Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[Neatras]

It's not the guns, it's about being free to do anything at all (and pesky laws should only be in place to protect me, not ruin my ability to express myself)!

Just to clarify due to the lack of tone on the internet, the above is sarcasm. But it's about some kind of addiction to autonomy where any infringements to your ability to swing your arms is somehow a sickening violation of your rights. But as has been said time and time again, the right to swing a fist ends at someone else's nose. Well gun fanaticism has broken a lot more than just noses.

[Bust Nak]

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

Woah there, that cuts deep man.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons?

Even liberals know how beautiful these weapons are.

How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

Because they fear they won't be able to pass the vetting process. You know it's not about rights because time and again, they demonstrate that they only want people similar to them to have heavy weapons.

[Elijah John]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons?

Different reasons for different fanatics, I'm sure. To speculate, I suppose some are legitimate collectors, other's could be survivalists suspicious of the government, and of course still others are clearly up to no good, like the Vegas shooter, and terrorists.

How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

I for one, cannot. Here there seems to be room for agreement between Liberals and Conservatives. Or should be anyway.

Some defenders cry : "there is no law that would have prevented the Vegas massacre." That only proves the point, and points to the need to create new laws, or strengthen existing ones.

If "bumpstocks" were illegal, this nut-job would not have been able to shoot as many people as he did. Or if there were limits to the number of semi-automatic rifles one could posses, that would have hindered him too. Sure, he could have gotten some of that stuff illegally, but that process too, would be a hinderance.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

My only comment is if you are posting this because of the recent Las Vegas shooting, then you’re being driven more by emotion then facts. When evil people do evil things we always want to blame someone/something. It’s natural. But why single out guns? More and more info is coming out about this guy. He was a huge gambler. Maybe the gambling industry is to blame. He was on anxiety meds. Maybe anxiety drugs are to blame? His father was in jail and he grew up without a father. Maybe that is the root cause of his evil action. This disturbed man could have just as easily blown everyone up with a bomb. He could have driven a truck into a crowd. He could have started a fire, etc. He could have secretly slipped 58 people something poisonous in their drink over the course of a few days, etc – or been more of a serial killer to see through his anger and mal adjustment.

So, couple of points.

-Bad people have ways of getting around laws. They don’t really care about what is legal, right or wrong.

-It’s important to recognize there's no one easy solution to gun violence because it isn't one problem. Socio-economic problems need to be addressed. We need to look into drug policies, the welfare system, and our criminal justice system. We need to deal with the root causes of domestic and foreign terrorism. And we have to accept that evil does exist in the world and not everything can be controlled.

What we need to avoid is to jump on the “gun control� bandwagon being promoted by politicians that something needs to be done and pass superficial garbage that doesn’t actually do anything, but makes people feel like they’re doing something and helps current politicians improve their voter base.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

My only comment is if you are posting this because of the recent Las Vegas shooting, then you’re being driven more by emotion then facts. When evil people do evil things we always want to blame someone/something. It’s natural. But why single out guns?

Among the developed nations, mass gun violence is a problem that seems to be unique only to America. Could it perhaps be attributable to the fact that we allow almost anyone in this country to own a gun? Well, duh? The more guns we have out in the public, the higher the likelihood that somebody is going to use their gun for malicious purposes.

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the two are linked in anyway then you are in denial.

More and more info is coming out about this guy. He was a huge gambler. Maybe the gambling industry is to blame. He was on anxiety meds. Maybe anxiety drugs are to blame? His father was in jail and he grew up without a father. Maybe that is the root cause of his evil action. This disturbed man could have just as easily blown everyone up with a bomb. He could have driven a truck into a crowd. He could have started a fire, etc. He could have secretly slipped 58 people something poisonous in their drink over the course of a few days, etc – or been more of a serial killer to see through his anger and mal adjustment.

You're right, he could've done any of those things. Do you know why he didn't? Because it was far easier for him to kill people using a gun rather than engineer a bomb, or drive a truck into the crowd.

Concerts are heavily guarded. The amount of security associated with public events like a concert would make it completely infeasible to sneak a bomb in or drive a truck into the crowd. The machine gun allowed this psycho to completely bypass the concert's security. All he had to do was sit in his hotel room and shoot at the crowd through the window. In this case, the gun was a far more efficient and deadly weapon of choice. Sure, he could've ran people down or tried to construct a bomb that would've probably failed, or he could've tried to use a knife and he may have even been able to stab 1 or 2 people before getting tackled to the ground. But, the reason why he didn't do any of those things is that he had access to machine guns, and his guns allowed him to carry out the killing far more efficiently than any of the other options.

-Bad people have ways of getting around laws. They don’t really care about what is legal, right or wrong.

Right, but if these guns were not sold on the market it would have been far more difficult for him to get his hands on one. That is the point. I somewhat share your view that even if the government banned guns, people would just go underground and a black market for guns would be inadvertently created. However, just because bad people will try to find ways around the law doesn't mean that we shouldn't create laws to begin with. Are you saying that we shouldn't outlaw robbery because bad people will commit robberies regardless of what the law says?

That is a fatalistic, not to mention illogical, position.

-It’s important to recognize there's no one easy solution to gun violence because it isn't one problem. Socio-economic problems need to be addressed. We need to look into drug policies, the welfare system, and our criminal justice system. We need to deal with the root causes of domestic and foreign terrorism. And we have to accept that evil does exist in the world and not everything can be controlled.

Of course there are other extraneous factors that play into these mass shootings. But making it more difficult for people to obtain heavy firearms would probably reduce the amount of mass shootings that occur.

I constantly hear gun fanatics say that cars or knives will be used in lieu of guns if guns were ever outlawed. Sure, they may very well be. But guns are designed to kill. Heavy firearms are designed to kill many people. A car is not designed to kill, nor is its purpose to run over people. A knife isn't designed to kill either. The only reason why people buy guns is to kill. The only purpose a gun serves is to kill.

What we need to avoid is to jump on the “gun control� bandwagon being promoted by politicians that something needs to be done and pass superficial garbage that doesn’t actually do anything, but makes people feel like they’re doing something and helps current politicians improve their voter base.

There is absolutely no justification to own a machine gun. Sure, owning 1-3 handguns is fine and I would never support a blanketed ban on gun ownership. I agree that people have the right to defend themselves for criminals and from possible government tyranny.

But targeted and strategic bans of heavy firearms are in no way a violation of the second amendment. You aren't allowed to own a bomb, and similarly you aren't allowed to own a machine gun. Plain and simple.

[RightReason]

[Replying to WinePusher]

FYI, I don’t own a gun. I would never own a gun. And I am not a member of the NRA. But I don’t like emotional based arguments. I am just pointing out the absurdity that guns are the problem. You are simply barking up the wrong tree. Mass shootings are by individuals with psychological issues -- not having access to guns would not prevent them from acting out their deranged evil.

Here is a good article of an anti gun enthusiast who admits the research changed his mind. .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 73a5cc1480

Some excerpts from the article:

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference.


I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.


In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.


Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides.


The next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides.


And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence.


Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents


But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 73a5cc1480


The murder toll in Las Vegas on Sunday makes it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Know what they call that in Chicago? June.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country

But gangs run the streets of the Windy City, and the mayor has had no impact on reducing shootings.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21868/las ... oseph-curl#

[AgnosticBoy]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

For the same reason the government needs them, security and/or protection. What we need more regulation on is our mental health of individuals purchasing ANY firearm, anything from a measly revolver up to a machine gun. The same checks that cops and military go through should also be required of civilians.

Why pick on guns? This could've easily happen with someone driving over everyone with a dump truck. Should we ban trucks or worry more about mental health?!

[Bust Nak]

Why pick on guns? This could've easily happen with someone driving over everyone with a dump truck. Should we ban trucks or worry more about mental health?!

Because guns are designed to be deadly weapons.

[Rufus21]

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons?

Perhaps it has something to do with the media? One common theme in conservative media is that the rest of the world (liberals, the government, foreign governments, big corporations, scientists, you name it) is coming to get you. Everything is a war. The headlines include everything from the "war on coal", the "war on religion", the "war on women", the "war on terror", the "war on marriage", the "war on meat", the "war on success", the "war on the poor", even the "war on Christmas"! You can imagine how being constantly subjected to this would cause paranoia and emotional instability. This is all being broadcast to people who already have a tenancy to follow their emotional reactions instead of (and even in spite of) the truth. It's the perfect recipe for violent outbreaks like the ones we have seen. The media is creating wars that don't exist and enlisting soldiers to fight and die for non-existent causes.