Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

Does "assault weapon" still mean "scary-looking gun"?

 

My thoughts exactly. Some laws are unjust and some change as society changes.

There are a number of archaic laws still on the books in my state (and pretty much everywhere, I presume) that are overridden by newer, modern laws.
Law isnt a rigid, inflexible thing.

 

Your justification for telling me that I shouldn't have an AR-15 is that I can't justify having one. But the truth is that I can't justify it to YOU. But that's really your problem isn't it? Your problem is with the magazine size, but you're not about to let go of your obsession as you've been on this course for some time now.

I don't own an AR-15. But if I did, I can tell you why I would own that particular semiautomatic rifle instead of a different semiautomatic rifle. I would own one because I chose to.

And maybe I want to hunt with one. Oh, but according to you I can't justify why I need it to hunt. But again, I have no interest in justifying anything to you, and nor do I need to. Nevertheless, here is something that will perhaps remove from your mind the myth that AR-15s are no good for hunting.

Gun Control Myth: The AR-15 is Not Actually a Hunting Rifle

 

Yes it does. It means "scary-looking semiautomatic rifle." Its appearance causes some people to lose the ability to distinguish between style and function.

 

1) Bans

This is not about getting rid of all guns it’s about trying to reduce harm by reducing the possibility that guns fall into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

2) Hunting

As I’ve said before I grew up in the countryside where there were many people own guns. It was a village and a few people would meet up on Sunday to shoot. It was mainly shot guns as that was what most people had (for hunting, putting down vermin and sport). It was a social thing, a club of which I was a member.

To repeat it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a guns.

I mean what would I do with a shotgun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming than sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up. As to home defence, well as I’ve said there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

The thing is that the majority of Americans live in urban areas and the majority of gun owners give defence as their main reason for owning a gun not hunting.

Thing is that if I moved to a rural area I might get a shot gun for hunting and sport (not for defence) but I would also follow the regulations because I’d know how important it was to try and keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and criminal – the thing is that many people opposing gun control seem to want the irresponsible and criminal to have easy access to guns and I wonder why.

3) Defence

The reason why people want a gun for ‘defence’ is fear and paranoia and that comes across in what anti-gun control lobbyist say just go read any thread involving guns and key words come up over and over ‘rape’, ‘murder’ ‘home invasion’, the world isn’t safe, people do want to do you harm, I need to protect my child, my wife my family.

But does ease of access to guns make American safer, do they fear less? Well no.

The cops are more jumpy and more likely to shoot first because anyone they stop could have a gun, do parents feel safer because there kids have to be taught what to do if their school is attacked by a mass shooter? If people are constantly told that armed people are about to attack them, break into their homes, rape them, murder them, is that good for mental health?

4) Tyranny

If you claim to have guns as protection against ‘government’ then I ask again – when do you start killing police officers? You can protest that you never would do that but sorry you can’t pussy foot around that – if you are going to use guns to stop what you see as ‘tyranny’ then at some point you will have to start killing police officers and to accept that is your intention.

So the thing is at what point do you begin?

5) Fear and Paranoia

I think there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat or use of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mind set gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

Because if someone thinks that way they can believe that is how others think.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

I agree that all guns should not be banned, and that background checks should be mandatory. I also believe that there should be a ban on high capacity magazines (anything over ten rounds). And there's no need for you to wonder why pro-gun rights people want the irresponsible and the criminals to have easy access to guns--they don't. That's just some made up shit from the minds of paranoid control freaks.

And the reason people want a gun for home defense is because they want a gun for home defense. Your dismissal of the reality of home invasions speaks to your ignorance on the subject. You should look into it. And after you do, tell me your rationale for believing that any of those victims should be denied their right to self defense. Even the police don't share your unreasonable views on that subject.

When it comes to defending oneself against tyranny, civilian firearms are woefully inadequate to the task. I would never say that I own a gun for the purpose of defending against tyranny. In the U.S. there are hundreds of million of guns. If gun owners are as paraniod about tyranny as you believe they are, a lot of politicians would be dead by now. But they're not. So it would appear that your unwarranted fear has caused you to build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth.

 

H

LOL ok teach me since you are so knowledgeable on the subject – what crime statistics are you basing your views on?

So you are saying that because those that have said they do have guns as protections against the government haven’t actually killed lots of politicians that means they can’t actually mean it?

That if they meant it they would have already started killing police officers – why – are you saying you think the government is already tyrannical?

Can you please explain your thinking here?

 

LOL? Not knowing the statistics of home burglaries in the U.S. before condemning peoples' right to own a gun for home security is nothing for you to laugh at. I assume you opted to not look into it.

I'm not one who has a gun for protection against a tyrannical government. And your third paragraph is something you'll have to decipher for me. Slow down.

 

Don't expect logic from emotional reactions.

 

that post seemed like something i needed to hear completely nothing to do with this thread, thanks for that tatt.

 

Reading through this thread elicited the thought - so I can claim relevance. hehe

 

I dislike that sentiment.
You hear variations of it a lot in various forms.
Facts, not feelings
Etc
As if you cant be emotional and logical at the same time.
You can.
We are humans, we have emotions. You cannot separate yourself from your emotions. None of us can (unless someone here is a sociopath, in which case..sure, but that's nothing to brag about)

And particularly in regards gun control. We would not be having this debate if guns were not used as a tool for murder, and if said murders did not cause emotional anguish.
You cannot separate emotion from a debate about gun control. If you try to, you're telling people they shouldnt be sad about their loved ones being murdered by someone with a gun, that they have no right to feel angry about how easy it was for the murderer to obtain a gun.
And I call bullshit on that line of thinking.

 

There's been several murders with screwdrivers. Should they be harder to obtain?

Have you bought a firearm? How easy was it for you?

 

If I did would you wonder? Who's allowed now that so many are always killed? Is it something that shouldn't be addressed? Why not?

 

In Kentucky it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket.

https://www.tricountytitleloans.com...llegal-to-carry-ice-cream-in-your-back-pocket