Guns - Debate and Education

Well personally I think there should be some kind of gun control but since criminals don't work in a straight graphic line anymore and nobody got time to deal with this, then to keep everyone else's safety, let them get guns. As you said it only ensures innocent citizens getting killed by murderers or any kind of delinquent. If you want to know how you guys will end up in a pyramidal organized criminal world accepting the gun control, just look at every corner in Venezuela.

I am only for mental health, and maybe a more thorough background check. I can understand not wanting someone deranged who has ill intent in his/her heart from the start to (legally) obtain a gun. However the language of these laws would have to be very definitive as what would stop the government / libtards in the mental health sector from just labeling all who want a gun as mentally deranged. Also how invasive should these background checks be? If the Constitution somehow promises the fundamental right to gay marriage and equal civil rights .... then it sure as hell contains an individual RIGHT to bear arms.

Gun education being mandatory, might not be a bad idea either (I know, it really couldn't be enforced. Blah blah Little Timmy shouldn't be exposed to this, but let's go see the movie with explosions and glorified shootouts...blah.) I say this for many reasons, one of which was when my ever so loving fiancée decided it a good idea to stash her 22 hand gun in the couch cushions, which I only found when I was drinking...Thank God it wasn't loaded, but that's not the point. People need to be educated. People fear what they don't understand and are always told they should fear. No doubt there should be mandatory enforced mental health background checks and maybe even get one before you can own a gun. Sure, you can't ever stop the bad guys from getting a gun, but you can reduce the risk.

Id love gun education at minimum be more stressed if not mandated. If one is going to speak on gun control they should have SOME education. Asshat as much as I do support the mental health aspect the laws regarding this should be plainly pointed out and with minimal interpretation or itd be a slippery slope. (Maybe your fiance had a semi auto without a chambered round? Or was it just gun and no ammo?)

Since I haven't really found it here (or drawn it out here) and I admittedly haven't gone too in depth on gun control arguments I took it upon myself to seek out this information. I expected some hard reads to finish and go through and I was right - but I was hoping that there would be a good one or two arguments that were solid .... there weren't (not that I could find). This doesn't mean that through my readings I haven't found things I agree with either premise or policy wise but these things are greatly overshadowed by everything else. Most gun control arguments have any and all of the following caveats that to varying degrees invalidate their arguments (either partially or entirely) 1. Lack of education and understanding of guns themselves The amount of reading I have done where the author shows very little knowledge of guns is astounding. This isn't a case of "one or two idiots" ruining it for everyone else - I'm trying to find the one or two intelligent people for gun control (or intelligent and educated arguments). Reading through gun control argument after argument is basically reading the same things over and over again - there aren't many original thoughts and its pretty much all one agenda. I really wish it was "one or two idiots" .... but really its the majority of gun control people who are idiots (when it comes to this topic in particular). As soon as I see "assault weapon" used seriously like it has any real meaning that wasn't made up purely for political propaganda - that article to me (and to intelligent people) should be diminished right there. This is because it shows a heavy bias, and more importantly a complete and utter lack of education - and I feel that lack of education and understanding is a valid reason to discredit an opinion. I also see "assault style weapons" or phrasing like that which essentially means ... "they look scary so they should be banned". I also see quite a few arguments and writings that claim that an AR-15 is an "assault weapon" or even worse - an assault rifle (which do exist). This right there shows that gun control zealots overwhelmingly do not know what an assault rifle really is, and that they know nothing of semi-automatic vs automatic. It doesn't even appear as though gun control argument authors even seek out even some education or proper knowledge bout the subject matter which makes it all that much worse. 2. Moral posturing / Moral high ground Since gun control people don't have the education or knowledge they must rely on emotional appeals and phrasing their arguments in such a way as to obtain some moral victory since it is the only one they can get. Also a lot of gun control arguments have a mutually exclusive feel - as in that in order to stop the senseless massacres of the mentally unstable few who manage to get their hands on guns .. we must make sure that everyone has a hard (or impossible) time getting their hands on guns. "I'm not anti-gun I'm pro kindergartner" - this essential argument as if gun rights people blatantly disregard the value of those lives ... the gun control crowd has to use tactics like these and its appalling. They think just because we want to own a gun we're Adam Lanza (and isn't stereotyping wrong?) Gun control zealots have this mentality that both they unquestionably hold the value of life in high regard - and that gun rights people do not thus allowing them to claim moral victory on the basis of "they don't value life therefore I'm not going to value their opinion". "ok sure guns don't kill people - people do but do we really want to make it easier" - another popular one and unlike the last one this one has *some* validity. Yeah it is undesirable to have people murdered in mass quantities in particular and perhaps *something* should be done to curb these mass shootings we keep having. This however, does not mean that every measure suggested is a good one. Most gun control measures suggested aren't much more than feel good moral victories that won't really do much more than a "we did something so we can breathe easier". So step one in the gun control playbook is clearly the pity/sympathy/moral ground and once they get us to "submit" that things like children's lives matter or that killing people is wrong - they then go ... well since this is true then these measures (all of them) are right and just because murder is wrong (or something to that effect). I mean us gun rights people can do this moral posturing thing too although we don't as often feel the need too. I mean (especially if you're anti gun reading this) which of the following two would you prefer involving a man overpowering a woman and raping her (or seeking to) .... 1. He overpowers her and takes what he wants from her - violating her body and her safety and goes on his merry way, she then calls the police and reports it and goes through that process (which in rape cases isn't always or even terribly often how it goes) 2. He attempts to violate her but she either brandishes the weapon or shoots him - she is not raped and calls 911 to report the incident(yes I'm aware that he could in some scuffle end up stripping her of the weapon.... but at least she has a fighting chance) Gun rights people would choose option 2 every time without a second thought - shoot the fucker good for her she stood up for herself and avoided a very traumatic situation that she otherwise would have had no control over. Gun control people would have a much harder time with this. Remember as great as the police are (or can be) they can only do something AFTER something (horrible) has been done. The gun gives (law abiding non criminal people) the power to prevent such things from happening. 3. "You don't NEED an (assault weapon, high capacity magazine, assault rifle, etc) to fend off a burglar" Gun control zealots love to pick one situation where we might not need something and use that as an excuse to argue that we *never* would need it. Could I probably take down one burglar with my 10 round capacity semi-auto handgun .22 .... yeah probably. However consider the following.... 1. What if there is more than one or two people that are threatening me 2. Low light situations and stress may cause inaccurate firing 3. Depending on the potency of round more than one might be needed to neutralize or incapacitate the threat 4. What if it is more than a simple burglary - what about those who want to defend themselves and their property against riots and civil unrest ... or if they live in rough neighborhoods gang violence Who do gun control zealots think they are telling everyone else what their needs are and what they are going to be up against. Who decided that anything above 10 round magazines is "high capacity" and is unnecessary overkill. You don't NEED a luxury car with all sorts of extra comfort features to get to work .... but you sure would like to have them if you could right? While I might not NEED a 25-30 round capacity semi-auto AR-15 to fend off one house burglar it sure is nice to have one just in case I do for some other reason. It is grossly short sighted to use one specific situation in theory doesn't require something therefore it should be illegal. I'm supposed to listen to someone who clearly has no knowledge on anything on guns other than "they shoot people" and "they are lethal and dangerous" about what I'm going to need any gun in particular for? As soon as I see any of the three above things I'm already rolling my eyes but I read through it anyway. I honestly gave gun control arguments a chance and there are a couple actually viable points but their execution of those points is so horrible and off base that I then can't agree with it. If I (or someone) can find a gun control argument that doesn't do any of the above three things I'd love to read it. I can live with the moral argument if they are clearly educated and don't try to use one specific situation to speak for every situation.

While I work in the Firearm industry, I do think that Pro Firearm activists tend to push for alittle to much. There are guns that should be illegal and there are weapons that I believe are never suited to leave a range. No one needs to own a Gatling Gun (just one example) and Full Auto Firearms are terribly inaccurate and have no place outside a shooting range. I believe that if these guns are to be used at all they should have fixed mounts at a range and you should be able to purchase ammo from the range to use them. I firmly believe in Open, not Concealed Carry, because it allows for a Firearm to serve it's primary function as a Deterrent. A gun should always be the worst case scenario in a defensive situation and it really is that simple. As for Ammo Limits for a specific gun? A reload can take less then a few seconds to pull off completely so I do not think it even helps in the slightest to curb violent behavior. The shape and style of a gun do nothing to increase the violence it can cause or to decrease it. Silencers also while they may seem like a scary thing because "Now know one knows someone shot a gun" that simply isn't true, they just reduce the noise level to reduce hearing strain. There will always be some people who aren't fit to have a weapon and there will always be people that are. I think it should be a Licensed Course involving training to make sure you know what your doing. Not the year long rollercoaster it is in NY currently to get a Pistol permit just a 16 hour course to make sure you know what you are doing and what you can and cannot do. My point is basically both sides push for too much and that's why neither gets what they want. We will never have set in stone rules because no one will ever agree on them.