🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Mike5575]

let's be honest... Americans like their guns due to cultural reasons. Anyone who says they need 2 shotguns and 4 handguns inside their home for self defense is not being honest with you, and not being honest with themselves. There in the home because their owners like them... the guns represent something to them... and that's the real reason why they hate gun regulations. The guns aren't just tools for defense, to many Americans, they're proxies for their own individual freedoms... or something.

And let's be honest... that's really the only thing that semi-automatic rifles are good for. Having fun shooting recklessly and killing people... two uses

People shooting off AR-15s are doing it for the hell of it too.... unless you're practicing for warfare.

And honestly, the point remains. Today in America, owning a gun is not just about self defense; it's a symbol.

Since we're on the topic of honesty. Be honest. You don't know anything about guns or gun culture. Instead of educating yourself, you have instead chosen ro rely on your preconceived notions on guns, gun culture, and bigotry towards gun owners.

 

[MaceB]

Since we're on the topic of honesty. Be honest. You don't know anything about guns or gun culture. Instead of educating yourself, you have instead chosen ro rely on your preconceived notions on guns, gun culture, and bigotry towards gun owners.

It's not about me.. it's about the point I'm making. And it's true.. you don't need more than 3 guns in your house for self defense. Are you expecting a band of assailants to storm your door at night? I'm not saying all, but for many gun owners... they feel like the gun gives them some kind of control, power, independence or something. If it was really about defense, we wouldn't have AR-15s, which are worthless for home defense. We wouldn't have people keeping them in trophy set ups. We wouldn't have people who literally dedicate their lives to it. There are a whole lot of ammophiles in this country. When was the last time you saw a knife convention?

In regard to my own personal choices, no... I don't shoot guns. I don't like guns. But I don't like them for a reason. It's not some kind of culture war/irrational hate that you're trying to box me into. There are many many many ways that we can limit gun deaths in this country, but gun rights activists don't want any part of it, because they don't care about what other people do with guns or common sense ways to limit them. If they did, then locking guns in a safe and keeping them away from children would be mandatory.. the gun show loophole would get closed... and gun owners wouldn't mind going through extra checks to get one. (I admit, there are a lot that don't mind common sense gun regulations.) If gun rights advocates wanted more safety measures, it's not as if they couldn't work with progressives to make that happen. Even your response to me (psh, you don't know anything about guns, why should I listen to you?) is an example of how you'd rather attack the person than the substance, because talking about gun safety isn't on your agenda. Take for example smart guns.. here's a safety mechanism that could solve child related gun fatalities. But the NRA rejects it, cause they think the government is gonna shut down all their guns one day. What?

And then there's the NRA bribing politicians to stop gun related data analysis. Why would that be? Wouldn't an organization filled with cautious, rational, American patriots want MORE study on who goes on rampages? On who should have a gun in the first place? I guess not. They'd rather not see the numbers.

If you don't want to address my points and would rather try to insult me to prove....something... I'll just repeat myself.

You don't need 2 shotguns and 4 handguns in your house for self defense.
Semi-Automatic rifles aren't good for home defense... they aren't good for hunting. They're good for one thing: killing people in military combat. That's what they were designed for.
I'm sure AR-15s are a lot of fun to shoot, but since they have no practical, non-military application.. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have them as either a symbol of status or as a fun toy that they get to shoot things with... regardless of whether they know it or not.

Haha, bigotry against gun owners. You're so oppressed. It sounds like you've got some bigotry against gun safety activists, since you brought out that nice canned "you don't even shoot guns" response that I've heard a million times. As if I can't speak to something without personally being a part of the culture. You know... I guess you're right... I really should look into the pedophile culture before I speak badly about it? Or how about prostitution? I can't really speak badly about its effects until I pimp someone out, can I? ... I've got a lot of work to do.

 

[Aximili86]

Defensive as always. He made a good point, it's the same mentality as Feinstein asking "what's a magazine?" while being involved in drafting gun legislation. There's a threshold for where your views on it should be taken seriously - anyone's entitled to a stance on it, but half the country's not going to listen to it. And they're arguably right in doing so.

 

[MaceB]

You're just reinforcing my point. It's always the liberal's job to move towards conservatives; not the other way around. If gun rights activists wanted to get with progressives to make this country safer, they could. But they don't do that, because they care more about their guns than saving lives. The reason why that is, is not because they need 9 guns for defense.. it's because the gun carries cultural significance to them.

If gun rights activists want to prove me wrong and actually work to implement safety measures, they have every opportunity to do so. And yet, somehow, it's my job to appease them... as if the 2nd amendment doesn't give them more than enough ground already.

Diane Feinstein has been intimately involved int the gun debate for decades. Could you provide me a non-crazy town conservative source that talks about this whole "what is a magazine" thing? I searched for it, but I could only find references to it on Britebart and similar journals.

 

[Holiday]

I've never shot an AR-15 or been around one so I had to read up on them. It's a lightweight gun with little recoil that is easier to shoot accurately than a shotgun or pistol and can shoot ammo that doesnt penetrate as much as what is usually found in those guns so it is actually a very strong weapon for home defense. For you to say it isnt good for home defense or hunting shows your ignorance.

 

[Aximili86]

It's always the liberal's job to move towards conservatives; not the other way around. If gun rights activists wanted to get with progressives to make this country safer, they could..

That's a two-way street though. You've got half the liberal side of this issue calling for outright bans and nothing less - that's hardly "working with the other side" toward compromise, it's an all-or-nothing stance. You factor in all the "agree with me or you're for killing schoolchildren" rhetoric bull****, and of course there's not going to be any good-faith debate on the topic.

 

[MaceB]

That's a two-way street though. You've got half the liberal side of this issue calling for outright bans and nothing less - that's hardly "working with the other side" toward compromise, it's an all-or-nothing stance. You factor in all the "agree with me or you're for killing schoolchildren" rhetoric bull****, and of course there's not going to be any good-faith debate on the topic.

Liberals are not taking the maxim position that all guns should be banned.. that's a straw man. And yeah... if you are absolutely against all forms of gun control, then you should accept some responsibility for mass shootings in America. There's only one political group that wants to make America safer from guns. The other side wants guns to be safer in America.

If conservatives wanted to work with liberals to mandate smart guns, to ban assault rifles, or to close loopholes... then they could. They don't want to though.

 

[MaceB]

I've never shot an AR-15 or been around one so I had to read up on them. It's a lightweight gun with little recoil that is easier to shoot accurately than a shotgun or pistol and can shoot ammo that doesnt penetrate as much as what is usually found in those guns so it is actually a very strong weapon for home defense. For you to say it isnt good for home defense or hunting shows your ignorance.

A semi-automatic weapon, which shoots highly pierceable rounds, 1 per second, is neither ideal for home defense (which could destroy your home and accidentally hurt bystanders) nor is it ideal for hunting (unless you want your meat riddled with bullets).

 

[Handsome Rob]

Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill with AR-15s

Time Magazine Link

1. Feral Goats in Hawaii
2. Feral Pigs in Texas
3. Antelope Jackrabbits in Arizona
4. Elk in Montana
5. Coyotes in Maine
6. Deer in Michigan
7. Spotted Seal in Alaska

In interviews with TIME, leaders of 15 state shooting groups said semiautomatic rifles are popular with hunters in their states. Hunters say they favor the gun for its versatility, accuracy and customizable features for shooting animals.

I think I'll trust the opinions of hunters--you know, the people actually out there hunting--as to the usefulness of an AR-15 in hunting.

 

[MaceB]

Just saying, if you feel like you have to shoot one round per second in order to kill an Elk, then I think you're deluding yourself. You can do it just as well with a rifle... it makes it more sporting honestly, and you won't get 5 or 6 shots in your meat. Semi-automatic assault rifles were designed for military combat... killing people in mass... that's what they were made for, that's what they are good at, that's what they should be used for.

I'm sure there are lots of hunters who use AR-15s. So? There are lots of drivers who think they need Hummers to drive down Hollywood too, but they don't. There are lots of weight lifters who say that you need steroids to get really ripped, but you don't. There will always be people who want the biggest and the best, just because it's the biggest and the best. That's what makes Semi-Automatic Assault weapons so dangerous. You don't need them for defense, and you don't need them for hunting. Wanting and needing are not the same thing.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Just saying, if you feel like you have to shoot one round per second in order to kill an Elk, then I think you're deluding yourself. You can do it just as well with a rifle... it makes it more sporting honestly, and you won't get 5 or 6 shots in your meat. Semi-automatic assault rifles were designed for military combat... killing people in mass... that's what they were made for, that's what they should be used for.

I'm sure there are lots of hunters who use AR-15s. So? There are lots of drivers who think they need Hummers to drive down Hollywood too, but they don't. There are lots of weight lifters who say that you need steroids to get really ripped, but you don't. There will always be people who want the biggest and the best, just because it's the biggest and the best. That's what makes Semi-Automatic Assault weapons so dangerous. You don't need them for defense, and you don't need them for hunting

You realize you can control the fire rate of a semi-auto, right? One squeeze of the trigger, one bullet fires. These hunters aren't out there thinking, "I can bring this deer down with 1 perfectly-placed shot," squeezing the trigger once, and then accidentally firing off 6 bullets into the deer.

If you do shoot and miss, it's nice to be able to get a second (or third, etc.) attempt quickly without having to manually chamber another round. That's one appeal of semi-autos in general, and it specifically says so in the article I provided.

 

[MaceB]

Well, gee wiz, I guess innocent people getting mowed down by military weapons comes second to the convenience of shooting a second round quickly in case the deer runs away from you, huh? This is an example of what I'm talking about. Clearly, the gun has more significance to you than just defense or hunting. If that were the case, you'd be like, "you know... I only need to shoot once every 10 seconds instead of once a second." I mean, I know it's cool to shoot the crap out of things, but doesn't safety for American citizens comes before your hobby?

And how many people have shot twice, not wanting to on an AR-15? Just because you can manually disengage the trigger doesn't mean that AR-15s don't make it easier to shoot recklessly. They do. I'm glad it's "nice" for you, but that doesn't give it societal value. AR-15s do much more harm than good in the civilian sphere, cause they were never meant to be there

 

[Handsome Rob]

Well, gee wiz, I guess innocent people getting mowed down by military weapons comes second to the convenience of shooting a second round quickly in case the deer runs away from you. This is an example of what I'm talking about. Clearly, the gun has more significance to you than just defense or hunting. If that were the case, you'd be like, "you know... I only need to shoot once every 10 seconds instead of once a second." I mean, I know it's cool to shoot the crap out of things, but doesn't safety for American citizens comes second to your hobby?

And how many people have shot twice, not wanting to on an AR-15? Just because you can manually disengage the trigger doesn't mean that AR-15s don't make it easier to shoot recklessly. They do. I'm glad it's "nice" for you, but that doesn't give it societal value. AR-15s do much more harm than good in the civilian sphere, cause they were never meant to be there

1. We could solve the alcohol problem by allowing alcohol to be sold by the drink only, per a special license, and limited to only one drink in a 24-hour period. If you don't support limiting alcohol consumption like this, I guess innocent people being killed comes second to getting to have as many drinks as you'd like. See where that kind of argument leads?

2. Your original statement was that semi-auto guns weren't "ideal" for hunting. Then, once shown otherwise, you changed it to semi-auto guns not being "needed" for hunting. And, you've doubled down on that even after I explained how the ability to fire again without manually chambering a round is useful. Or, would you prefer for a wounded animal to have a better chance to get away rather than the hunter getting him on a subsequent shot, because the hunter has to wait for "10 seconds" before he can shoot again? Would you prefer that the farmer trying to protect his crops have to go out multiple times to shoot the feral hogs tearing up his livelihood instead of once or twice, because the hogs have plenty of time to scatter during those "10 seconds?" Or, even worse, would you prefer that farmer be gored by a charging hog because he only wounded it with his first shot and couldn't get another round off for "10 seconds?"

The nature of a semi-auto can be quite useful in hunting. Period.

 

[MaceB]

1. You're right - we could solve alcohol deaths. We don't want to. As a society, we've decided the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, alcohol only hurts one's self. Shooting things can hurt other people. This is why we regulate drinking and driving the same way we can regulate gun sales. And... we've already tried to ban alcohol once and the consequences made it not worth it. But we have a lot of data that gun regulation saves lives.

2. Semi-autos are neither ideal nor needed. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. People hunted just fine before semi-autos. Yeah, I'd prefer the farmer has to go out several times if that means we have less mass shootings. How many charging hogs have killed people last year? How many of those could be saved by a semi? Come on.. please..

Useful and ideal are two separate things. Useful and needed are two separate things. A tank is useful, but it is neither ideal nor necessary to protect your home with one.

 

[Herofan]

Liberals are not taking the maxim position that all guns should be banned.. that's a straw man.

And yet major Democratic-controlled cities did ban handguns until 2010.

And yeah... if you are absolutely against all forms of gun control

I think very few conservatives are against having the background checks we already do have.

 

[Handsome Rob]

1. You're right - we could solve alcohol deaths. We don't want to. As a society, we've decided the benefits outweigh the costs. Also, alcohol only hurts one's self. Shooting things can hurt other people. This is why we regulate drinking and driving the same way we can regulate gun sales. And... we've already tried to ban alcohol once and the consequences made it not worth it. But we have a lot of data that gun regulation saves lives.

2. Semi-autos are neither ideal nor needed. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. People hunted just fine before semi-autos. Yeah, I'd prefer the farmer has to go out several times if that means we have less mass shootings. How many charging hogs have killed people last year? How many of those could be saved by a semi? Come on.. please..

Useful and ideal are two separate things. Useful and needed are two separate things. A tank is useful, but it is neither ideal nor necessary to protect your home with one.

If you were at home and two men broke in with intent to harm you, would you honestly want a gun you had to wait 10 seconds for in between shots, or would you rather have the ability to fire a shot per second?

And if you say you don't need a semi-auto for that because a handgun will do, keep in mind that there are plenty of handguns out there that are actually semi-automatic. I don't know an actual percentage on that, but probably at least 50% of the handguns out there are semi-automatic.

 

[MaceB]

And yet major Democratic-controlled cities did ban handguns until 2010.

Are hand guns all guns? And please show me what cities banned hand guns in entirety and for how long.

I think very few conservatives are against having the background checks we already do have.

But they are against closing the loophole, against enforcing smart guns, against the Assault Rifle ban, etc. etc. etc

 

[MaceB]

If you were at home and two men broke in with intent to harm you, would you honestly want a gun you had to wait 10 seconds for in between shots, or would you rather have the ability to fire a shot per second?

And if you say you don't need a semi-auto for that because a handgun will do, keep in mind that there are plenty of handguns out there that are actually semi-automatic. I don't know an actual percentage on that, but probably at least 50% of the handguns out there are semi-automatic.

Well, I wasn't talking about all semi-automatic technology. I was talking about semi-automatic assault rifles, designed exclusively for military combat. I do see the value of hand guns for self defense. But Assault Rifles with ammo that can go through a brick wall? No, I don't think you need that, even when two dudes enter your home.

Or... I can install a home security system. Problem solved.

 

[Aximili86]

And the last 6 or 8 posts pretty much just prove my "there's no good-faith discussion on the topic, there's no point in even engaging" stuff. It's just such a fundamental divide/outlook, one side feels the other side's ignorant on anything to do with guns in the first place, the other side thinks the other side's evil for believing a sane/non-criminal person should be able to own a semi-automatic, and never the two shall meet.

It's circular. All you can do is if a vote comes up on it, vote the way you feel on it - but there's no point in talking it over, no minds are being changed on this.

 

[Holiday]

Not every person that believes in different types of gun regulation is ignorant on guns. I said Mace was because thats how they come across.

 

[The Overlord]

1. We could solve the alcohol problem by allowing alcohol to be sold by the drink only, per a special license, and limited to only one drink in a 24-hour period. If you don't support limiting alcohol consumption like this, I guess innocent people being killed comes second to getting to have as many drinks as you'd like. See where that kind of argument leads?

2. Your original statement was that semi-auto guns weren't "ideal" for hunting. Then, once shown otherwise, you changed it to semi-auto guns not being "needed" for hunting. And, you've doubled down on that even after I explained how the ability to fire again without manually chambering a round is useful. Or, would you prefer for a wounded animal to have a better chance to get away rather than the hunter getting him on a subsequent shot, because the hunter has to wait for "10 seconds" before he can shoot again? Would you prefer that the farmer trying to protect his crops have to go out multiple times to shoot the feral hogs tearing up his livelihood instead of once or twice, because the hogs have plenty of time to scatter during those "10 seconds?" Or, even worse, would you prefer that farmer be gored by a charging hog because he only wounded it with his first shot and couldn't get another round off for "10 seconds?"

The nature of a semi-auto can be quite useful in hunting. Period.

Okay, let's ask this question, why does the US have far more gun violence then say Canada?

Many Canadians like to hunt and live in rural areas, but they are fine with using long guns to hunt. If the gun control laws are not the solution, why the big difference in gun violence levels between the 2 countries?

 

[MaceB]

The idea alone that Semi-automatics are just too valuable to not allow hunters to have them while hunting... is silly at best. We did just fine hunting for hundreds of years without them. But yeah... I'm ignorant... I'm just so political that I'm talking crazy. Sure... sure.....

I say again and again and again, if conservatives wanted to do something about gun safety, they would and could... it's not like every Democrat wouldn't support them. But they don't want to regulate guns, because they don't appreciate the fact that there's a problem. That's step 1: recognizing there is a freaking problem.

 

[The Overlord]

Also here is an interesting question, does the second amendment apply equally to African Americans as it does to others?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.chi...mendment-apply-to-black-people?media=AMP+HTML

Do African Americans Have a Right to Bear Arms? - The Atlantic

Because it seems like Fox News says everyone who wants a gun should have one, but when the cops shoot a African American guy for dubious reasons, Fox News says "well that guy might have had a guy."

 

[Aximili86]

Many Canadians like to hunt and live in rural areas, but they are fine with using long guns to hunt. If the gun control laws are not the solution, why the big difference in gun violence levels between the 2 countries?

For what it's worth, most of the guns available to civilians in the US are to Canadians too. You can buy ARs in Canada. Only difference is they get really really anal with the background checks, interviewing multiple family members & friends and stuff until they're satisfied you're not a ticking time bomb.

Which, honestly, a lot of gun rights people are fine with here too, that should probably happen, a way more thorough checking system where some G-man actually comes out and talks to various people in your life. That's inherently different to blanket bans on individual types of semi-autos for anyone at all for any reason.

 

[MaceB]

For what it's worth, most of the guns available to civilians in the US are to Canadians too. You can buy ARs in Canada. Only difference is they get really really anal with the background checks, interviewing multiple family members & friends and stuff until they're satisfied you're not a ticking time bomb.

Which, honestly, a lot of gun rights people are fine with here too, that should probably happen, a way more thorough checking system where some G-man actually comes out and talks to various people in your life. That's inherently different to blanket bans on individual types of semi-autos for anyone at all for any reason.

This demonstrates my point. Instead of looking at Canada's gun deaths as a model and admitting we have a problem in the states, you go shame, blame, and guilt on their system. Examples: "get really anal," "until they're satisfied you're not a ticking time bomb," "G-man actually comes out."

The only admission is a backhanded.."should probably happen" comment. The thrust of this post is that gun regulations are intrinsically obtrusive and unfriendly. If conservatives actually wanted to minimize gun deaths, they could... but they don't. Your language is clear.