Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Why do gun owners always condemn non gun owners about not knowing the finer details of guns when trying to discuss a glaring need for more gun control in the US? I don't get it.
|
Because its a reasonable request to know what you're talking about if you're trying to influence the interests of other groups. As was said in a different comment, the media perpetuates these stereotypes, and next thing you know people are all up in arms about "high capacity clips" and "military assault rifles", and then someone parrots how "low capacity stripper clips" are maybe ok, or anything that remotely looks like its not made of wood is a tool of war and destruction. All I'm saying is to form a factual opinion on something you're not maybe familiar with, some research and understanding would make people realize that nearly EVERY firearm has roots to ones that people feel are non threatening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I would like to do what is necessary to significantly reduce the killing capacity of the average American citizen while still allowing for target shooting and hunting.
So when a person says ban assault rifles they really mean ban the guns people are using to perpetrate these attacks. Instead of Snark and Correction perhaps you could explain a gun law and what could be banned to reduce killing capacity.
When non gun users are advocating banning things it is really saying limit killing capacity. So as an expert you can fill in the details
|
I can, no snark intended by any means, but if you read the responses in this thread, everyone gets ridiculously emotional and comments come off the cuff about full scorched earth gun control, and I would hazard that 85% of those are completely blind, uneducated and non thought out responses.
I hunt, I shoot for fun, I own firearms because they are truly fascinating in history, in function, and variables and design, etc. There is no reason to demonize the tool, and completely ignore the root cause. You can't have everyone rolling around in bubble wrap because someone might trip and get hurt.
Deal with socioeconomics, deal with mental health, deal with better reporting and backgrounding, don't pain every single firearm and owner as a villian because of what we choose to be interested in. People would benefit so much more from the ground level support opposed to restricting everyone by the actions of a few.
Gun laws still don't prevent murder. MURDER is against the law. ASSAULT is against the law. ROBBERY is against the law. You don't see anyone thinking twice about breaking those, so tell me what potential or intended murderer is going to second guess his actions based on unlawfully acquired firearms? And you better believe that happens here as well, there are more unregistered, prohibited, restricted, etc firearms out in public areas than most people here would be comfortable with, in cars, carried, in houses with other CRIMINAL FACTIONS that have zero regard for the law.
Backgrounding is effective at reducing bad firearms owners, but nothing is perfect. The interview on the phone my parents received from the RCMP on my background and headspace was quite in depth. So much so I got a call from my father afterwards to discuss how hard they were pressing to find any flaws. That same process goes to your spouse, or ex, room mates, etc. Its not perfect, but its again only as effective as those that report it (ie: this last guys spotty past of abuse, etc). Sometimes, some people just snap as well, not everyone is predictable, and not everyone has warning signs. I deal with mental health issues every single day at work, the entire spectrum of them.
Its a sad, tragic event that happened, we can all agree on that. But again, lets focus on the fact that this guy had issues. Hey, he could have run his truck through the front doors as well, and before anyone shrugs that off, its reality.