Two questions for gun control people

I dont get it either. I mean even .22 can look different. We have two. One looks like a assault rifle one like a normal hunting rifle. Why just make a fuss about the one the looks like a assault rifle. Both are 22s one just has a diff look.

 

Cause it's scary looking that's why. People don't care about other rifles cause they don't look scary.

 

That is the problem there is no reasoning it is an emotional issue about being made to "feel" good about doing something. Good luck with your question.

 

Q9...I will pretend that someone of your intelligence really does not know why there is (and has been) a push to ban assault rifles and give you a simple and straight forward answer. Simply put the assault rifle that are being focused on are made and intended as weapons of war and really do not have any real use for sporting reasons or for defense. They are primarily an offensive weapon. No legitimate hunter can say that he or she wants to hunt with an AK 47 and be taken seriously as a hunter. Your statement that assault rifles are used less to commit crimes then other weapons is really not a legitimate argument. Large bombs are not used very much to commit crimes so do you feel it is OK for everyone to possess them? How about small, portable nuclear weapons? The focus is on certain types of assault rifles because people feel that this is the beginning point of a line of weapons that are made exclusively to wage war and to offensively kill large amounts of people in a short period of time without much effort. To a lesser extent there is also the argument that most law enforcement does not generally equip their street officers with assault rifles and other weapons of war and when they are faced with that kind of weapon, they are outgunned. As for the other features you mentioned they are merely features that people have associated with being parts of assault rifles. And Ed, as for your statement, it makes about as much sense as your signature quote from that distiguished jurist and intellectual lightweight, Judge Napolitano. Not to break your bubble, but it has no basis whatsoever in historical facts.

As a PS...I am a gun owner, a supporter of gun rights and have a concealed weapon permit for years.

 

My views on this subject are based mainly on three experiences:

1. I grew up in a country where few people feel the need to own a gun and getting a licence isn't easy. After two massacres, assault rifles and then hand guns were banned. Gun control doesn't completely solve the problem because weapons can still be obtained illegally by criminals but experience suggests that they usually use them against each other.

2. On my first trip to Miami, I was warned not to look at people in other cars while waiting at traffic lights or to get involved in road rage. The reason given was that many people carried guns and use them for the weakest of reasons. That was a real shock.

3. There are more guns where I live now and many are illegally owned. Gun crime seems to be on the increase in vacation areas and I think that burglaries may increase too. My Thai wife can have a gun licence and we now have a gun for protection in and close to the house and will soon buy a .22 rifle to cover the whole property. She doesn't plan to apply for a carry licence in the foreseeable future.

To give my answers to your questions:

1. Assault weapons have no use in self defence and have been used recently in massacres in the US. They are, probably, the most obvious and generally accepted type of weapon for either more control or a complete ban. I can accept that hand guns are used more often, especially in individual killings rather than mass shootings. However, I don't think that your national conscience is yet ready to accept much more control over those, even if the facts suggest that it's necessary.

So, the present focus on rapid-fire weapons seems to be a pragmatic move that's probably short of what's really required.

2. I haven't seen much about the discussion of those features that you list. Perhaps high capacity magazines are seen as too convenient for those who want to create a massacre. The other equipment is, presumably, intended to make shooting more accurate. Perhaps there is some concern about the psychological makeup of people who want that kind of equipment. As things stand in the US at the moment, tinkering with minor things like those is irrelevant.

The main issue, looking at it from my own experience, is that it's too easy in the US for people to buy weapons that have no legitimate use in civilian life and too easy for irresponsible people to get hold of a weapon at all. The freedom to carry weapons concealed under clothing for many people is also an issue and encourages two breaches of gun rules: carrying a gun loaded and drinking alcohol whilst carrying a gun.

The main obstacle to sensible gun control seems to be entrenched attitudes one one side and the lack of power on the other to bring about change. For Pete's sake, though, surely something has to change. Other countries have responded to this growing menace of gun attacks on other people so why not give it some thought?

 

I would like to have a large magazine semiautomatic rifle for my home defense, just in case. Don't understand why I may not be able to defend myself and family with such if new law get passes.

 

I must admit, I do find massacres of schoolchildren a very emotional issue. That doesn't mean there is no reasoning behind calls for better controls.

We lost 16 children of five years of age and a teacher in the UK and that quickly saw the end of hand guns. The previous massacre with heavier weapons on Hungerford brought about tight controls on those types of weapon. Very emotional 'issues' and ones which showed the changes in the gun laws were necessary.

 

That sounds more like a knee-jerk emotional reaction to me, not change promoted by need.