Why are people so crazy about guns?

Post Reply New Topic

Being scary, mostly. Even in a battlefield context, most soldier-to-soldier automatic fire is about getting them to duck down and hide rather than actually hitting them. As for another purpose, why do people keep forgetting that self-defense is a legitimate purpose in the US? Now, it's not what I'd choose for self defense, and certainly not in an urban environment. But I can imagine that if one lives in a rural area with the nearest neighbour far away and the nearest police far, far away, than one would like to have the option to lay down serious firepower if some manner of attack were to happen. Heck, even take the example of the Rooftop Koreans I cited earlier. I bet they could've used some fully automatic fire.

why not something more powerful then? why not a tank or a grenade launcher? if you have something that can fire 10 rounds a second, wouldn't you assume your attacker has something just as powerful? rooftop koreans aside, I don't think anyone needs anything that fires 10 rounds per second. and i'd vote in favor of any law that saw my point of view. as far as home defense goes, whats wrong with a good old fashioned shotgun? I live in a rural town (little to no police either) and i've never been concerned about these "attacks" you reference.

What point are you trying to make? I couldn't careless about SUVs and I don't drive one and never will. So if someone wants to ban them, go right ahead, I couldn't careless, it's not like they said they will ban cars, only SUVs.



I didn't know two different guns were most of them.




I didn't realize stupid gun owners were also responsible gun owners. Clearly they are the same.





How am I imagining them if people are clearly being defensive and acting like they are being attacked? Oh no I must be a schizophrenic and seeing them react when in fact they are not saying anything. It's my brain seeing texts online that are not even there. Time for me to call my doctor to voice my concerns about seeing imaginary arguments online.

Not really, I'd be more concerned with overwhelming numbers than them bringing something equally dangerous. But the be or not be of fully automatics is an entirely separarate question from wether or not do ban AKs and AR-15s, seeing as most of those are semi-automatic (fires once every time the trigger is pulled). As for what's wrong with shotguns; nothing at all. Tends to be a bit short on capacity, but otherwhise perfectly viable.


As for why not somehting equally dangerous, I think you'd be surprised as to the things that are actually legal. Things like Tannerite and flamethrowers. Though if we're talking a home defense context, I think I'd like my home still standing when I'm done defending it.

This is what is called an analogy. An SUV is a type of car, not a specific car. There are many different SUVs, used for different purposes and for different reasons. If someone wanted to ban SUVs, they could not claim to only want to ban one car.






You just now had this explained to you, so I would be careful about laughing too hard. You're the one looking stupid, here. The AR-15 is not "a" gun. The AR-15 is a platform. The AK is not "a" gun. The AK is a platform. Banning a platform means banning many, many guns. Banning two platforms means banning many, many, many guns.





Do you thnk only stupid and/or irresponsible people own AR-15s?




People act like they're being attacked when they're being attacked. People tend to get a bit frustrated with people attacking them whilst pretending not to be attacking them. This argument essentially boils down to

"I'm going to take your guns!"
"You're not taking my guns!"
"Why are you acting like anyone's taking your guns?"
"You just said..."
"No I didn't, you're crazy! Give me your guns, crazy people shouldn't have them!"

I assume you own those type of guns or why else take offense? Are you a responsible gun owner? Do you own a AK? I am asking because you are saying I called AK owners stupid so are you a AK gun owner?




I have seen people talking about who shouldn't be driving and what should be required to drive and not once have I interpreted that as them telling me "You can't drive" or as them saying "we will take your car and now you will have to depend on your parents to take you and now your kids will have to go to a bad school."

If anyone were to take offense to any criticism I will wonder if they are one of those bad drivers.

People who get defensive when people talk about bad drivers I wonder if they are one of those bad drivers. Bad drivers will feel attacked when people rant about tail gators or those who pass people unsafely or who honk at them the second the light turns green or honk at you when you slow down when the light turns yellow. But then again if you are not guilty for any of this, why take offense?

Back when I broke up with my first boyfriend, I remember my online friends would feel attacked when I would tell them why we broke up and they were the ones asking me for why I broke up with him. I couldn't understand why they were defending his actions why they thought it was okay for him to freeload and do you know what my mother told me. "People who are getting upset with you are because they are also like him so they feel attacked when you tell them your reasons why you broke up with him" and since then I have understood people better when they take offense and act like something is directed at them.


Unless people say (which they have) "no one should be driving past the age of 65" then people can take offense because that is agiesm talk and not all 70 year olds are bad drivers but if they said something like "people should be required to take the test every five years" not ageism because that would apply to everyone and everyone knows as we get older, our reaction to things also also down so that is why we see elderlys drive so slow or why they take so long to do turns. I have seen people say "elderlies should lose their license when they become bad drivers" and clearly that is only aimed at seniors who drive bad because of their brain decline, not at the ones who still drive like they are 40. But this is not what I see in gun topics. Gun owners seem to think everything is aimed at them so it makes me think they are one of those gun owners.

And my parents are in their 60's and 70's now and I don't take that as an attack on them when anyone says elderlies should lose their license when they become bad drivers because my parents can still drive like they are 40 so that doesn't apply to them. But this is how is exactly looks to me when gun owners take offense because it would be like me taking offense and acting like they are attacking my parents when clearly they are not.

I do not own either of them. I wouldn't mind owning an AR in the future, though. I am a gun owner, however. I own a semi-auto pistol, a bolt action rifle and a double-barreled shotgun.

And again, I'm not taking offense, I'm objecting and arguing against the point. And as for why, when I'm not in the group that would be affected; it's this thing called being principled. Try it out sometime.




False equivalence.

Go up to this guy:



and ask him why he'd be mad if the AR-15 was banned. It'd be the death of the whole sport.




That's because you seem to reflexively default to ad hominem attacks instead of adressing legitimate counterpoints or even acknowledging your own ignorance.




Because in the context of the analogy, you're taking the cars away from everyone, not just the bad drivers.




Wow, that sure is some playground-level reasoning. Right up there with "your bullies are just jealous of you."




Yes, it sure is strange that gun owners would think dumb gun legislation voted through by politicians who know nothing about guns playing to an electorate who know nothing about guns would somehow be directed at people who own guns...

How is it a ad hominen attack even if I am not even speaking to them?

And honestly I have given up arguing with people who seem to take offense to anything and I just ignore them and not bother responding or I block them so I wouldn't have to hear from them again. People who make something be about them and I am like "wow, I sure struck some nerve with them and I don't even know who they are nor do I know anything about them but wow." But I have given up on defending myself and I have learned to just ignore them and move on, even the block button is your friend. I will either mute or ignore whatever option is available for me. Since then my internet life has been a lot easier and I have been involved in less drama and less stress.





So arguing about rather bad drivers should be driving or not means taking cars away from everyone? That is some strange thinking there.





So my "friends" were just basically bullying me about breaking up with my boyfriend because he had no motivation to get a job, didn't want to drive and just wanted me to be his cab driver and be his mommy and had excuses to everything such as not going to work. Good thing they were no longer my friends then. Who needs friends who won't support you? Next thing I would know, they would be defending someone who would hit their partner and acting like the partner is a jerk for breaking up with them for being abusive.

And my mom also did the "they are just jealous of you" crap when I was 8 when kids would randomly tease me. To me that made zero sense. I mean sure if they wrecked my new outfit, then it would be logical to assume they were jealous. I once told a friend in 5th grade she looked like a 5th grader showing off because I liked her outfit so much and wanted it so I told her that. I told my mom about her new dress and told her what I said and she told me what I said was very mean and hurtful and I was jealous. So I went back the next day and apologized in class for my comment because I realized my comment came from me being jealous because I had envied her outfit so much and wished I had it. I am sure her mom also told her at home "your friend was just jealous."

Not talking about your friends, talking about you in this thread. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between "this person disagrees with me and has counterarguments" and "this person is just angry or else they would agree with me."




You're getting confused by your own analogy. We aren't talking about taking guns away from people who are unfit to have guns. We are talking about taking all guns of X type away from all owners of that type of gun, and you kind of just assume that because they have that type of gun they are stupid and unfit to have that sort of gun,.

So like, we DO have a "detect stupidity" method. They just consider it more a "detect competency" "or "detect qualification" method. We use it everywhere in society. It's called a "test". Want a drivers license? Pass a test. Want to call yourself a certified mechanic or electrician? Pass a test. Want to be a pilot? Pass a test. Want to be a police officer? Pass a test. Become a soldier in the US armed forces? Pass MANY tests. Become a citizen? Pass a test. Guess what I had to do to get my Concealed Carry Permit. Pass a test. Want to pull money out of your own bank account? Pass a test. (knowing your pin) Want to gain entry to your own home when it's locked? Pass a test. (have the right key)

Oh, but those aren't constitutional rights, like guns and voting are. Except, to vote, you have to have ID. And to GET an ID you have to be able to prove you are who say you are - in other words, pass a test - the test is "prove you are who you say you are, by providing the following". If you fail that test of identity, you don't get an ID, you can't vote. The logic being, some people shouldn't vote, such as non-citizens, felons, or dead people, for generally reasonable reasons, chiefly, the fact that since they're non-citizens felons or dead, they're kinda explicitly prohibited from voting, for generally reasonable reasons. So why then is it unfair to do the same to guns, since the same still applies to non-citizens, felons, or dead people, insofar as proving you are who you say you are, before you're allowed to exercise this right, so as to protect said right from those who are prohibited from exercising it.

Banning all guns will never happen, guns make way too much money. Half the politicians make money off of the selling of guns, and the other half of politicians make money off of regulating the guns with fees and licenses. Banning guns would lose the one party too much money, since then they can't license tax and fee them. Licensing guns restricts sales, which while good for the taxers, is bad for the sellers, as it cuts down *their* volume. "Banning guns" is the slippery slope to scare people into fighting gun regulations to protect their bottom dollar. "Regulating" is used as a friendly sounding code for "taxing" in many cases, and that only serves to line their pockets at the gun sellers expense.

But just because there's bull$hit and self-interest on both sides doesn't mean there isn't still a reasonable solution somewhere between the extremes, though not necessarily what the powers-that-be say it is.

Okay, you mentioned about my mom doing the "your bullies are just jealous" so I responded about that and that was how I got a new perspective because I couldn't understand why my online friends were getting upset about my reason for breaking up with my ex. They were acting like I was a jerk or something for breaking up with him and were making excuses for him and justifying his actions and how he treated me. So that was how I came to "someone is sure emotional about that as if they are being attacked, they must be one of those people that does that action."

If they were truly unable to take care of themselves and would need to be taken care of and need full financial support from their partner, I would think they were just sad to hear there would be people out there who wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them because they can't bring in an income and can't drive so they were blaming me. My ex was capable of those things but just didn't want to work or drive because he didn't want to buy gas or pay for car maintenance. Then it turned out he had undiagnosed schizophrenia so maybe he was unable to do those things because there is a thing called negative symptoms and that makes them uninterested in life so they do nothing and they just sit and play games all day or watching TV. But I am however still wasn't obligated to be in a relationship with him. The better way of looking at it would be "we were just incompatible and I had my own goals I wanted in life, I wanted to have kids, he did not, I want to have a husband, not be a caretaker, I want to have children and I have my own mental health issues so caring for him would have been too much for me to handle."

But my "friends" chose to not see it that way and instead decided to attack me and judge me. I have an aspie friend who isn't able to work and he sure as hell doesn't see this as an attack on his character. Even he thought my ex was a loser and lazy.




[/quote]

I think we were both talking about two different things here so I can understand the confusion now. I was talking about guns being banned from bad gun owners and those who don't want gun control and those who want to threaten people with it and then get upset when they find out they can't carry open armor somewhere. Not those who do own guns and use them responsibly and follow gun laws and don't feel the need to threaten people with them and carrying them openly.

In Montana, you have to past a test for hunting and have a license to hunt. I remember when my brothers were taking a hunting class and had to do a test to pass it so they can hunt. Sadly they didn't seem to succeed in it because they didn't become hunters and never got their hunting license. So instead they went and got bebe guns for Christmas from our parents and they started to shoot them in the woods and on our farm at targets they would make. They even had a paint ball gun too.

Most places in the world they aren't.





"Whut?! Daaaaad, everybody else gets a bazooka when they come of age! You're ruining my life!"

Cars are used for transportation, knives are used to cut food. What are guns used for other than killing?

Sport.

Blimey, this whole gun issue just has to be a US of A thing, hasn't it? The whole idea of private citizens in my country possessing guns is terrifying to me, and I'd be quite happy to see it made even harder to do so than it is at present (ie wholly illegal). Those found to be in illegal possession should be jailed for at least a decade or two.

On the other hand, I'm a devotee of FPS games on a PC, especially Doom, but what's the harm in that....?