The NRA and their Followers in Gun Control

There seems to be two types of NRA members, those that are moderate and those that are fanatical idiots. The president of the NRA himself is a hypocrite, changing his position on the gun control issues over the years.

The moderate members seem to be more introverted and fewer of them than the larger, extroverted fanatical owners that love their guns so much they dream of having sex with it. Unfortunately, it is the "squeaky wheel that gets its way". The moderate NRA members favor what most non-gun owners want also:

1. Background checks whenever a gun is sold, whether it is at a gun show or between two on the street or between family members. The background check should be done when a gun is given as a gift to another.

2. The gun magazine capacity should be not more than 10 bullets allowed. Those that insist it be 20-30 rounds are lazy, so lazy, they dread changing a clip- its such hard work. I mean, you gotta take the clip out and stick another one in,

3. The states must comply with background checks for criminal and mental health records. The problem is, many do not now. Unless a state is mandated by the feds to comply, many will just give them the finger. It does little good to do a check if the state does not provide the data. Duh!

4. Restrict who can purchase any AR-15 rifle or other semi-automatic weapon. They are not needed/ The gun lovers arguments about their need shows how lazy they are- I mean, its so hard to pull a trigger many times instead of just holding the trigger down and fire off bullets.

All of the NRA members lame arguments about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms are, or should be, in most sensible people, second and subordinate to the right of life of any American. But, many NRA members are just sick and in love with guns, maybe it is a sort of repressed sexual or aggressive behavior, its about power. Whatever it is, since the discussions began, there have already been more shootings.

Enough is enough, and these four items are really no brainers to start gun control.


More by this Author


Comments 88 comments

HSchneider 3 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

I agree with all 4 of your points, Perrya. They will not take away an American's arms as some fanatical NRA leaders claim. They are common sense restrictions. Excellent Hub and analysis.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

LaPierre hasn['t been helping NRA or it's members with his inflammatory comments, especially the one about the President's children. That one takes the cake. Also his recommendation that police or armed guards be assigned to schools wasn't very well thought out. He may have gotten that one from Archie Bunker.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Archie...


Carlos 3 years ago

@Perrya

No gun owner will take you seriously until you learn the difference between a clip and a magazine. The only rifle I have that uses a clip is my WW2 M1 Garand. Also, #4, what are you talking about? Do you know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic? I recommend you write about other topics.

Also, I let my NRA membership lapse for years until last month. I never thought I would join again, but they are one of best defenses against the left. People like you are pushing moderates like me further to the right.


Jayfort 3 years ago

Research has proven that a shooter can swap magazines fast enough that reducing the allowable capacity in magazines will not appreciably reduce the amount of damage the shooter can make.

The true weapon in any attack on another human is not the gun but the grey matter under the skull and between the ears. Anything else is merely a tool for accomplishing what the attacker wants to do. When they made it difficult to get guns on board aircraft, hijackers shifted to other tactics and weapons. I'm not a trained weapons expert, but give me a few minutes in an average room and I can identify everyday items I can turn into deadly weapons.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

perrya is so typical of the poster who knows absolutely nothing about firearms but is convinced in his mind that we should follow his "common sense" regulations. That's like letting a five year old on his first tricycle determine the rules for a NASCAR race.

These people have got to stop living in fantasy land and at least begin to approach reality at some point in their life.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

You don't have to know the terms to know the statistics. That's reality.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

NRA diehards simply refuse to see reality, live in their own la-la land about how innocent guns are. Dumb ass phrases like, "guns don't kill, people do" well, duh, but if the people cannot get a gun then it is simply harder, which may mean the victim lives.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Here's a statistic for you:

Rifles are used in such a low percentage of shootings as to be statistically insignificant.

You want to stop gun deaths? Tell me how you propose to get the guns away from gang bangers and criminals, cause that's who is doing all the shooting. And they don't get their guns from the local gun shop.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is giving you trouble? And who are YOU to say what is needed and what is not? I have the absolute right to use whatever means I see fit to defend my gift of life and my family.

Your last paragraph is so puerile as to show you have no credibility in your argument.

Don't like guns? Terrific! Don't own one. But don't tell me I have to become a sheep-like victim because you are scared of them. It doesn't work that way.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

No one said you cannot own a gun after everything checks out and its not a semi-automatic weapon.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

I don't think you really understand what semi-automatic means. Which, again, lends little credibility to your arguments. Might I suggest my my hub about gun control if you wish to expand your knowledge in this area.

Because right now all you have is an emotional and misinformed argument.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Semi-automatic means one must pull the trigger more often to fire, automatic is pulling the trigger and spraying the bullets like a machine gun. You are just tossing mud.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Then if I can own a semi-auto handgun, are you less dead if I shoot you with it? Or a revolver? How about a lever action rifle?

Semi-auto is no different from a revolver in that respect, it is simply a difference as to how the next round comes in to battery for firing. But you have to pull the trigger, each and every time to fire one round, just like an AR-15.

You do understand that a overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by previously convicted felons with semi-auto handguns, right? The key word there being 'convicted'.

We don't need more gun laws or restrictions on law abiding gun owners, who are the only ones who will abide by them anyhow. If gun laws work, explain Chicago. Then explain Austin, Texas.

But trying to explain this to anti-gun nuts is like trying to explain the Theory of Relativity to a sparrow. No matter how well you explain it, the birds mind is just too small to understand.


Carlos 3 years ago

@Perrya

Your attempt to edit #4 based on the criticism you received made it worse than it was before. You know nothing about firearms.


Michael 3 years ago

I am a law abiding citizen and an honorably discharged veteran. What makes people like you think you should be able to dictate what I need or what I should be allowed to own?


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

1 and 3 makes sense. 2 won't do anything if the guy uses a speed reload or even a speedy tactical reload, it's not gonna do jack. 4 will eventually ban semi auto weapons.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Gun owners, as a general rule, have a more paranoid outlook about their life, their own mortality and mankind in general. They think that their life is at stake whenever they go out in the public away from home, so, they carry a sidearm. Non-gun owners do not have this paranoia and believe most of mankind is not a danger. There is no need for a gun, except for sport or hunting. The gun debate is along philosophical concepts, right or wrong. Granted, the crimes with guns have made a stronger argument for the four steps I stated and has made the NRA and its members seem to be extreme. No gun is taken away or cannot be sold if you pass a thorough background check, if you are of a certain person with training, maybe you can get an AR 15. And, limiting a magazine to 10 bullets should be a non-issue, why do you need one with 30? just the thrill of rapid fire?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

I basically agree. However, I think you cast your net a bit too wide. There are plenty of gun owners who are normal game bird hunters and target shooters and who aren't paranoid people who own weapons for protection from criminals or from their government.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

The philosophical issues about the gun debate, as perrya alludes to, does not, in my opinion, get talked about enough. Guns in our culture are essentially a classic tragedy of the commons. Individuals make a choice of gun ownership to make themselves feel powerful or safe, but they do so at the expense of the overall safety of the public. It is interesting that so many 2nd amendment supporters can be so cognizant of the tyranny that a government can build behind a wall of guns but completely oblivious to the tyranny that citizens can build when they put up a wall of guns between themselves and their fellow citizens. If we choose violence as an acceptable solution, than that is the world we will live in. We should focus on social solutions to our problems, not mechanical/technological choices that builds walls and divides us into usses vs. thems. I agree with perrya's 4 steps as a minimum starting point.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

@junkseller

That kumbya crap goes right out the window when faced with 3 or more armed suspects breaking down your door to pull a home invasion robbery. You don't get to tell me how many rounds I can have in my weapon. Do you really think gang bangers and criminals are going to suddenly start following gun laws? All you are proposing to do is to put law abiding gun owners at a disadvantage and create MORE victims.

I am not going to become a victim to satisfy your sense of right and wrong or to make you feel like you are an enlightened being among us philistines.

There are those that see the world for what it is and how it exists, and those who think it's just all unicorns farting rainbow sherbet.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Superkev is a perfect example about how many gun owners think-extreme, not the norm. of course, it does matter where you live-if I lived in a ghetto city, yeah, a gun is in order; otherwise, no.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

What is 'in order' is for each of us to be able to make our own choices in the matter as sovereign citizens.

Why don't you try telling Dr. William Petit that only people who live in rough neighborhoods needs protection? I'm sure he would understand your point, or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut...


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

What has come out of all the discussion on gun contol that I didn't know is this: more people commit suicide with guns in America than are killed in homicides. What that says to me is that if I own a gun (which I do) it is more likely to be used by someone to kill themselves than it is to protect me from a threat. Knowing this, it completely changes my feelings about "my rights" and makes me think more seriously about my responsibilities if I own a firearm of any kind.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Kathleen, this is not true.

There are about 15,000 suicides with a gun each year. Study after study has shown that if guns were not available these people will still find a way to commit suicide — just not with the gun.

Depending upon which study you want to accept there are anywhere from several hundred thousand to 1,000,000+ times a year when ordinary citizens just like you and I use a firearm to defend ourselves against social deviants who would do us harm.

While each person who commits suicide, no matter the method, is a tragedy to both his family and society we're not going to prevent those from happening by removing guns from either our homes or society. It is just not going to happen.

It's up to you whether or not you want to keep a gun for personal protection and self-defense. I already fall into that category of people who used a gun to defend themselves. I hope you never have to go through it. It would be wonderful if you live the next hundred years and never actually needed the gun in a situation to save yourself from harm.

But I do hope that you don't allow bogus studies and false statistics influence you into something that you may regret later. It's far better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

Superkev,

Your comments substantiate my point. I'm afraid and therefore I'm going to increase my own safety...but that mentality is an arms race type of mentality. You yourself suggest that criminals will basically do whatever they have to in order to commit their deeds. That might mean up-gunning themselves, switching tactics, working in teams, using more dangerous weapons, etc. The overall impact of more armed civilians is just more dangerous criminals. It is a path by which we can not win. Crime is a social problem, hence requires social solutions, not mechanical/individualistic/technological ones. We need to focus on social cohesion and dialog, strong neighborhoods, mental health, etc. You can call that "unicorns farting rainbow sherbet" if you want to. I could just as easily call your gungasm solution a cowards way to manhood, but that wouldn't be very respectful would it?


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

You could, but after 8 years in the USMC and 16 as a Police Officer I don't think it would be an accurate assessment.

But what you could say is that I have had a front row seat to the worst life has to offer, and I say if you want to be armed and ready, no one has the right to say you cannot be. Crime happens everywhere my friend, and when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. You would do well to remember that.

Try some of that 'social cohesion and dialog' with an MS-13 gang member, and let us know how far you get. Hopefully he is not breaking down your front door or carjacking you at the time.


Carl 3 years ago

@Kathleen

I'm not sure where you are going with the suicide statement. Japan has twice our suicide rate and almost no guns. If a person wants to commit suicide they will find a way, just as a person wanting to commit homicide.


Oscar 3 years ago

Great, another liberal from California trying to tell me what I should be allowed to own.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Not at all, just being reasonable.


Oacar 3 years ago

In other words, you would like to determine what is "reasonable" for me to own. I'm failing to see the difference.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Your being unreasonable.


Oscar 3 years ago

What I think is "unreasonable" is for a liberal in California who knows nothing about firearms to tell me, a law-abiding citizen of Texas, what I should be allowed to own. People on your side of the fence, Obama included, have a misbelief that people like me are somehow obligated to compromise or negotiate with you. We're not and many of us are not going to.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Except for the AR15, no one is trying to tell you what type of gun to buy. This thinking is typical of NRA members-far from reality, I use to live in Austin, BTW. I suppose, that is too liberal also.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

When you wrote the original article you showed that you have no clue as to what an"AR15" is and what supposedly makes it so different from any other rifle. Yet you are "trying to tell" people that they can't have one.

And you call this "reasonable, common sense" gun control, eh.


Rick 3 years ago

So in your mind, it's alright to have a Steyr Aug, FS2000, or FAL. People just shouldn't be allowed to have AR-15s. Do you know anything about firearms?


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

Gun control is only tangentially a technology discussion. It is much more of a sociological discussion. For every gun control proponent who doesn't know an AR-15 from a Steyr Aug, I'd be willing to bet their is a pro-gun proponent who doesn't know diddly about the relationship between suicide and firearms (Jack Burton's comment above is a case in point) or know bupkis about criminology.

The reality is that if we can be excluded from voting on an issue based upon lack of expert knowledge than very few, if any of us, would get to vote on anything.

In this case, I fail to see the relevance. I've never seen anyone acquire deeper knowledge of firearm mechanics and suddenly change their overall position regarding gun control. It might tweak their specific opinion about details of a proposed policy, but that's about it.


Rick 3 years ago

@junk

What's your point? Are you saying that we should just ban all firearms? Also, I am a little confused about the suicide argument. Japan has twice our suicide rate and almost no firearms.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Junk.... my grandfather committed suicide with a gun. My sister's husband committed suicide with a gun. I think I know quite well the "relationship" between suicides and guns. I also know that a dear friend in college committed suicide by hanging himself in the basement of a building with a rope. And he was just as dead as my grandfather and brother in law.

And when one is basing their "positions" on mistaken beliefs you can write it off if you choose. The majority of people would prefer that knowledge, not ignorance, be the determining factor in how our laws are made.

And BTW... I have seen dozens upon dozens of people who wanted to ban ARs and other similar rifles because they thought they were fully automatic... and once they found out the truth about the lies the gun control movement are pushing they completely changed their minds.

That gives us a clue as to why you and others are so dead-set against educating the public about guns.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

People who don't have guns often take drug overdoses to commit suicide. If they change their mind or relatives get to them they can be saved by having their stomachs pumped and appropriate medical care. Not so with somebody who shoots themself in the head with a Glock or sticks a shotgun barrel in their mouth.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Yep... and since they are serious about committing suicide what possibly makes you think they will settle for something "second best"?

Do you really think my family members were just "fooling around" by using a firearm to commit suicide?


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Rick-- my point was only to say that if we start disallowing people from being a part of the discussion because we think they don't have the 'correct' knowledge than we'd all be in trouble. The solution when faced with incorrect information is to respectfully provide what one believes to be a correction rather than telling people that they have no business being a part of the discussion (that's a point in general not a specific accusation)

SUICIDE

Different methods of suicide have different success rates (the case fatality rate). Firearms have a high case fatality rate (they tend to be very successful). Cutting one's wrists has a very low success rate (at least in areas with access to modern medicine).

Japan's suicide rate by itself doesn't tell us very much. They may very well have a much lower case mortality rate (meaning that fewer who try are successful) because they are not in general using firearms which have one of the highest success rates (though their main method is hanging which also has a high success rate). Additionally, there are tremendous cultural differences that make a direct comparison tricky.

Regardless, attempts to reduce suicides can do one of two things: reduce suicide attempts through things like mental health awareness and suicide lines, or reduce the lethality of methods used. A great deal of suicide attempts are related to mental health or are impulsive. Restricting the most lethal options from being easily accessible can lead to less lethal methods being used, and thereby, fewer successful attempts.

People like to say that if someone wants to kill themselves they will. This just isn't true. The vast majority of attempts are unsuccessful. Meaning the person gets a second chance. Firearms more often than not, however, do not give that option. In America, only 1% of people attempting suicide use a firearm and yet they account for 54% of the successful attempts. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suici... That doesn't mean people without access to firearms won't try, it just means that, in general, they will be less likely to succeed.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Junk sez: @Rick-- my point was only to say that if we start disallowing people from being a part of the discussion because we think they don't have the 'correct' knowledge than we'd all be in trouble. The solution when faced with incorrect information is to respectfully provide what one believes to be a correction rather than telling people that they have no business being a part of the discussion (that's a point in general not a specific accusation)

Jack replies: If you find someone who told perry that he "has no business being a part of the discussion" or that he is "disallowed" from being part of the discussion you might have a "general" point.

But you can't. And you don't.

What you really find is that posters are questioning his credibility and his knowledge. The phrase, "No gun owner will take you seriously" is not equivalent to, "You cannot participate in the discussion or even vote on the matter."

If someone is trying to shut down the local zoo because they believe unicorns are being mistreated there they deserved to be corrected... however sweetly or sternly the corrector chooses to be. If they continue to attempt to shut down the zoo once the fact that unicorns don't really exist, and there are actually none of them in the zoo is available to them, then the public has the full right to mock and belittle them... no matter how much it hurts the feelings of all the others who also believe in unicorns.

If perry and his ilk don't want to buy a rifle of any kind... that is jake with me. The moment he makes an attempt to shut down my ability to buy a rifle then I am going to come down on him with the full force that I can.

junk sez: there are tremendous cultural differences that make a direct comparison tricky.

Jack replies: Thank you for admitting that it is not the gun but the society that determines things such as suicide efforts.

Yes, if someone wants to kill themselves they will. The same exact way my family members did. Are you suggesting they ~didn't~ want to "kill themselves"?

If someone is "saved" by a convenient family member who happens to be walking by and in easy calling distance I would suppose that means the would-be suicide victim really ~didn't~ want to kill themselves but had other goals in mind.

Here's an excerpt from a good essay:

"Taking the commonly used number of gun owners of 83,000,000 and dividing it by the number of suicides in the above year, we find that only 1 in every 4,727 gun owners committed suicide that year in America. Keeping in mind that they all did it by choice, and considering that the other 82,982,434 gun owners had nothing at all to do with that choice, can you understand how it's not very balanced or even sane to ask them to bear the responsibilities and burdens of those dead people's choices? Punishing 4,727 people for the actions of 1 person who made a choice you don't agree with is not only irrational, it is bizarre. "

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBVie...


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack Burton--I suppose we could argue about what disallow means but I'm not going to. Several people have been rather dismissive to perrya, to the point of seemingly being unwilling to listen to him at all, based upon his alleged lack of misinformation about what many consider to be nothing but an arcane point.

We aren't talking about unicorns. This more accurately is like someone wanting to shut down a zoo because animals are being mistreated and you are mocking and belittling them because they don't know that a camel is not a cloven-hoof animal. Who gives a hoot?

Jack sez: "Thank you for admitting that it is not the gun but the society that determines things such as suicide efforts."

Junkseller says: The gun determines a high case fatality rate is the only claim I made.

I don't think many people at all ever want to kill themselves. Most are simply in pain and just want it to end. Those are very different things, and, yes, they are very different goals. That is why many people who are unsuccessful end up living out their natural lives. They didn't want their life to end. They wanted their pain to end and after the unsuccessful attempt they get the help they need to manage whatever was hurting them.

Of course many individual gun owners have nothing to do with he decisions of some gun owners, but as a group, I don't think gun owners/sellers/makers have been terribly responsible. Groups such as the NRA have been incredibly resistant to even minor restrictions which many people feel are perfectly appropriate. While, restrictions and regulations might suck and be 'unfair' to responsible gun owners, that is pretty much the way we handle all dangerous objects and activities. We spread the burden around to everyone as a way to manage/mitigate irresponsible use.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Junk sez: @Jack Burton--I suppose we could argue about what disallow means

Jack replies; Why do we need to “argue” about it. The dictionary is very clear in what the word means and no one here was posting that perry was “disallowed” in any form or fashion to speak his mind… or to vote the way he chooses. No wonder you don’t want to discuss the issue.

Junk sez: Several people have been rather dismissive to perrya, to the point of seemingly being unwilling to listen to him at all,

Jack replies: Yeah… when posters totally blow their credibility by presenting ignorant statements about subjects they know nothing about it does tend to make those who actually know about the subject a little “unwilling” to listen any further to him. Human nature is kinda like that way.

Junk sez: based upon his alleged lack of misinformation

Jack replies: Alleged? You really going to go down the road and back his claim that fully automatic firearms are the standard firearm that everyone has when they own an AR?

Junk sez: about what many consider to be nothing but an arcane point.

Jack replies: Sure… arcane… which is why so many of the public want to ban these exact weapons… because they, just like perry, have been lied to and confused about their capabilities. The majority of those who want to ban ARs and the like think they are evil machine guns just like Al Capone used. Perry himself thought that. His original post before he edited it made that very clear.

Jun sez: We aren't talking about unicorns. This more accurately is like someone wanting to shut down a zoo because animals are being mistreated and you are mocking and belittling them because they don't know that a camel is not a cloven-hoof animal. Who gives a hoot?

Jack replies: No, it’s unicorns all right. And ~they~ are being mistreated. So shut down the zoo. Doesn’t matter that unicorns don’t exist. And since ~you~ want the zoo shut down for what ever reason of your own you’re willing to ally youself with the unicorn-believers and defend them with bogus analogies.

Junk sez: I don't think many people at all ever want to kill themselves. Most are simply in pain and just want it to end. Those are very different things, and, yes, they are very different goals.

Jack replies: It really doesn’t matter what they “want.” Their actions determine what their future is… or is not.

Junk sez: That is why many people who are unsuccessful end up living out their natural lives. They didn't want their life to end. They wanted their pain to end and after the unsuccessful attempt they get the help they need to manage whatever was hurting them.

Jack replies: Good for them… but the actions of irrational people do not determine the amount of freedom for others and what others can own and use.

Junk sez: Of course many individual gun owners have nothing to do with he decisions of some gun owners, but as a group, I don't think gun owners/sellers/makers have been terribly responsible.

Jack replies: 80,000,000 gun owners. Less that .001 percent harm themselves or others with guns. Junk feels that the 99.999 who do no harm to others are not “terribly responsible.” Is he reaching for a goal of 99.9999 percent? Instead of 79,985,000 of the gun owners not committing suicide does he want 79,990,000 to not commit suicide?

Junk sez: Groups such as the NRA have been incredibly resistant to even minor restrictions which many people feel are perfectly appropriate.

Jack replies:

Last I checked it was not the Bill of What Many People Feel is Perfectly Appropriate but is instead the Bill of Rights.

Restrictions that do absolutely no good in stopping even one criminal but instead treats hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens as if they were criminals are not “minor.”

Many people felt it was perfectly appropriate to have Jim Crow laws. The Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution was put into place to protect the country and the citizens against mob rule and emotionally driven laws.

Junk sez: While, restrictions and regulations might suck and be 'unfair' to responsible gun owners, that is pretty much the way we handle all dangerous objects and activities. We spread the burden around to everyone as a way to manage/mitigate irresponsible use.

Jack replies: There ya go, Dear Readers. I could not have said it any better myself. The weakest amoung us… the social deviants… those who are the failures of society… that crowd is the very group that Junk sees as the arbitrator of our rights. If they cannot handle a right… then no one else gets it either. And if you think that “sucks” then just too bad.


Carl 3 years ago

I've determined that I see radical anti-gun laws on law abiding citizens (those are the people that obey laws) similar to the old anti-gay laws. At the end of the day the real question should be whether anyone is being harmed. The answer is no. I don't really care to see a bunch of gay dudes wearing pink tutus dancing down my street like in perrya's California neighborhood, but I'm sure there are people that don't want to see my AR and I'm cool with that. The other thing is, does anyone think more strict anti-gay laws would have prevented some deranged Catholic priests from abusing young boys? Nobody does, as there are already laws in place addressing rape and pedophilia. Why is it that you anti-gun guys can't see that we already have laws in place to address the few deranged gun owners (criminals, and most unlawfully) who commit a violent act.

Also, I don't understand the logic you anti-gunners use when identifying what firearm a person should be able to own. It certainly appears that Feinstein used what I call the "crap her pants" rule of naming firearms that should be banned. That is where if Dianne thinks it looks scary and makes her crap her pants, it should be banned. What would you guys do in a perfect world where if every firearm in her bill disappeared from the face of the Earth and neither gun violence or other violence decreased a year later. Would you reverse your feelings on those? I think not. You would keep going until you banned sling shots and that too would do nothing to stop bad people.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack Barton--Aside from saying you were wrong about suicide, all I have done is offer my opinion. I'm not going to argue with you about what my opinion is. I know my opinion. Nor am I going to acknowledge your love affair with inventing arguments for other people (that I want social deviants and failures of a society to be the arbitrator of our rights). What a load of bull. That is a tactic that has no place among adults (that's as polite as I can say it).


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Well, Junk, I will just quote you and let the Dear Readers decide what you actually want...

Junk sez: We spread the BURDEN around to EVERYONE as a way to manage/mitigate IRRESPONSIBLE use.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack Burton--Yes, me describing the reality of the world we live in is terribly damning stuff. I've (barely) said anything about what I want by the way, not that you seem to have the cognitive capacity to understand such a distinction. Preferring a focus on social vs. technological solutions to crime is just about the only thing I have personally said I would like.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

junk sez: me describing the reality of the world we live in

Jack replies: Then don't get your panties in such a wad when people actually understand your "description".


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Carl, How do you feel about .50 caliber rifles with armor piercing bullets?


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

Nothing worse for NRA members than the current ex-police officer now rampaging around southern calif with experience and training and well armed. Just another reason for gun control.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Yes, Perry... because the VERY FIRST thing a citizen thinks of when someone is rampaging around with a gun shooting innocent people is "OMG, I need to get rid of MY gun so I am a defenseless lamb when he comes this direction."

Do you put even a moment's thought into what you are going to post ~before~ you post it?


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

@jack, glad you agree with me that better gun control is in order.


Carl 3 years ago

"Carl, How do you feel about .50 caliber rifles with armor piercing bullets?"

Well, they seem okay to me. Has there even been a documented case of a .50 cal rifle used in a crime in the U.S.? You know they weigh about 20 to 30 pounds right. They are also expensive. I seriously doubt they will ever be the weapon of choice for inner-city gangbangers unless they come out with a shiny polished chrome version that screams bling! It sounds like you drank some of the Feinstein Kool-Aid and applied the "crap you pants" rule on this one.

@perrya

Really, an ex-police officer and military reservist somehow proving your point? The police and the military seem to be the only people you think should have certain firearms. If anything, this case is adding to our argument.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Perry sez: @jack, glad you agree with me that better gun control is in order.

Jack replies: Do you put even a moment's thought into what you are going to post ~before~ you post it?


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

The door swings both ways, that is the problem with the gun control debate


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

Congressmen bought and paid for by NRA:

http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-nras-...


Carl 3 years ago

@Mr. Deeds

Unions bought and paid for liberal Democrats. Personally I like NRA members more.


Carl 3 years ago

I should have said I like NRA members more than both, sorry.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Ralph has always had difficulty with the Constitutional freedom to petition the government as long as a conservative group is doing it.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Carl--If the harm we are talking about was simply offending people's sensibilities than I would tend to agree with you. People on Facebook posing with rifles to look cool kind of offends me, to be honest, but I wouldn't want them not to do it for that reason alone.

People going around shooting each other, however, is a far different thing that hurts much more than sensibilities, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

As for laws and regulations, we almost in all cases, have laws/regs which come into play after the fact and before the fact. Yes, we punish people who abuse kids, but we also, for instance, require daycare centers to be licensed. We punish people for car accidents, but we also require training, licensing, and registration to own and operate a car.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that people committing gun crimes often aren't thinking very clearly, so after the fact punishments maybe don't make the best deterrent. Plus, the damage they do can be pretty significant and irrevocable, so it would seem worthwhile to try and do more before the fact for both of those reasons.

And I get why people can be opposed to some proposed before the fact regulations. I, for example, am not a big fan of the Assault Weapons Bans. What I don't really understand, however, is the absolute (in some cases) unwillingness to do ANYTHING before the fact to try and curb gun violence.

You haven't said you are opposed to anything. You seem to mostly be concerned about the assault weapons ban, but you do seem to be on the other side of the fence, so I am curious, do you think we should do nothing? Are there some things (e.g. background checks for all gun purchases) you see as acceptable? How about AR-15s being legal but requiring more training, or annual re-registrations, etc.?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

junk sez: What I don't really understand, however, is the absolute (in some cases) unwillingness to do ANYTHING before the fact to try and curb gun violence.

Jack replies: Yeah, people are kinda funny about opposing worthless efforts that do nothing to deter or stop bad guys and only affect and punish those who do no harm to anyone.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack Burton--So than do you think strict regulations on automatic weapons are worthless and do nothing? Background checks of any kind? How about letting people of any age own and operate a firearm? CCW's for anyone? Convicted felons? All worthless? All do nothing?

In the entire realm of possibilities you can't imagine a SINGLE thing that will do any bit of good? I find that terribly unimaginative.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Junk sez: @Jack Burton--So than do you think strict regulations on automatic weapons are worthless and do nothing?

Jack sez: Yep. Automatic weapons are far overrated and the only people who think they are big, bad boogeymen are those who really don’t know much about guns.

Junk sez: Background checks of any kind?

Jack replies: We didn’t have “background checks” for over 200 years as a country and managed to survive pretty well, eh.

Junk sez: How about letting people of any age own and operate a firearm?

Jack replies: Define “any age”. If you are going to bring up nonsense about six year olds legally carrying to school then it pretty much denotes your lack of seriousness.

Junk sez: CCW's for anyone?

Jack replies: A number of states don’t require a CCW and any person who can legally own a gun can legally carry it without the permission of the state. They don’t seem to have any problem at all with their system.

Besides…can you in the least explain how a law that gives “law abiding Rick” the ability to legally carry a gun stops in any way “criminal Fred” from carrying a gun. CCW laws affect only one segment of the population… the law abiding group.

When Michigan was considering must-issue CCW a few years back a newspaper had an article with a chief of police being against it. They quoted him as saying no one in his town was going to carry without his express permission. I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out to the citizens that when they got mugged by a thug with a gun they could thank the police chief for giving the thug permission to carry the gun. He was not amused.

Junk sez: Convicted felons?

Jack replies: Are the felons dangerous? If so, then why are they walking around in public? BTW… can you state ANY law that is going to prevent a “convicted felon” from walking around with a gun? If you can’t, then what is the actual, substantial difference between him walking around with a gun that is illegal or walking around with a gun that is legal. Is not the real issue whether or not he hurts people with ~anything~ he has and not his state of being?

Junk sez: All worthless? All do nothing? In the entire realm of possibilities you can't imagine a SINGLE thing that will do any bit of good? I find that terribly unimaginative.

Jack replies: You worry about and condemn people’s “state of being”. I condemn their actions that hurt other people.

If I own a fully automatic weapon has my “state of being” hurt a single person. No. Then why keep me from owning one? Because you fear what I “might” do.

If I buy a gun without a background check has my “state of being” hurt a single person. No. Then why keep me from buying one? Because you fear what I “might” do.

If I buy a gun when I am 18 has my “state of being” hurt a single person. No. Then why keep me from buying one? Because you fear what I “might” do.

If I carry a gun in my hip pocket has my “state of being” hurt a single person. No. Then why keep me from buying one? Because you fear what I “might” do.

If I own a gun as a felon has my “state of being” hurt a single person. No. Then why keep me from owning one? Because you fear what I “might” do.

People have been hurting other people for millions of years. A gun doesn’t make it more likely or even easier to hurt another person.

You want to pass a law? Then pass laws that punish people for hurting other people. Pass laws that don’t allow those who hurt other people to be back on the street in a year or two. Pass laws that say if you hurt another person we are going to hurt you so bad in return your great-great grandparents will get bruises on their corpses.

But you’re not asking for any of that. You’re asking that to prevent people from shouting “fire” in a crowded theater that all the patrons must be gagged and muzzled before going into the theater… and in some cases have their lips sewn together or even their tongue removed. Just in case, you know.


Superkev profile image

Superkev 3 years ago

Bazinga! :)


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack--You are evidently completely unable to grasp the simplest of concepts. Such as that IT ISN'T ABOUT ME AND YOU. Your hyper-individualism really is infantile. Get over yourself. I was politely asking a legitimate question as to what someone on the pro-gun side might consider to be useful and effective BEFORE-THE-FACT regulations, if anything. And you have somehow turned that into me being on a quest to annihilate liberty out of some sort of alleged grand fear of your big-bad gun.

Stop being the damned dumbest brick in the wall. If you see absolutely no value or use for any regulations at all, that's fine. I'm not challenging your opinion. I was asking for it. There's no reason for your constant combativeness.

If one wanted to do a before the fact preventative measure to combat "shouting fire" in a crowded theater than you could for instance implement an educational program to raise awareness on the dangers of doing so. The fact that you seemingly can't grasp that sort of benign measure, and your mind drifts off into a tangent of gagging, muzzling, sewing lips together, and removing tongues is downright bizarre.

You put more words into my mouth than I myself say. It makes dealing with you a virtual impossibility. That I "worry about and condemn people's 'state of being' " is a good example. It's also utter hogswallop. It's about ELEVATING their state of being so that we don't have to eventually hurt them so bad that their "great-great grandparents...get bruises on their corpses." But you display absolutely no capacity to understand such a concept.

If you weren't brutish about it, I'd actually thank you for your opinion. The do-nothing-until-harm-is-caused idea is actually an interesting philosophical position. I think it puts you in a very tiny minority, but it is still an interesting viewpoint. But, instead you had to come in here bleating your giant clown nose like a goon.


Carl 3 years ago

@ junk

"You haven't said you are opposed to anything. You seem to mostly be concerned about the assault weapons ban, but you do seem to be on the other side of the fence, so I am curious, do you think we should do nothing? Are there some things (e.g. background checks for all gun purchases) you see as acceptable? How about AR-15s being legal but requiring more training, or annual re-registrations, etc.?"

I feel the mass shootings that have drawn the anti-gun folks to action in the last two decades were caused by something going wrong in our society. I do not know why someone would want to shoot anyone, especially a child, and I never will. I just fail to see how restricting the firearms of law abiding citizens is going to help.

I can honestly respect your desire to do something. I am sure everyone who has posted on this hub would agree that we have seen some horrible tragedies committed by people with firearms. What we disagree on is the notion that restricting law abiding people from owning firearms will curb criminal activity.

You asked if ownership of an an AR-15 should require additional training. Once again, I don't see how that is going to have any impact on criminal activity. The intent of the person who committed the recent school shooting was not to go out and shoot an AR-15. His intent was to go out and kill innocent people. We simply do not have decent AR-15 owners accidentally shooting 20 people because they don't know how to properly handle the firearm.

I'm glad you brought up background checks. There is a misunderstanding perpetuated by the media that you can go to a gun show and buy whatever you want without a background check. This is simply not true. The vast majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers and almost everyone who purchases a firearm receives a background check. There is the occasional "private sale" from a non-dealer, the same as if you purchased a firearm from your neighbor, but these are being blown way out of proportion.

I think we will probably disagree most on annual registration. Registration is the first step to confiscation. Since I don't feel that law abiding citizens are the problem and I know that criminals wll not register their firearms I in no way support it. It will simply be a database used to disarm good people in the event a ban is passed and will only help criminals.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

I have to agree with junkseller about jack. Jack seems to think that doing nothing is the best answer to this issue. Glad he is in the minority.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 3 years ago

"almost everyone who purchases a firearm receives a background check." Straw purchasers buy for friends who can't pass a background check, and in most states there is no limit on the number of guns purchased for private, un-regulated re-sale.

The current laws have more holes than a sieve.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Junk sez: @Jack--You are evidently completely unable to grasp the simplest of concepts. Such as that IT ISN'T ABOUT ME AND YOU.

Jack replies: I am sorry. I thought when you specifically asked the question, “So than do YOU think…” that you were asking for MY opinion. My bad.

Junk sez: Get over yourself. I was politely asking a legitimate question as to what someone on the pro-gun side might consider to be useful and effective BEFORE-THE-FACT regulations, if anything.

Jack replies: And I showed exactly why BEFORE THE FACT regulations don’t work. If you got butt hurt over my answers I am not responsible for that.

Junk sez: There's no reason for your constant combativeness.

Jack replies: Translation: I can’t overcome Jack’s answers so I will just accuse him of something random.

Junk sez: If one wanted to do a before the fact preventative measure to combat "shouting fire" in a crowded theater than you could for instance implement an educational program to raise awareness on the dangers of doing so.

Jack replies: Which has nothing to do with either mouth or shouting “control” eh. If you want to promote the concept of teaching how to safely shoot firearms and quality marksmanship for all school children I am up for it.

Junk sez: The fact that you seemingly can't grasp that sort of benign measure,

Jack replies: Because that is not the sort of “benign measure” that is being touted as the “answer” to the problem of those evil people who do evil to innocents.

BTW… who do you prefer to teach an official course on “gun safety”? The Brady bunch who have never, ever taught one single person how to safely use a firearm… or the NRA who has taught tens of millions of people for over a century?

Junk sez: and your mind drifts off into a tangent of gagging, muzzling, sewing lips together, and removing tongues is downright bizarre.

Jack replies: No more “bizarre” than most of the gun control “solutions” that are being promoted by those who have no clue about firearms (or do know but prefer to keep the public helpless).

Junk sez: You put more words into my mouth than I myself say.

Jack replies: Really? Please show us where I “put words in your mouth.” You always seem to make these kinds of accusations but you never, ever, actually give proof of what you state.

What I do is expose the kinds of thought pattern that it takes to make your own words come out of your mouth. I just pull back the curtain to let everyone know what it takes to think like you. I can understand why you don’t like this being done as it doesn’t reflect well on you.

Junk sez: It makes dealing with you a virtual impossibility. That I "worry about and condemn people's 'state of being' " is a good example. It's also utter hogswallop. It's about ELEVATING their state of being

Jack replies: Hmmmm…. If you are not concerned about people’s “state of being” then why do you want so badly to “elevate” it for them?

Junk sez: But you display absolutely no capacity to understand such a concept.

You still have not answered why it is so bad for me to own an automatic weapon. Or CCW without benefit of a state license. Or own a firearm if I am a felon. Or own a gun if I am 18. You simply cannot understand the concept that maybe other people don’t want your “elevation.” They just want you to leave them alone if they are hurting no one.

Junk sez: The do-nothing-until-harm-is-caused idea is actually an interesting philosophical position. I think it puts you in a very tiny minority, but it is still an interesting viewpoint.

Jack replies: It’s been the essential element of the Western Civ justice system for many centuries. The people who want to punish others for “’thought crimes” such as you are vocal but small.

Junk sez: But, instead you had to come in here bleating your giant clown nose like a goon.

Jack replies: Translation: Dang, I can’t answer a single one of Jack’s position points so I’ll have to frantically wave my hands in a comical fashion and hope the readers don’t notice.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

ralph sez: in most states there is no limit on the number of guns purchased for private, un-regulated re-sale.

Jack replies: Ralph, as usual, is full of carp and bad info.

Re-selling guns for a profit that you just purchased is breaking federal law.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/08/1689512...


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

perry sez: Jack seems to think that doing nothing is the best answer to this issue.

Jack replies: Perry, like Ralph, can't help but to get things wrong.

There are many things that "can be done."

Mental health issues need to be discussed and tailored so that individual rights and danger to the public mesh better.

The laws need to be amended so that career thugs are not out walking the streets freely to do more harm.

The so-called "War on Drugs" needs a third and fourth look to see how much damage it has caused to society and the innocents.

The vast majority of crime and homicides are done in selected zip codes. Until that is acknowledged and steps taken specifically to deal with urban problems nothing effective will get done. It's like the drunk looking on 8th Street for the dollar he knows he dropped on 5th Street because the street lights are better on 8th Street.

The media needs to stop demonizing guns and hysterically having vapors over lies about firearms. Poisoning the well guarantees that all sides become entrenched -- but the anti-gun side is working off from lies and mis-knowledge. The original post by Perry thought that "automatics" were common, everyday firearms.


Carl 3 years ago

@ Mr. Deeds

I'm not sure what straw purchasers have to do with the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms. When purchasing a firearm requiring a background check, you sign a statement that promises you are not buying the firearm for someone else. A person who conducts a straw purchase is a CRIMINAL and there are laws in place to punish that individual. If anything, straw purchasing shows how criminals will find ways to get around laws and restrictions and demonstrates that more restrictions may be completely ineffective.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Jack--You're still not getting it. It isn't about me vs you. I don't care to "overcome your answer." I have not promoted, or supported, any specific gun measures. I was only interested in perhaps extracting some possibilities. Gun education such as what the NRA does (or used to do--I don't know if they still do it) is in fact one such example of a before the fact type of policy. That's a fine suggestion.

Mostly I didn't bother reading what you wrote. Verbally you're like Rambo. No clue what the heck you're shooting at--you just know you have to kill it and have been squeezing the trigger so long your fingers are locked in place. I'd highly recommend you let go of your gun for at least one second. The world won't end. Gang-bangers won't at that very instant leap through the window and murder you. Feinstein in black cape on a broomstick won't swoop down and snatch it from you. Take a deep breath and formulate a rational thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

@Carl--Thanks for the reply. The reason I am asking is because I really believe that one-sided debates tend to produce poor results. Partly because the silent side may have good ideas that aren't heard and partly because the vocal side doesn't have their ideas properly challenged and thereby refined.

The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) is I think a good example. Whether we agree on it or not, its intent is to limit access to weapons considered to be more deadly and lethal. But as they have been written they have been rather ineffective. It is simply too easy to make minor modifications to a weapon and avoid the ban. Connecticut, for instance, has an AWB in place which did nothing to make the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook illegal. Renewing the same old ban nationally would, in my mind, be just as ineffective at achieving the desired result, and yet the debate seems pretty well fixated on it, in part, because alternatives simply aren't being presented.

That is where I was going with the idea of extra training or requirements to own an AR-15. It would be instead of an outright ban. Perhaps, for example, if you live in a household with children, you'd have to have a trigger lock on it (or other similar feature). Not saying that's a good idea, just considering possibilities. I think Australia's gun plan divides weapons in to 6 or 7 different classes and each class has different requirements for ownership. That sort of thing seems worth exploring and seems like something the pro-gun side might go for as an alternative to an outright ban.

Registration is another good example. When it is mentioned, I think people automatically assume that it would be a federal government program, but it doesn't have to be does it? Why not state and local governments, or hunting/gun clubs. Heck have the NRA do it, or gun manufacturers (though I doubt they'd want the liability).

How about RFID chips in all weapons that are tracked by gun manufactures? Or fining manufacturers $1,000,000 every time one of their weapons is used to commit a crime? Or requiring character references to purchase a firearm like Canada does? I mean, there's got to be some creative solutions out there, that will work better and satisfy more people.


Carl 3 years ago

@perrya

Based on your two statements quoted below, there still seems to be some confusion over the types of firearms we are discussing. I'm honestly not really sure what you are trying to say in suggestion #4 (especially the sarcasm part about having to pull the trigger), but it does sound like you are confused. Semi-automatic does not mean that you just have "to pull the trigger more often to fire" than an automatic rifle. A semi-automatic rifle fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. To fire another round, the trigger must be released and pulled again. It seems that maybe you're thinking a semi-automatic rifle fires a 3 round burst like the current M16A2 and M16A4. Many of you anti-gun guys will probably be surprised that the majority of military personnel ceased to be issued fully-automatic weapons in the 80s. They were as seen somewhat ineffective and a waste of ammunition in most circumstances. The "spray and prey" Rambo stuff is best reserved for the movies. This response isn't "tossing mud." It's meant to clarify the capabilities of the firearms we are discussing.

"4. Restrict who can purchase any AR-15 rifle or other semi-automatic weapon. They are not needed/ The gun lovers arguments about their need shows how lazy they are- I mean, its so hard to pull a trigger many times instead of just holding the trigger down and fire off bullets."

"Semi-automatic means one must pull the trigger more often to fire, automatic is pulling the trigger and spraying the bullets like a machine gun. You are just tossing mud."


Carl 3 years ago

@junk

I don't feel an AWB would could have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook. Even if there were no AR-15s, he would have found another firearm or tool to commit the crime. Also, somehow the 1994-2004 AWB is somehow seen as a victory by some anti-gun politicians that should be reinstated. I'm not looking to give you guys ideas, but I purchased my first AR-15 during the ban. It just wasn't allowed to have a flash suppressor or bayonet lug. Again though, I am a law abiding citizen and I am not the problem. I was also active duty military at the time and certified on the M16, but I don't feel mandatory training would impact criminal behavior.

You brought up requirements to ownership and trigger locks. Keeping your firearms out of the reach of children is a non-issue. It's common sense and I'm pretty sure it's required by law here. The vast majority of gun owners take that very seriously. Nobody wants there child to hurt themselves or anyone else with an improperly stored firearm.

I haven't seen any evidence that the gun bans in Australia and Great Britain did anything to reduce violence. The studies I've read on Great Britain have shown that violent crime has increased. This brings us back to what I think is the main disagreement between pro-gunners and anti-gunners. What is root cause of these mass shootings? I don't think its the firearm. I think it's the person and our society. Perrya stated that those of us who own these types of firearms and oppose restriction are paranoid and delusional. I think that I recognize that there are bad people who commit violent acts and I would prefer to have the ability to defend myself from them. Think of it this way, if there were no violent people, there would be no need at all for any firearm restriction. We could all have whatever we wanted whenever we wanted. There would be no threat. Without firearms, there will be people committing violent acts and preying on others.

We also need to get away from the focus on the AR-15. It seems to get a lot of attention because it's black and looks scary to some people. There are many firearms that function in the same way, but look friendlier. What do you think the response would have been if one of those was used at Sandy Hook instead?


junkseller profile image

junkseller 3 years ago from Michigan

@Carl--I think it can be somewhat useful to look at air travel and terrorism as a parallel issue. We have completely revamped air travel, added far more stringent requirements on identification and ticketing, what can be brought on the plane, along with the entire dynamic flow of people and staff in and out of the airport. Yet, all of the same arguments used regarding guns are available for air travel. If someone wants to blow up planes they'll find a way. If one tool is taken away, another tool will take its place, etc. And really there's no guarantee it will, or has done, a bit of good. It's really difficult to prove that these regulations have prevented something from happening. If it doesn't happen we never know about it. And so we do these efforts largely because we believe they make us safer. We believe that if we make it harder to get on to planes than that will help prevent them from getting blown up. The reason it is such a difficult issue, as are guns, I think, is because it almost has to be taken as a matter of faith.

Regarding air travel, we as a majority, decided that the imposition of a small burden spread amongst all of us was worth the potential increase in safety.

I think we are in a similar place right now with guns. I also think we have probably crossed the point where people will accept doing nothing, especially since gun crimes are now being magnified. A lot of people do not mind increasing the burdens amongst all gun owners. I, for instance, don't really mind universal background and mental health checks. I don't see it as an onerous burden. Can I prove it will do any good? Nope. Not really, but I can still believe it will.

But here's the kicker. I'm not sure either side can really prove their position. I just don't think we have enough data and it's an extraordinarily complex issue. We can try and make cross-cultural comparisons but those are also fraught with exceptional complexity. At this point, I just don't think there is a right choice, there is only where we put our priorities.

Regarding what you said about the AR-15 and the AWB, I mostly agree. That's why I tend to not like the AWB. Being so easy to sidestep means it effectively does little. And as you said, there are other perfectly effective tools. Assuming Adam Lanza could have handled it, the 10-12 round semi-auto Saiga-12 he left in the trunk would have been gruesomely effective in that situation (maybe more so).

Without saying its the right way to go, Australia's method makes a lot more sense to me. They group weapons into functional categories. Non-self-loading rimfire rifles (Category A) are different from self-loading rimfire rifles with 10 rounds or less (Category C) which are also different from self-loading rimfire rifles over 10 rounds (Category D). Self-loading centerfire rifles are all category D weapons. Each category has different restrictions on ownership. To me that makes a lot more sense than, "does it have a folding stock and bayonet lug?"

I would disagree that the AR-15 is being focused on because of being black and scary. It was used at Newtown, Clackamas, Aurora, Webster, and by the Beltway sniper, to name a few. There's a reason it is chosen. You yourself, I am sure, chose it for some reason other than looking scary. Plenty of security and police forces also choose it for a reason. Go to a tactical training organization or club and you'll find it well represented. Also for a reason. It simply performs at a high level. And if the mythos surrounding it is in part to blame for the focus, well, than you can't only blame people who maybe see it as scary. Bushmaster itself has run ads claiming that owning one grants them their "man card," so I'd say that there may be some ridiculousness on both sides.

The recent Griego massacre is interesting to look at. This was a family that could have served as the poster family for the pro-gun movement. Patriotic, 2nd Amendment tattoos on their chests, religious (father was a pastor), strongly conservative, Obama haters...and now they are all dead. Shot by their own son with their own gun. In some ways this seems like as big a wake-up call as was Sandy Hook. I tend to agree that there's something not quite right with our society, but its far deeper than simple assessments such as Mike Huckabee's suggestion that it is the removal of God from schools. Personally, I think it has more to do with extremism (of any kind). A lot of people just seem to be unhinged and it isn't restricted to any particular group. I don't know why or what to do about it, which is, in part, why I think people focus on tangible things, such as access to weapons.


Carl 3 years ago

@junk

That was an intelligent and well presented response. I read your hub on black rifles and that was equally well presented. Unfortunately, I just don't see things the same way.

With regards to air travel, I think the 9/11 group were somewhat lucky that they were able to pull it off. I also think that we have been lucky that there have been no other aircraft brought down by terrorists. Let's look at Richard Reid. He was able to get an explosive on the plane capable of causing extensive damage, but was unable to ignite it. He was not the sharpest guy from everything that I have read.

As for my reason for buying an AR, I did buy it because it was a high performance firearm. I was also familiar with the firearm and required to qualify with the military version, the M16, on a regular basis. I'm not going to spend $1000+ on a piece of junk. Would you?

What really interests me is the fact that you said neither side could really prove their position. The difference is that you guys would like to impose more restrictions on me. I'm not out to influence your life in any way. I'm also concerned that firearms are such a hot topic. I would much rather people concentrate on the economy, unemployment, Iran, Syria, Fast and Furious, and what happened in Benghazi. I'm not a cospiracy kind of guy, but this seems like a great diversion when it was most needed.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

I have never heard the connection the restrictions on air travel, but it makes an excellent point. Any you are also right that the time for continuing to do nothing is past. That is the only option that would do harm. You own guns? You keep your guns. You want more guns? Nobody is stopping you. A background check won't hurt any law-abiding citizen. A ban on assault weapons? If you already own some, you keep them. If you don't own any, why do you need them now? Because you should be free to do anything you want? These crazies have closed the door on that freedom. Not the governent. Not anti-gun folks. The crazies. Blame them.


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 3 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Just like the terrorists on 9/11 put an end to getting through an airport in America without going through security and taking off your shoes.


Carl 3 years ago

I have no idea what you are trying to say and therefore can not respond. If you would like to ask a coherent question in English, I would be more than happy to respond.


Carl 3 years ago

@Kathleen

I'm thinking you are a little intoxicated. Many of us have been there, but it's probably not the best time to rationalize an argument. I've been there.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

@kathleen

Makes sense. The actions of a few lunatics have now mandated a change in gun laws, like it or not.


Carl 3 years ago

No, they really haven't.


Carl 3 years ago

@perrya

You undermine your own arguments. What is the problem, "a few lunatics" as you labelled the people who committed these horrific shootings recently or the firearm. You do not seem to be a very smart man.


perrya profile image

perrya 3 years ago Author

@carl

Both are the problem. You don't seem to be very intelligent.


Carl 3 years ago

@junk

I'll send you my email in case you would like to discuss this issue further. There really is no benefit in continuing to talk about this subject here.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Jun sez: @Jack--You're still not getting it.

Junk further sez: Mostly I didn't bother reading what you wrote.

Jack replies: Really, what more needs to be said? Now we have a good understanding of why junk posts the same errors over and over again.


Jimmy 3 years ago

Gun control makes pro gun people who don't own them buy them. Guns flowing off the shelf. The government is smart enough to know what an anti-gun push will do. Black triangles being seen everywhere. We are spending our money like it just doesnt matter, well after we are invaded, cash money will be worthless, we will be trading in food, ammo, and chicklets.

Gaming industry shifting from COD to alien battling to train the young gamers. No country could go get here by boat without getting totally blown up. Our military rocks.

Who are they preparing us to fight again? Not Marshall law. They would have to get our guns, not get us to have more guns. New York having strictest gun control is strategy, scare everyone who will survive the initial attack. New York is the capital of the world, the terrorists struck here first, the aliens will too!

Global warming making the planet liveable for possibly only 100 years or less, time for the great alien race to farm this world for all it's worth, since it is now a limited resource.

I'm downloading Earth Defense Force 2017 for my playstation vita as we speak. And filling everything I can with water. I'm ready. Are you? Why would the powers to be remaster a crappy Videogame and port it to the playstation vita unless it was to save us ALL!?!?!?!

    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