun free zones" that only gives them free rein if they want to cause problems. Yes, these places have security forces but there's an old saying that says:

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

With an average police response time of 11 minutes nationwide, I think I'll stick to legally carrying my own gun for self-protection.

Here in the USA, when something like the Trayvon Martin thing happens, it's usually the "knee jerk" reaction of anti-gun people to try to ban guns. Thankfully we have a Second Amendment that keeps that from happening. If the government tries to ban them, they'll have a huge fight on their hands.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

This article is full of illogic, poorly thought out examples and just plain mistruths. Let’s fisk it and see what we get…

Singh sez: The USA is perhaps the only country in the world where it is extremely easy to own a gun,

Jack replies: Simply not true. In many European countries it is easy to own a gun. Yes, there is paperwork just as there is here, but ownership is not filled with impossible roadblocks. Plus, in many countries owning a gun outside government purview is just as easy as it is here. Bad guys always have as many guns as they want.

Singh sez: Much of this ease of owning guns is due to the powerful gun lobby that exists in the USA.

Jack replies: Yeah… and all those millions of Americans who owned millions of guns BEFORE the NRA became a “powerful gun lobby” simple didn’t exist. Back in 1960 you could walk into a Sears hardware store and walk out with a gun, no questions asked or answered. The NRA supported the gun control acts of 1968 that stopped this.

Singh sez: A study will show that perhaps a stage has reached where some one will have to rein in the horse. Otherwise there could be fearful consequences.

Jack replies: There are certainly going to be “fearful consequences” if the government decides to “rein in the horse.”

Singh sez: a) Guns in Bars. I would say this is one of the bizarre rights conferred on gun owners. Tennessee in 2009 is the first state to allow guns to be carried inside bars.

Jack replies: Pure emotion speaking here. There are dozens of states that allow their CCW holders to carry into bars and did well before Tennessee acted. Yet Sighn simply cannot point to any major disaster that has happened from this policy. He cannot point to hundreds of dead people lying across bars in the past few decades. They simply don’t exist. Yet, he considers something that has never happened outside his imagination as “bizarre”.

Singh sez: As is well known bars are place where a man could get high on a couple of drinks and also lose his sense of reason. This decision is really perverse.

Jack replies: So point us to these thousands of dead bodies. And find us a state that has become so disgusted with CCW holders in bars shooting up the place that they’ve changed the law to disallow it. You can’t on either one. Because they don’t exist.

Signh sez: Guns in Churches. A church is a hallowed place and really is no place for guns.

Jack replies: Awwwww…. It is so touching the faith and trust that Signh has in his fellowman, and knows that no one will ever, not once, in any place, decide to violate that “hallowed place” with a gun and kill helpless lambs who have no way to defend themselves. Or… we can google “church shootings” and find hundreds of real life examples where bad guys with guns weren’t quite as tenderhearted as Signh and went shooting into churches, killing dozens of people over just the past few years. Does Signh really think that the Secret Service puts their guns away when the president walks into a church?

Signh Sez: Guns on College Campuses. This again is a bizarre connotation. One cannot accept that guns have anything to do with learning.

Jack replies: The “gun lobby” recognizes reality, and that is that Signh and his ilk want to have the campus society completely helpless in the face of a shooter who is not going to obey any laws. Making a place “gun free” is exactly the same as making it “target rich” for those who seek to do harm. There are dozens of campuses around the country where students carry licensed concealed handguns every day and Signh simply cannot point to one where “learning” doesn’t take place as normal. He also cannot find dozens of dead bodies laying around those campuses each morning after the daily rampage of students with CCW licenses.

Signh sez: Lastly one could die laughing on a bed of nails, if the decision to allow guns to offices was not a very serious matter. I understand OKlahoma in 2004 was the first state to allow guns to a work place. Now another dozen states have permitted it as well.

Jack replies: You understand wrong. But we’ll pass on that for a moment. Let’s say that you are correct and 2004 was the first year that guns could be carried into offices by those with a CCW license. Where are the thousands of dead office workers from their CCW holding workmates since then. It’s been eight years now, eh. Where are the hundreds of dead office workers? Dozens? A few? Again, they simply don’t exist outside your imagination. And your personal fears don’t get to trump the rights of other people.

Signh sez: The USA is passing through troubled times. Perhaps what they need is a Martin Luther King or Gandhi to make the law makers realize the folly of indiscriminate use of guns. If there were some restriction the case like that of Zimmerman would not have happened.

Jack replies: 380,000,000 guns in America. Last year 379,900,000 harmed no one, or caused any problem in society. For the one tenth of one percent that did Signh want to punish the owners of the other 99.9 percent that didn’t. This is what passes as logic in his mind.


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you Longhunter for a wonderful comment. Incidentally I own 3 guns as I served in the Air force. I love guns , but believe me I have never felt the need to carry guns anytime, anywhere as the society is not violent.

Your comments really support my point. In case there is a necessity to carry guns in the USA all the time something must be drastically wrong. So its about time this gun culture was curtailed. I have also spent quality time in the USA and I love the place , but for these guns floating around. Thank you for commenting.


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you Jack for your point of view.


teaches12345 profile image

teaches12345 4 years ago

Thanks for sharing your views on this topic. I agree that we need to have better gun control in our nation, but don't know how to best do this. I believe in the right to bear arms but we need to watch who is allowed to do this, and for what purpose.


Longhunter 4 years ago

MG, the United States is not a violent place. It's just that some of us have found the need, due to things that have happened to us personally, to have the added protection of legally carrying a gun. Thanks to the Second Amendment, we have that right. I would much rather have the right than to not have it.

"So its about time this gun culture was curtailed."

The problem with this thinking is, once things have been "curtailed" as you put it, the only ones that would have guns are the criminals and the government. I'm not comfortable with that being the case with either one.

The only gun control I like is when I'm the one in control of the gun.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

I appreciate your writing, MG. I feel that the need to own and carry guns has gotten downright scary in the U.S. Why would anyone need a machine gun or automatic rifle who isn't planning on using it on innocent civilians? Why do so many people feel so frightened that they feel the need to carry a gun?

Most gun killings in the U.S. are people who were either shot in an argument, accidentally killed by a friend or relative, children accidentally shot while playing with guns or people who commit suicide with guns.

I know that there are many avid gun enthusiasts out there who feel that they are safer by carrying a gun, but I don't feel that having guns so prominent in any culture makes anyone safer.

I disagree with your example where you equated not having easy access to guns indicating that a country is repressive. Everyone who wants to support the argument that owning a gun is equated to freedom uses China or some other repressive government as an example of a culture where the citizens don't own guns. The British don't feel that they need to go around armed, and theirs is a government that isn't considered repressive. They have rifles in the country to be used on their own property, and they have a few guns in other circumstances. But every other guy in Britain doesn't feel he has to have a gun for his own protection.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

HP sez: I feel that the need to own and carry guns has gotten downright scary in the U.S.

Jack replies: The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual person. If you are depending upon the authorities for all your protection you just might be disappointed when the bad guys figure out the best time to do something bad is when the policeman is standing on a corner five blocks away, not five feet away.

HP sez: Why would anyone need a machine gun or automatic rifle who isn't planning on using it on innocent civilians?

Jack replies: Machine guns and automatic rifles are highly regulated by the Federal government. There are about 300,000 that are available for civilian use, and each one requires a special permit that takes about six months and the approval of your local sheriff to obtain. Since 1934 records show that a whole TWO people have been killed by a legally owned machine gun. So tell us, HP, just WHY do you think the other 299,998 machine guns have not been out there “killing innocent civilians”?

HP sez: Why do so many people feel so frightened that they feel the need to carry a gun?

Jack replies: Why do so many people feel so frightened that they feel the need to carry a spare tire?

Why do so many people feel so frightened that they feel the need to put on a seat belt?

Why do so many people feel so frightened that they feel the need to lock their doors?

It’s called “being prepared” for the unexpected.

HP sez: Most gun killings in the U.S. are people who were either shot in an argument, accidentally killed by a friend or relative, children accidentally shot while playing with guns or people who commit suicide with guns.

Jack replies: This is simply not true. Most killings with a gun in the US is between gang members in inner cities. Factor those out and the rate of death by a gun drops dramatically. And BTW, it’s been proven over and over again that guns are not a factor in deciding suicide. If a person wants to do himself in, he will find a way. Dead is dead whether from hanging, jumping off a bridge, or taking poison.

HP sez: I know that there are many avid gun enthusiasts out there who feel that they are safer by carrying a gun, but I don't feel that having guns so prominent in any culture makes anyone safer.

Jack replies: Unfortunately those pesky “facts” get to trump feelings every day. Just so that you know, having a legally carried handgun on me made the difference one morning between winding up in the hospital, or even worse, the morgue, and going home safe to my family. I am sure my wife and kids appreciate your “feelings” that I should have been beaten and killed that day.

HP sez: I disagree with your example where you equated not having easy access to guns indicating that a country is repressive. Everyone who wants to support the argument that owning a gun is equated to freedom uses China or some other repressive government as an example of a culture where the citizens don't own guns. The British don't feel that they need to go around armed, and theirs is a government that isn't considered repressive.

Jack replies: Yeah… try telling Simon Ledger that.

HP sez: They have rifles in the country to be used on their own property, and they have a few guns in other circumstances. But every other guy in Britain doesn't feel he has to have a gun for his own protection.

Jack replies: Brits make good subjects. They realize that they are under the thumb of anyone who is bigger, stronger, or greater in number than they are and they seem to be happy that way.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

Gee, Jack Burton, thanks for the rant. Did you take this hub over in your extreme need?


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 4 years ago from Camp Hill, PA

Amazing how sometimes the best looks at the American Culture of Guns come from other places.

Check out my hub "License To Kill" for a look at a law you overlooked.


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you teaches for your comment


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you loghunter for your opinion


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Hi Healthy Pursuit! good viewpoints. Thank you


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Hp sez: Gee, Jack Burton, thanks for the rant. Did you take this hub over in your extreme need?

Jack replies: Snappy answer there, HP. Way to show all the readers that you really can't back up a single sentence you posted. But don't let me stand in your way of giving the readers the knowledge they need to know as to who can logically think about this issue and who works solely off from emotion.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

My apologies, MG, but I have to deal with a very rude reader on your hub. Otherwise, I wouldn't dream of engaging anyone but you as the writer of this hub.

Jack - I didn't respond to your rant with anything but sarcasm, not because I feel that my position is wrong. Actually, I feel that your position is wrong. But even more than that, I feel that your manners as a reader on someone else's hub are atrocious. I did not address you when I wrote my comment to MG. I did not invite your so-called rebuttal. And I won't go into it further here. You are doing everyone else a disservice with your monopolizing the comment section with your long-winded and aggressive comments. If you truly feel that you just have to pursue this rant, let's step "outside" to a forum, where MG Singh won't be caught in the middle. Let me know VIA MY EMAIL if you want to continue this. However, at the same time, please show a few more manners in dealing with me. So far, you haven't bothered.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

hp sez: I didn't respond to your rant with anything but sarcasm, not because I feel that my position is wrong. Actually, I feel that your position is wrong.

Jack replies: More "feelings" eh. Pretty much proves my point. Actually, you didn't reply to my post because I showed you wrong on everything you wrote except for the spelling of "and" and "the."

mg sez: But even more than that, I feel that your manners as a reader on someone else's hub are atrocious.

Jack replies: Let's run it by Ms. Manners for a second opinion.

mg sez: I did not address you when I wrote my comment to MG. I did not invite your so-called rebuttal.

Jack replies: Not been on the 'net long, have you. Kinda missed the concept of a public commenting forum that has been around for about 30 years or so.

mg sez: And I won't go into it further here.

Jack replies: You "won't" because you "can't".

mg sez: You are doing everyone else a disservice with your monopolizing the comment section with your long-winded and aggressive comments.

Jack replies: My goodness, mg, I was not aware that my single comment kept anyone else from commenting. You do know that is what "monopoly" means, don't you. You didn't know that? But you used the word anyway. Pitiful.

And BTW, wouldn't my post be "long fingered" instead of "long winded"?

mg sez: If you truly feel that you just have to pursue this rant, let's step "outside" to a forum, where MG Singh won't be caught in the middle.

Jack replies: Let me translate this for the Dear Readers: Rant = I can't answer the points Jack used so I call names instead.

You really don't understand Hubpages either. Comments count as favorable for Hubpages. The more comments a hub accumulates the better it is for all, since the more people then want to read a hub and participate. Why do you think they keep track of that on your record? Do you want Sighn to make more money from his hubs, or do you want him to make less money? I prefer him to make more money myself, but that is just me. You can prefer him to make less money if you want.

hp sez: Let me know VIA MY EMAIL if you want to continue this. However, at the same time, please show a few more manners in dealing with me. So far, you haven't bothered.

Jack replies: You're welcome to come over to my hubs and make any comment you want. And I'll show as much "manners" to you as I would a five year old on a tricycle trying to explain to NASCAR racers about race strategy. That is very similar to you posting about your gun knowledge.

What you want for "manners" is to have people agree with what you post. When you can't actually back up a single thing you posted then you start to whine about rants, monopolies and manners.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

I rest my case. I wouldn't want your kind of pageviews.


Longhunter 4 years ago

HP wrote: "I wouldn't want your kind of pageviews."

Wow, that's a different kind of racism but racism it is. It certainly sounds like racism. And from a Liberal no less. Doesn't surprise me at all.

Just what kind of people do you want to keep down on your Liberal Plantation?

Just what kind of page views do you not want, Healthy Pursuits?

Americans?

Veterans?

White people?

Black people?

Mixed race people?

People that exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Please tell us so we'll all know just in case we might fall into one or more of the categories you don't approve of so we'll know to stay away from your hubs.

We're waiting, Healthy Pursuits.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

This is my last post to this hub. As a writer, I wouldn't want the kind of pageviews that are due to aggressive and ugly verbal bashing, loaded with the sarcasm and attacking mentality that you think of as wit, and full of ranting. If you choose to call that racism, so be it.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

As noted, hp is unable to back up a single thing she posted about firearms. I never have the great urge to go onto a knitting hub and show my ignorance about knitting by commenting about something I know nothing about. I often wonder why people who know nothing about firearms feel compelled to come onto a firearm hub and comment.


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 4 years ago from Sacramento, California

Wow, kudos to Jack Burton, Longhunter and MG Singh. The kudos to MG Singh are for allowing full disclosure of all comments. My hats off to you Jack for not backing down in the face of the reverse racist "Healthy Pursuits." More often than not, the comment section really conveys who is honest, forthcoming and rational, then there are those who put up smoke and mirrors, hiding behind platitudes and nonsense.

My contribution is simple and only a reiteration of the other two gentlemen, an unarmed public is a servant of the power, an armed public is a citizen sharing power. Governments love it when subjects cannot fight back, it makes totalitarianism very easy to manage.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Yes, MG is to be commended for allowing a full discussion. I have a number of people commenting unfavorably on my "pro guns" hubs and I enjoy their comments and always keep them on.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

Hello, again, MG. I decided that I would, after all, respond to my detractors. So I thought you'd like to read my hub titled Gun Culture Rebuttal To a Couple of Rude Fellows.


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you HP for your patience. I shall read your hub


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you Jack. I enjoyed your comments


MG Singh profile image

MG Singh 4 years ago from Singapore Author

Thank you Jason, a discussion is a good thing


cloverleaffarm profile image

cloverleaffarm 4 years ago from The Hamlet of Effingham

917 words is not a comment, it is a hub.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Perhaps cloverleaf is aware of a pixel shortage that the rest of us should be concerned about. :-)


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 4 years ago from Sacramento, California

What is more interesting about this discussion is the number of so called "firsts" by those whom obviously do not like debate, and are also oblivious to what happens daily during congress and parliament. Two sides belt out ideological standpoints, facing off over a specific topic. I will say that this is the “first” time I have ever seen another hubber count the total words of a rebuttal, as if that holds any weight in the negative or affirmative. I wonder if such a hubber will then go on to count the total number of words in John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” and post (their) findings?

MG Sing, thank you for the springboard of debate you have given us and your constant gracious outlook.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

Mr. Singh, if I could ask your favor for a small matter. HP asked me over to continue the debate, but then refused to post my answer back to her hub because I apparently used too many pixels for her taste. (Actually if was because I made her look bad but she needed an excuse.)

I don't want to spread this topic out over dozens of different hubs scattered amoung different people.

So, if it is okay with you I would like to post my answer to her hub about your hub on your hub, since she is unwilling to have her readers know where she is wrong about the subject. This is what I posted... and she deleted...

*******************************************************

Thank you, hp, for a number of items. First, you gave the actual link to the original hub of Mr. Singh where people can see in context what all of us wrote, and where you distorted what I wrote in your response. Also, as a firm believer in page views, you also help give me more page views. Lastly, you acknowledged that you were wrong several times in your first post.

Your post "Gun Culture Rebuttal To a Couple of Rude Fellows" is far too long and filled with far too much mistaken information for me to go through item for time. My “rebuttal” would be responsible for single-handedly setting off a pixel shortage here at Hubpages and neither one of us wants that.

Let’s just take one section as an example, and the readers can extrapolate from there about the poor quality of information in the rest of your hub.

Hp sez: Semiautomatic guns are not highly regulated, even though they have the ability to shoot a lot of people in a very short time. They definitely ARE used in crimes, mass shootings, etc. There for a while, we managed to get a ban on them, but it only took about a year for gun makers to find a loophole in the law to start selling them again. Then the ban expired and our gutless legislators didn't renew it.

So I'll ask the question again, with the "semi" driving through it. Just for my own curiosity, why do we need semi-automatic weapons? Automatic weapons? Machine guns? Why, other than some gun collector, does anyone need any of those weapons? Deer hunting? Heck, most police departments don't even have them, except for those in bigger cities.

Jack Replies: These two paragraphs are full of fail. I am sorry if that hurts your feelings, or makes me seem mean, but it is the honest truth. Not fail in the sense that I like pepperoni pizza and you like mushroom pizza so you obviously must be wrong. Not fail in the concept that I like blue and you like green so that means you don’t know what you are posting about.

No… this is fail in the sense that you could have equivalently posted 2 plus 2 equals 8. Or Paris, France is the home of the Berlin Wall. Facts are facts. When you state that you know guns because you grew up with them, yet you post such wrong facts then it becomes obvious to any reader who DOES know about firearms that something must be wrong somewhere. Please know that anyone reading your hub who knows firearms are going to have the same thoughts that I have.

If I posted in a hub that I was the sportswriter for the local newspaper and the reason the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team won the Stanley Cup in 2011 was because their quarterback was better at making free throws baskets than anyone else readers could rightfully look at anything I published as “suspect.” This is why I don’t have to go thru your entire post to prove my point.

“Semiautomatic guns” make up about 80 percent of ALL rifles/shotguns and 98 percent of ALL handguns on the market. Of course they are used in crimes. That is akin to saying that cars with four wheels are used to drive with. Semi-autos are as highly regulated as any other type of firearm. This type of firearm has existed prior to the Civil War, over 150 years ago. By 1880 they already were 80 percent of the handgun market. They were being experimented with as early as da Vinci’s times, when he designed one as an exercise in mechanics.

Semi-autos were NEVER banned from manufacturing, selling, buying and using. Not for one day. (Remember the Berlin Wall in Paris?)

Some newly-manufactured guns with certain COSMETIC features were “banned” but that is similar to saying that if you ban making new cars with hood ornaments that “cars” are somehow “banned.” Manufactures merely took the “ornaments” off the new guns and kept making them the next day. Existing guns with the “ornaments” were completely legal. This is why the “ban” was allowed to lapse 10 years later. Everyone, including the Brady bunch acknowledged that it had absolutely nothing to do with controlling criminals or crime.

Again, your question as to why we “need” semi-automatic weapons leads knowledgeable readers to suspect that you really don’t know anything about firearms. We could get by on cars that only travel ten miles an hour… or computers that have 64K of RAM… or regular sized beds instead of queens/kings. Each of those items are fully functional at a much reduced convenience to the user. A 10-MPH car will get you to where you are going – eventually. Might even be safer under some circumstances than one that goes 60 MPH also. But the trade-offs are impracticable for most people. And it could be dangerous, also, if someone really needs to be somewhere else in a hurry and they are stuck taking 60 minutes for what could be a 10 minute ride.

Well, if you want to only have “single shot” handguns and long guns then what do you say to the person who has two attackers? Go ahead and take a minute between firing the bullets and it will be okay? Or the 110 lb secretary in the parking lot who misses her would-be rapist with the first shot? Or the Korean storeowners in the LA riots of 20 years ago watching a rampaging mob coming down the street to burn out his neighborhood and kill his family? Or to the hunter who misses a clean shot with the first bullet and wants to dispatch the prey quickly and humanely with the second shot. I’m sure the deer won’t mind waiting in agony for a minute or two while the gun is reloaded.

And you ask about “automatic” weapons and “machine guns”. It was already explained to you in the previous post that, yes, collectors are EXACTLY the people who buy them. They are not for sale at the local Walmart. Or the local gun shop for that matter. You knew this, or should have, from reading the other post. Yet you choose to repeat almost the same exact information that you posted earlier. I won’t speculate on why you did this, but it is a question that you should ask yourself.

And in terms of using “semi automatic” weapons for “deer hunting” the October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR style rifle on its front cover, and declared it one of the top ten hunting rifles of the year. So who are the readers supposed to believe. The experts on deer hunting at Outdoor Life… or you.

All these pixels just to give accurate information on only two of your paragraphs. See why it is impractical for me to attempt to answer all the rest of your hub?

As a final note… sooner or later almost all people who get corrected about their lack of knowledge on guns starts to claim that somehow their “freedom of speech” has been violated because someone disagreed with them. Actually those of us on the pro-freedom and pro-firearm side love the 1st Amendment. It truly gives the readers the opportunity to know who is who, and who knows what. By allowing me to point out your errors then it gives the readers the opportunity to understand that it is THEIR responsibility to go out and find out the correct info for themselves. For example, they can take your word about semi-autos being banned… or they can take my word. Or… best yet… they can do a bit of research and find out which of us is right.

I am confident that what they find out will open their eyes as to the truth.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

As I said in my hub, which I would not allow Jack to post in, because he really should write his own hubs, I specifically included an image of the kind of semi-automatic weapons I was talking about. I don't consider 3100 words a comment. I consider it a hub, and I think that most people would agree.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

How cute... hp won't let me respond in ~her~ hub where we can have an honest debate... but she feels perfectly fine about coming all the way over to this one to respond to a post that she purposefully would not allow in her hub.

If she had any integrity her hub is where the discussion would be.

She knows very well that her "image" has nothing to do with what she wrote. The words are clear for all.

Well, we found another "word counter" Jason.

And Mr. Signh, sorry that hp had to hijack your hub for her own purposes. I assure you that most hubbers are much better mannered. She won't allow discussion on her hub, but takes advantage of your good nature to force it on yours.


Healthy Pursuits profile image

Healthy Pursuits 4 years ago from Oregon

Whatever you say,Jack... I had ok'd your comment in my hub - the comment that wasn't a hub in itself - before you wrote your last comment here, and I suspect that you knew that when you made this last comment. At this point, I'm unfollowing this hub.


kingmaxler profile image

kingmaxler 4 years ago from Olympia, Washington USA

I find the whole gun issue in my country confusing and frustrating. I am opposed to guns in so many ways. They are to easy to use and there are too many out there. They get in the hands of children and end up hurting the unintended. I do not know where I stand exactly. I do not want to drive the highways with the amount of dangerous road rage there is out there and everyone with concealed weapons. I do not want my public places to be filled with fearful people carry guns to protect themselves. I also live in a very safe area. I get the value of guns and that some people enjoy them, but I feel less safe where people carry guns. People who live in fear are unpredictable. Thank you for your words and live in peace.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working