Why are people so crazy about guns?

Post Reply New Topic

Where else

The point of gun control is to keep guns from going in the wrong hands of people. So far, the only gun control we have are people are not allowed to own fire arm who have been hospitalized, have been suicidal and have a history of violence.

If you keep your guns locked up, are a responsible gun owner, are stable enough to own one, why would you feel threatened for gun control? What I mean by guilty is people who are irresponsible and unstable and are prone to just killing people in rage. I mean they seem to be telling me they are unstable to own a gun by feeling threatened about gun control laws and going in a tirade about it.

We already have laws about guns must be locked away when not in use. That is also some form of gun control.

You have a republican governor who thinks its perfectly fine for homeowners to threaten to unload their automatic weapons on protesting college students

And I guess those are the people who will feel threatened by gun laws because they want to threaten people with their guns. Hence guilty.

I think somebody mentioned its a tradition to be able to own guns. Its like coming of age ceremony...ok son...your a man now...here's your AR-15...go have fun...

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the “right to bear arms,” is seen as being a fundamental right—like the First Amendment, the “right to freedom of speech, of the press, etc” is.

The problem is of common sense. We don’t need AK47s to defend ourselves within a civilian environment. In general. unlike in 1790, regular citizens are not members of militias.

Kids don’t receive assault weapons as a “rite of passage.” They might receive a rifle in rural-type areas. Not in urban areas. And kids are lectured about gun safety and responsible gun ownership from a very early age.

I'm fine with that, so why do you need more control? How many lives have been saved by the 10-round limit on handgun magazines, the prohibition on muzzle brakes and the crackdown on rifles with standalone pistol grips?
These are the sort of incremental infringements that keep being passed by people with no idea about guns in order to appease other people with no idea about guns at the expense of people who own and do have an idea about guns.




Well, that's a nice Kafka trap you have there. "If you are upset that I'm going to take your guns, you demonstrate that you're unfit to have your guns". You are targetting and threatening something that people are passionate about, and then using their upset feelings as "proof" of your point.



Great. But why is "we already have gun control" an argument for "we need more gun control"?




First off, why do you think that should be up to you? Second:

I'm wondering why bombs don't also get legalised. The right to blow stuff up should be an inalienable right.

Also the right to burn stuff - I have lots of refuse/garbage to dispose off......

I understand you like guns, Wolfram. I think some guns are cool. Others are not.

I’m just stating my opinion that kids shouldn’t be given AK47s. Yeah....it’s up to me whether or not I give my kid an AK47. And I believe they should be illegal for civilians.

It’s my right to believe in gun control. It’s your right to justify guns.

I fully agree that kids shouldn't be given AK-47's. That's not what I commented on. You said:

by which you clearly meant that because you don't think it's needed, it should be illegal. And I provided an instance wherein, in recent history, the situation devolved so badly that it was up to the individual citizens to fend for themselves, with no help from government law enforcement, using with whatever was at hand. And fortunately, whatever was at hand were guns.




Pop quiz: Which of these is an AK-47?






Follow-up: which of these is a a military rifle?

That is because there is no reason to be upset if they are responsible gun owners. It's obvious this is only targeted at stupid people with guns so why even take offense?

BTW that video you showed, he was only talking about taking away two different guns, not all of them. How misleading. I was expecting the talk about " let's take away all guns and ban all the guns in America." I must ask why must people find it so important to own AK rifles or AR. Aren't hunting guns good enough?

This happens in about every discussion, people express their opinion and others feel threatened or offended by it it thinking it applies to them.

My mom and I once had a discussion that once went like this:


Me: Most people compare stuff to Hitler

Mom: I disagree, I don't do that

Me: I never said you did

Her: You said most people

Me: yeah, and your point?

Her: But when you say most people, you mean me

Me: But you just said you don't do that so how do I mean you too?

Her: I am most people

Me: Then you are not most people then if you say you don't do it

Her: I am most people so you mean me when you say most people

Me: *thinking* no wonder most people are stupid and take offense to everything

And my mom was a nurse and had a college degree in nursing and she was this stupid. IQ means s**t if anyone can be dumb. We even have therapists who are HAES people.

You can talk about bad doctors, bad cyclists, bad customers, bad waiters, etc. and someone will still take offense thinking it applies to them so it makes me think they are one of those people.

If I am understanding your argument correctly, you are concerned if this law were to pass to ban these AK rifles, you are worried ignorant officers would take your hunting rifles because they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a AK rifle and a hunting rifle?

Also how are they going to know you have guns? Are you worried someone will see your rifle and report it thinking it's a AK one and the police would be so ignorant about guns they take them thinking they are AK ones?

This is what I'm talking about when I mention people who don't know guns making the rules about guns, or in this case having opinions on guns. AR-15 and AKs are not individual guns. They are platforms. Using the car analogy from before, it's like saying "ban SUV's!" and then claiming "I was only talking about one car, the SUV!".

And what is a hunting gun? You realize people use AR-15s for hunting, right? The AR-15 is the most widely used platform in the US, so you're essentially saying "I'm not going to ban all your guns, just most of them.".




So now everyone who owns an AR-15 is stupid? Because that is the logical conclusion of what you just said. And it's not about "taking offense", I couldn't care less about being offended. I care about needless infringing on rights motivated by ignorance and fear.




How about you stop imagining the feelings of people, and instead formulate your position clearly. No, it is not "obviously only targeted at stupid people". The law needs to apply equally to everyone, and it does not have a magic "detect stupidity" or "detect malice" functionality. If AR-15s get banned from civilian ownership, then it's banned from all civilians, even the smart ones.




No, I am making the point that the people so freely talking about banning the AR-15 and the AK-47 (a gun that is essentially an antique at this point), don't know the first thing about what they're trying to ban. They confuse clips and magazines, they don't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic and they spout absolute nonsense with the obvious intent to stir up fear by any means they can. And if their arguments have no connection to reality, then they should be in no position to make decisions that have effects in reality.

You appear to be knowledgeable regarding guns. I know little to nothing about them. I'm not against them, just not interested. But I would like something banned -- I don't think any civilian needs a weapon that can fire off 30 rounds a second. Certainly not a weapon for hunting. So what is it exactly that I want to be banned?

Most handheld fully automatic rifles fire at about 10 rounds per second, and going too far above that makes the gun uncontrollable and impractical. The german MG-42 machine gun fired at 1200 rpm or about 20 rounds per second.
30 rounds per second would be insanely high, so I'm not actually sure what such a thing would be. But I presume you're talking about fully automatic rifles in general. In the US, that comes with a 200$ tax stamp on top of the already exorbitant price of a transferrable machine gun, background check and a whole bunch of extra hassle, so it's not like it's not controlled. And people tend to wildly overestimate the practical effectiveness of full auto.

fine -- let's go with 10 rounds per second. What practical use does a weapon like that have other than killing people, lots of people, rather quickly?