Why? Because too many of todays politicians don't know squat about guns, having never been in the military, nor even handled guns. They fight over magazine capacity. Is 6 or 7 bullets ok in a pistol, but 10 or 15 too many? Same with rifle magazines. And, they fight over gun types. Ban automatic weapons? Semi-autos? Repeaters or what? Make gun manufacturers responsible for how their weapons are used? Yeah, that'll work about as well as all their drug laws have stopped drug abuse. Education is the answer. Before liberals took over the educational system in America, kids learned right from wrong, good from bad. So, I may sound radical but, along with education, we need to weed out all the liberals from any position of power or control. Only then will we see improvement. Yes, I'm running for president.
Most people, of those who don't know guns, will consider any rifle with a magazine and other accessories to be an assault rifle because, to them, it's a scarier looking gun. For example, these two weapons are basically the same gun, the chief difference being the furniture. Here's another, with different guns but basically the same power. By the way, the primary purpose for the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is to allow Americans to have protection against a future tyrannical government, not for hunting or target shooting, although guns serve those purposes as well.
Thank you Ken & Ike for educating me on the anatomy of guns (that sounds sarcastic but not at all). I appreciate it. As far as banning guns, let me make it simple for the lawmakers, etc. How many bullets does it take to kill a deer before needing to reload? How many to kill a person attacking you? Maybe 3? Maybe 4? (taking into account you're a bad shot lol). Take that number and ban all guns that have a larger bullet capacity before having to reload. Guns should be for personal protection and hunting. We have the military to protect us from a future tyrannical government. We need control of some sort. Checking background history isn't working. Education isn't working. Ignoring the need for mental evaluations, treatments, programs, etc (free and available) isn't happening. Our children are dying.
The police, who are trained in the use of a weapon, and have to qualify annually, at least, routinely fire far more than that. In real life, people don't always fall down dead just because they've been shot. Here's from the first page of Google Results. Police Shooting Frenzy Raises Concerns Police: Lancaster Shooting Involved Over 50 Rounds of Ammunition (no one killed) Waco Police Shot Bikers with Multiple Rifle Rounds Here's Why Cops Often Shoot Suspects Multiple Times Why One Cop Carries 145 Rounds of Ammo on the Job
How can you be sure only one person will attack you at a time? Home invasions often include more than one, or even two. How about a riot situation? Don't blame gun manufacturers for mass killings. Put the blame on Obama and other liberals like him. Obama is responsible for the record breaking gun sales. All he has to do is make noise about gun control, and sales of guns skyrocket. Ultimately, some of them will get into wrong hands. Then, the Obama type politicians have more ammo to push gun control.
Ahhhh, boy! My last forum attended "went postal" about the firearms question, to the extent that folks were being kicked out. But, as a lifelong shooter of firearms, I will enter the fray, lightly. Very few politicians outwardly embrace gun ownership by the masses, nor are they at all familiar with them, IMO. Vice President Dick Cheney was a shooter, and accidently shot his friend in the ass. Not a "good showing", but at least he was not outwardly "anti-gun". In another forum, with heavy membership consisting of Canadians and Australians, those folks consistently fought with U.S. folks insisting their countries have proven much safer since private gun ownership was virtually eliminated. I, for one, wouldn't argue with 'em, but I will put forth my opinion in this way: I personally do not care or wish to fight the anti-gun politicians or the government they support; they surely are failing at supporting their constituents' needs. There are an estimated 40,000 laws on the books in America, pertaining to guns. Those laws are constantly being broken, by criminals, who may or may not have been a criminal, before they violated one of those laws. Ban certain kinds of firearms, no matter, many folks will still have them, in violation of the law: the government thus makes CRIMINALS out of previously law-abiding citizens, by passing a law! Aside from that fact, but also very significant, the government DENIES the disarmed citizens their right to self-defense use of firearms. I will always have a gun. If it ever reaches a point of search and confiscation, I will still have a gun. Even if I have to make my own. And, the bravado statement made by Charlton Heston, as President of the N.R.A., "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands", is ridiculous, when you think about it. Go to war against the government? Suicidal. Give up your life over possession of a tool? Hardly a smart move. Gun gone? Simply get another. Frank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands
So many feelings on this one. Okay, first of all, I can't adapt the "government to protect us from a future tyrannical government" idea. Twenty years ago maybe I could have, but now it would be saying I trust the government to do what's right for me and my family. Trust the government. Ain't gonna happen unless there are some drastic changes. Sad but true. Besides, aren't we knee-deep into that kind of scary government/environment already? Our children are dying for many reasons. Saying "you're not allowed to have a gun" is not going to stop the "bad guys" from having guns. In fact, it would probably make it worse... black market is powerful, ya know. Now, let me say that guns scare me. A lot. So I do not fight to "own a gun" because I don't own one and never have. I am, however, a VERY strong constitutional rights fighter, and that's something I'll always defend. They've taken enough of my constitutional rights and threw them in the sewer in the last 8 years. Going after the right to bear arms better not be next.
Mari, you are one of a rarely-encountered person who sees that principles involved take precedence over the guns debate. Frank
All of the suggestions that you say are not working, @Lara Moss , are things that are directed at regulating LAWFUL gun owners. Lawful gun owners have legal weapons, criminals have both legal and illegal weapons; and none of our gun laws affect the criminals at all. Any of the shooters that used illegal assault weapons obviously are not legal gun owners, so banning those weapons is not going to stop anything. My parents had guns, my father and mother were both excellent marksmen, and I learned to shoot when I was in my early teens. Since that time, I have owned guns. Mostly just my .22 rifle that I used for predators when living out in the country (and alone), and also a small handgun that I carried when I traveled. If someone is breaking in your house, or a marauding bear is attacking your children, calling 911 is not going to do much good at all. We don't have guns anymore, because Bobby does not want any guns around; so I gave mine to my son when we moved from Idaho. I know that I am a "tin-foil hat" person; but I also believe that a good many of these shootings are deliberately set up. Some of the shooters even believed and tried to tell people that they were the victim of mind control. Others, might not even have happened at all. The video from the church in Georgia where the white guy shot the black church people, if you look at the time stamp on the video, it was filmed in the early morning, and not at night. The time runs in what is called "military time" and goes to 24:00 hours, not 12:00. So, a time stamp of 8:30 (or whatever it was) would be morning, not evening, when the shootings were supposed to have happened. There are excellent YouTube videos showing this if you care to investigate.
Amazing information, Yvonne! Of course, why not create fodder to further substantiate the "need" to enhance "public safety" by taking away it's guns! Nah! Government wouldn't kill people with utter disregard! Or would it? Freedom of Information Act info revealed, very quietly, that our CIA, having "thought to be accurate" information that a certain Official of another country whom our government wanted eliminated, would be on a certain train in France, and derailed the train intentionally, an "unfortunate accident. Innocent people were killed and maimed. The target person was not on the train. This happened I believe in the late 1970's. Frank
Government to protect us from a future tyrannical government or are they one and the same. Try selling whole raw milk and you will see swat teams with assault rifles pointing at face. Waco a religious group just wanting to be left along. Bundy family wanted to do what they have for years but the government tried everything to start a fight. Oregon unarmed man shot many times by FBI with assault rifles. This list would go on forever. If they disarm the public than any government in power is tyrannical. If they want to disarm start with the police, military, private security, and you know they will never do that because they want the upper hand.
True enough. If guns can't keep you safe, then I don't know why pretty much every politician and celebrity who would disarm the rest of us is surrounded by armed guards. If guns can't keep us safe, then we could save a lot of money by dismantling the Secret Service.
(multiple quote = ??) Martin and Ken have concisely outlined the largest obstacle to our "inner peace", if it is to be maintained outside the confines of being "subjects". Seemingly, a very large proportion of today's Society has caved-in to the belief that their "free" existence is predicated on, and totally and they are acceptive of, absolute governmental power over them.
Wonder how many of us would have believed it could come to this 30 years ago? Or 20? It's become like a bad sci-fi B movie from the 60s.