While I love to argue. Does anyone think this is getting away from the issue?
The argument could be had that finding the real cause for violent crimes would take the blame off video games. However, there you could also argue there would be multiple causes. The link between guns and violent crimes doesn't solve the potential attack on the western games industry.
We can all agree video games aren't the cause. We can have each other's backs on that one.
While I love to argue. Does anyone think this is getting away from the issue?
The argument could be had that finding the real cause for violent crimes would take the blame off video games. However, there you could also argue there would be multiple causes. The link between guns and violent crimes doesn't solve the potential attack on the western games industry.
We can all agree video games aren't the cause. We can have each other's backs on that one.
Except the one guy who posted before me who said they are lol.
There is violent crime everywhere, i agree. but the number of gun related deaths is absolutely correlated to the number of guns in circulation. that's a fact.
The points you seem to be missing are: 1. "You can't change the second amendment", fuck yes you can, it's called an amendment for a reason. 2. you just contradicted yourself, first you say that it takes an image of violence to influence someone, and then went on to say that it's simply people being 'born in sin' (as ridiculous as that statement alone is) which is enough for people to be violent. 3. the connection to slavery is: people used to argue that having slaves was their 'god given right' and that taking that away would be a hugely terrible thing, neither of those things are true and ever have been.
The single line from the whole show that makes the most sense to me is this: All of the arguments for owning a gun are bullshit, with the exception of one: "I like guns".
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You don't know if these people are on SSRI, unless you can prove they are not you have no case. SSRI can cause all types of issues.
I don't see the second amendment being changed just because the word amendment implies it can be changed; I'd love to see how well that would go over; it wouldn't.
I wasn't contradicting myself, you spun into a contradiction. What I said was, images of violence can influence someone to act on violence, especially if they are under the influence of any substance or even SSRI; combine the two and well you will get shootings, plain and simple.
Ranting and raving saying video games can't cause a person to purchase a weapon is just off the wall talk; there is no substance behind. No one can, not even yourself if playing extensive violent video games know the effects it has done onto one self; if they have proven that looking at Pornography causes issues in a person, you can't say that playing violent video games may not do the same. One may not go out and rob a bank and kill everyone inside; but there are other consequences. Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
The NRA prop up presidential campaigns, like the 30 million the NRA slipped into Trump's hands (according to Frank Rich from The New Yorker, )
This means any politician that would dare to say we are going to have an amnesty on guns and ban them in the future will lose so much money that it will be hard to build any future campaigns.
Well thats how I see it, I just wonder how many more massacres it will take before they see the writing on the wall.
That said if I lived in the US I would get some guns, maybe even loads of them.
Except the one guy who posted before me who said they are lol.
Should have been noted as an addendum when touching on a IMHO, out-dated rating system when referencing online access especially by minors too restricted gaming content, NOT that violent games in and of themselves are a predominant causal factor behind a string of mass shootings in recent memory.
I was in the US Army Infantry. Fought in Afghanistan.
Guns don't kill people? Are you kidding? Think I would join the army if we were using swords?
Guns make it so easy to kill people. It's nothing.
And, frankly, 99% of american's don't deserve the right to have guns. I don't care what any old piece of parchment say's. Besides that, its simple math. Population goes up, so does number of crazies. So does number of people crazies can kill at a time. If you have to keep your assault rifles, just reassure yourself that you are okay with kids getting massacred in school. Mental health outreach won't stop anything.
Guns and violence in video games -- it definitely played a major role in making me want to join the military. Along with movies. But regulating them? That's not a fix. If people are buying it, that is a reflection of the national psyche. The national psyche is like a child. You cannot beat it into submission. You take something away, the child wants it more. You are always oppressing every normal desire, the child becomes rebellious.
America is a fat, petulant, depraved, and -- worst of all -- prideful child, and I don't think it will grow up until it hits rock bottom. Then people will get their act together. Any time in history you find people who believe they are better than others -- trouble happens. But, it's a normal cycle throughout history. I'm not superstitious, but maybe its just karma going around in a big sense. A nation doesn't get so powerful from being gracious.
If you're smart, you'll avoid the whole thing. Plenty of places to live your life with dignity and without undo stress and dramatics. Still, I don't think anybody is "evil", but America has suffered poor education and rampant propagandizing for a long time. Lots of gullible moron's who will sink the ship to get their way.
I was in the US Army Infantry. Fought in Afghanistan.
Guns don't kill people? Are you kidding? Think I would join the army if we were using swords?
Guns make it so easy to kill people. It's nothing.
And, frankly, 99% of american's don't deserve the right to have guns. I don't care what any old piece of parchment say's. Besides that, its simple math. Population goes up, so does number of crazies. So does number of people crazies can kill at a time. If you have to keep your assault rifles, just reassure yourself that you are okay with kids getting massacred in school. Mental health outreach won't stop anything.
Guns and violence in video games -- it definitely played a major role in making me want to join the military. Along with movies. But regulating them? That's not a fix. If people are buying it, that is a reflection of the national psyche. The national psyche is like a child. You cannot beat it into submission. You take something away, the child wants it more. You are always oppressing every normal desire, the child becomes rebellious.
America is a fat, petulant, depraved, and -- worst of all -- prideful child, and I don't think it will grow up until it hits rock bottom. Then people will get their act together. Any time in history you find people who believe they are better than others -- trouble happens. But, it's a normal cycle throughout history. I'm not superstitious, but maybe its just karma going around in a big sense. A nation doesn't get so powerful from being gracious.
If you're smart, you'll avoid the whole thing. Plenty of places to live your life with dignity and without undo stress and dramatics. Still, I don't think anybody is "evil", but America has suffered poor education and rampant propagandizing for a long time. Lots of gullible moron's who will sink the ship to get their way.
You know, i had an argument with myself in the car this morning as i drove my kids to school, i was trying to think how best to counter this guy:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You don't know if these people are on SSRI, unless you can prove they are not you have no case. SSRI can cause all types of issues.
I don't see the second amendment being changed just because the word amendment implies it can be changed; I'd love to see how well that would go over; it wouldn't.
I wasn't contradicting myself, you spun into a contradiction. What I said was, images of violence can influence someone to act on violence, especially if they are under the influence of any substance or even SSRI; combine the two and well you will get shootings, plain and simple.
Ranting and raving saying video games can't cause a person to purchase a weapon is just off the wall talk; there is no substance behind. No one can, not even yourself if playing extensive violent video games know the effects it has done onto one self; if they have proven that looking at Pornography causes issues in a person, you can't say that playing violent video games may not do the same. One may not go out and rob a bank and kill everyone inside; but there are other consequences. Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
And honestly the only thing i could think of is this... When the rest of the developed world has outlawed guns, and seen a massive drop (read, almost zeroing out) in mass shootings and gun related deaths in general, if you're continuing to argue that it wouldn't work in USA, then maybe the USA isn't actually a developed nation at all.
I often forget that America is only a few hundred years old, and spent most of that time in self-imposed isolation.
I'd love to see how well that would go over; it wouldn't.
Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
This is the great sin. ^^^ Pride. Actually one of the seven deadly sins, as per your bible.
"I'd love to see how well that would go over." Would you? You want to see your family and friends flesh mangled by bullets? Have you ever been in a firefight? Think you'd be a hero? Think you could stack up to America's best? Let me tell you -- in a firefight, almost everybody is a coward. That's why guns were invented in the first place.
I don't know how you can draw a distinction between fantasy and reality for somebody given to superstitions, but sometimes when you have wayward child, you just have to let them learn things the hard way.
I'd love to see how well that would go over; it wouldn't.
Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
This is the great sin. ^^^ Pride. Actually one of the seven deadly sins, as per your bible.
"I'd love to see how well that would go over." Would you? You want to see your family and friends flesh mangled by bullets? Have you ever been in a firefight? Think you'd be a hero? Think you could stack up to America's best? Let me tell you -- in a firefight, almost everybody is a coward. That's why guns were invented in the first place.
I don't know how you can draw a distinction between fantasy and reality for somebody given to superstitions, but sometimes when you have wayward child, you just have to let them learn things the hard way.
What I mentioned is not pride, it's just a fact and it's not per my bible; it's everyone bible.
I'm going to interject here, admitting I did not read the full banter in here. This is a far more complex issue than people like to make it out to be.
Here are the facts.
Guns are designed to destroy whatever they are fired at, humans included. By design, a gun is a weapon intended to kill. This is undeniable. Insurance companies figured this out and automatically raise the premium on insureds' if they are known to own a weapon (because statistically gun ownership is correlated with a higher probability of gun violence, harm, and death in the home if a gun is owned and present in the home constantly).
The AR-15 was designed in response to a request from the United States Army to replace previous weapons systems. It was never intended to be placed into citizens hands when it was conceptualized. Regardless of the definition used to define an "assault weapon," it cannot be denied that an AR-15 weapon is easily modified into a military-equivalent grade weapon. The use of .223 calibre ammunition does not change the fact that an AR-15 with simple (bump stock), or not simple (replacement of internal trigger action parts), modifications can more quickly discharge rounds downrange than a non-AR-15 style weapon. This is the equivalent, therefore, of a suppression weapon (which is categorically a military weapon), in addition to its original design as a military weapon replacement for the US Army.
The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court has determined that the sale of assault style rifles, the AR-15 platform included, is permissible at this time. The court, in their opinion, recognized that their judgment did not grant unfettered access to all weapons (e.g., nuclear weapons) by the citizens of the United States of America. Nor does their judgment dictate that in the future restrictions on assault style rifles could not be restricted and regulatedlegally at increased levels at the national level of government. Justice Burger, in his opinion for the majority, state as much. Furthermore, he was on-record as having characterized the position of the NRA as "the greatest fraud committed against the American people."
When people speak about gun control as the government infringing upon their right to "bare arms", they are misunderstanding and mis-characterizing what their right actually is. The government, in its due diligence to ensure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all citizens reserves and exercises its right to restrict and regulate goods and services (on a daily basis) among the states that every citizen has a "right" to purchase and own. This is even part of Article I, Sec. 8 (which comes before the Bill of Rights I might add). Restrictions on ownership are not the same as infringement, nor is it the same as violation of the "right." Furthermore, conservatives (who love to read the Constitution literally), would do well to take a literal reading of the Second Amendment and recognize the portion that reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and upon further examination recognize that the modern day National Guard units that belong, and are under the direction of the State (not the military or the President), are the most similar organization to a militia that would have existed in the late 1700's and 1800's. *Hint*, National Guard units do not permit their members to carry non-issued weapons on NG property, nor do they issue weapons to be carried off base unless the unit has been deployed to a combat zone. Be that as it may, and my opinion not having the effect of law, the Supreme Court's ruling stands until reversed or altered by a later court or act of Congress.
Furthermore, the word "assault" has a legal meaning. As defined, generally, by Black's Law, assault is "an unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another ; or strikes at him, but misses him." If the weapon of choice of mass shooters (whose intent is to harm as many people as possible, inflicting massive bodily damage and death) is consistently the same weapon platform, then that weapon platform is the premier tool for assault. Why, therefore, should the weapon not be restricted and regulated, so that it cannot be the premier weapon platform for committing mass assault, battery, and ultimately murder. To say that it would be a violation of the Second Amendment, as described above, is incorrect. Therefore, that argument is invalid.
What non-Americans need to understand is that there is a very real, very large contingent of the American population that owns guns out of a multitude of reasons, among which are sport and self-defense. These are traditions steeped in American history and culture (you need to remember when we were founded, we were under constant threat of foreign invasion (Native Americans included for purposes of brevity and simplification), and an unconquered wilderness. These attitudes will not disappear over night. Furthermore, there are many gun owners that are highly responsible and enjoy the ownership of their firearms for their uses (sport and self-defense primarily). There are a great many gun owners that exercise extreme caution (as they should) with their firearms and believe that stronger restrictions on purchases are not only constitutionally acceptable, but a moral necessity. Public attitudes among the population, including gun owners, are beginning to change. Please don't make the mistake of assuming all gun owners are "red neck wannabe navy seals." That is categorically false. For those that do, feel free to enlist in one of the five branches of military service.
Unfortunately, the firearms industry generally markets many of the assault style weapons like the AR-15 to a mass audience, and uses fear tactics to drive marketing. If you look at the NRA's public videos, there is a constant stream of "being prepared" and to not let government "take [our] rights." This is fear tactics. If you look at firearms sales during Democratic administrations versus Republican administrations, it is amazing how well firearms sales increase simultaneously during a Democratic administration. Furthermore, firearms sales increase immediately following any mass shooting with large publicity in the USA (for fear the weapon will be outlawed). Another harsh reality that we must face is that the NRA is controlled, exclusively, by the firearms manufacturing companies, and actively lobbies (heavily) with campaign donations. Much can be said on this, but my personal belief is a lot of it is marketing based on fear tactics and an inability of the population to deal with a drastically changed family unit and what it means to be "a man." Masculinity, and how we talk about it, needs to be addressed in this country as well.
You want to see the quickest about-face in history with regards to gun rights in America? Have African Americans walk around brandishing fully loaded AR-15 weapons systems. Hint* It happened when the Black Panthers, as a well-defined organization that had created a "militia" did just that. The racism of laws concerning weapons in the United States is palpable, and I am saying that as a privileged person who has not had to deal directly with those very issues.
TLDR: It is a complex issue with a long history in the United States. It will not be solved simply. It will not be solved quickly. But, it can be solved (on a large scale). I don't believe, however, that eliminating one weapons platform or style of weapon will results in no gun deaths, or even mass shootings, in the USA. We have a lot to talk about.
What I mentioned is not pride, it's just a fact and it's not per my bible; it's everyone bible.
Nuh-uh.
Maybe you didn't get the irony there. Look, if you are going to argue about things, do so like an adult. If you deliver a "nuh-uh", you have to follow with a list of considerations so I can't just say, "yeah-huh".
Believing something really hard does not equate to fact. Do you know what defines a fact? Do you know what the scientific method is? Politics and religion aside, if you want to be good at working with computers, i.e. troubleshooting, understanding the scientific method is going to benefit you greatly. That way you won't be guessing at things and relying on others to figure things out for you.
It's essential. And don't say, "yeah I know that stuff, I went to high school," because your post history demonstrates otherwise. You don't have to concede anything here -- just do yourself a favor by taking some time to really learn the best way to discern facts for yourself. Don't take my word for it -- the big man himself commanded, "place no head above your own". So do your duty.
What non-Americans need to understand is that there is a very real, very large contingent of the American population that owns guns out of a multitude of reasons, among which are sport and self-defense. These are traditions steeped in American history and culture (you need to remember when we were founded, we were under constant threat of foreign invasion (Native Americans included for purposes of brevity and simplification), and an unconquered wilderness. These attitudes will not disappear over night. Furthermore, there are many gun owners that are highly responsible and enjoy the ownership of their firearms for their uses (sport and self-defense primarily). There are a great many gun owners that exercise extreme caution (as they should) with their firearms and believe that stronger restrictions on purchases are not only constitutionally acceptable, but a moral necessity. Public attitudes among the population, including gun owners, are beginning to change. Please don't make the mistake of assuming all gun owners are "red neck wannabe navy seals." That is categorically false. For those that do, feel free to enlist in one of the five branches of military service.
I'm an ex-pat Kiwi, now a naturalised Australian citizen for many years after serving with the ADF (Australian Defence Force - Army) throughout the 1980's. Historically the country of my birth's colonial inception resembles that of the United States as I think the same can be said for those predominantly Anglo Saxon/Celtic centric 'settler' nations today once ruled from Westminster during the heyday of the British Empire. Anyway born with Maori (Polynesian) ethnicity, indigenous too New Zealand my perspective is shaped mostly via that period of the country's history stemming from the signing of the Treaty Of Waitangi culminating in the New Zealand Wars which in turn similarly engendered a strong gun culture.To wit I've memories of being schooled when a kid in the late 1960's by my uncle, a semi-professional hunter in the correct handling and responsible use of firearms, an attitude I have to say highly prevalent especially in the rural areas of the country.
Now despite shared historical similarities plus equally 'woodsy' outdoor lifestyle enjoyed by both the differences however remain poles apart in terms of gun ownership and multiple avenues of legal purchase available for the consumer, although "A Class" military style assault weapons are awaiting re-classification:
Indeed overall, a perplexing situation for the outsider looking in. Actually I re-watched Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" last night in order to reacquaint myself with the underlying love affair most Americans seem to have with guns so can this mentality perhaps be realigned coining a phrase by FDR:
Replies
The argument could be had that finding the real cause for violent crimes would take the blame off video games. However, there you could also argue there would be multiple causes. The link between guns and violent crimes doesn't solve the potential attack on the western games industry.
We can all agree video games aren't the cause. We can have each other's backs on that one.
I wasn't contradicting myself, you spun into a contradiction. What I said was, images of violence can influence someone to act on violence, especially if they are under the influence of any substance or even SSRI; combine the two and well you will get shootings, plain and simple.
Ranting and raving saying video games can't cause a person to purchase a weapon is just off the wall talk; there is no substance behind. No one can, not even yourself if playing extensive violent video games know the effects it has done onto one self; if they have proven that looking at Pornography causes issues in a person, you can't say that playing violent video games may not do the same. One may not go out and rob a bank and kill everyone inside; but there are other consequences. Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
It's a pretty simple argument in my eyes, maybe I am wrong...
The legal gun trade in the US is an annual 51 billion dollar industry. (according to Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2017)
The NRA prop up presidential campaigns, like the 30 million the NRA slipped into Trump's hands (according to Frank Rich from The New Yorker, )
This means any politician that would dare to say we are going to have an amnesty on guns and ban them in the future will lose so much money that it will be hard to build any future campaigns.
Well thats how I see it, I just wonder how many more massacres it will take before they see the writing on the wall.
That said if I lived in the US I would get some guns, maybe even loads of them.
Also CreativeSheep, I thought you might like this
Goldie Lookin Chain - Guns Don't Kill People, Rappers Do!
Should have been noted as an addendum when touching on a IMHO, out-dated rating system when referencing online access especially by minors too restricted gaming content, NOT that violent games in and of themselves are a predominant causal factor behind a string of mass shootings in recent memory.
Guns don't kill people? Are you kidding? Think I would join the army if we were using swords?
Guns make it so easy to kill people. It's nothing.
And, frankly, 99% of american's don't deserve the right to have guns. I don't care what any old piece of parchment say's. Besides that, its simple math. Population goes up, so does number of crazies. So does number of people crazies can kill at a time. If you have to keep your assault rifles, just reassure yourself that you are okay with kids getting massacred in school. Mental health outreach won't stop anything.
Guns and violence in video games -- it definitely played a major role in making me want to join the military. Along with movies. But regulating them? That's not a fix. If people are buying it, that is a reflection of the national psyche. The national psyche is like a child. You cannot beat it into submission. You take something away, the child wants it more. You are always oppressing every normal desire, the child becomes rebellious.
America is a fat, petulant, depraved, and -- worst of all -- prideful child, and I don't think it will grow up until it hits rock bottom. Then people will get their act together. Any time in history you find people who believe they are better than others -- trouble happens. But, it's a normal cycle throughout history. I'm not superstitious, but maybe its just karma going around in a big sense. A nation doesn't get so powerful from being gracious.
If you're smart, you'll avoid the whole thing. Plenty of places to live your life with dignity and without undo stress and dramatics. Still, I don't think anybody is "evil", but America has suffered poor education and rampant propagandizing for a long time. Lots of gullible moron's who will sink the ship to get their way.
And honestly the only thing i could think of is this... When the rest of the developed world has outlawed guns, and seen a massive drop (read, almost zeroing out) in mass shootings and gun related deaths in general, if you're continuing to argue that it wouldn't work in USA, then maybe the USA isn't actually a developed nation at all.
I often forget that America is only a few hundred years old, and spent most of that time in self-imposed isolation.
Which is why I mentioned we all are in sin, we can't escape it, neither I or you or anyone.
This is the great sin. ^^^ Pride. Actually one of the seven deadly sins, as per your bible.
"I'd love to see how well that would go over." Would you? You want to see your family and friends flesh mangled by bullets? Have you ever been in a firefight? Think you'd be a hero? Think you could stack up to America's best? Let me tell you -- in a firefight, almost everybody is a coward. That's why guns were invented in the first place.
I don't know how you can draw a distinction between fantasy and reality for somebody given to superstitions, but sometimes when you have wayward child, you just have to let them learn things the hard way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkIYY3jy4Bo
This is most likely fake news too, but at least you don't gotta read^
Here are the facts.
Guns are designed to destroy whatever they are fired at, humans included. By design, a gun is a weapon intended to kill. This is undeniable. Insurance companies figured this out and automatically raise the premium on insureds' if they are known to own a weapon (because statistically gun ownership is correlated with a higher probability of gun violence, harm, and death in the home if a gun is owned and present in the home constantly).
The AR-15 was designed in response to a request from the United States Army to replace previous weapons systems. It was never intended to be placed into citizens hands when it was conceptualized. Regardless of the definition used to define an "assault weapon," it cannot be denied that an AR-15 weapon is easily modified into a military-equivalent grade weapon. The use of .223 calibre ammunition does not change the fact that an AR-15 with simple (bump stock), or not simple (replacement of internal trigger action parts), modifications can more quickly discharge rounds downrange than a non-AR-15 style weapon. This is the equivalent, therefore, of a suppression weapon (which is categorically a military weapon), in addition to its original design as a military weapon replacement for the US Army.
The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court has determined that the sale of assault style rifles, the AR-15 platform included, is permissible at this time. The court, in their opinion, recognized that their judgment did not grant unfettered access to all weapons (e.g., nuclear weapons) by the citizens of the United States of America. Nor does their judgment dictate that in the future restrictions on assault style rifles could not be restricted and regulated legally at increased levels at the national level of government. Justice Burger, in his opinion for the majority, state as much. Furthermore, he was on-record as having characterized the position of the NRA as "the greatest fraud committed against the American people."
When people speak about gun control as the government infringing upon their right to "bare arms", they are misunderstanding and mis-characterizing what their right actually is. The government, in its due diligence to ensure the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all citizens reserves and exercises its right to restrict and regulate goods and services (on a daily basis) among the states that every citizen has a "right" to purchase and own. This is even part of Article I, Sec. 8 (which comes before the Bill of Rights I might add). Restrictions on ownership are not the same as infringement, nor is it the same as violation of the "right." Furthermore, conservatives (who love to read the Constitution literally), would do well to take a literal reading of the Second Amendment and recognize the portion that reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and upon further examination recognize that the modern day National Guard units that belong, and are under the direction of the State (not the military or the President), are the most similar organization to a militia that would have existed in the late 1700's and 1800's. *Hint*, National Guard units do not permit their members to carry non-issued weapons on NG property, nor do they issue weapons to be carried off base unless the unit has been deployed to a combat zone. Be that as it may, and my opinion not having the effect of law, the Supreme Court's ruling stands until reversed or altered by a later court or act of Congress.
Furthermore, the word "assault" has a legal meaning. As defined, generally, by Black's Law, assault is "an unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another ; or strikes at him, but misses him." If the weapon of choice of mass shooters (whose intent is to harm as many people as possible, inflicting massive bodily damage and death) is consistently the same weapon platform, then that weapon platform is the premier tool for assault. Why, therefore, should the weapon not be restricted and regulated, so that it cannot be the premier weapon platform for committing mass assault, battery, and ultimately murder. To say that it would be a violation of the Second Amendment, as described above, is incorrect. Therefore, that argument is invalid.
What non-Americans need to understand is that there is a very real, very large contingent of the American population that owns guns out of a multitude of reasons, among which are sport and self-defense. These are traditions steeped in American history and culture (you need to remember when we were founded, we were under constant threat of foreign invasion (Native Americans included for purposes of brevity and simplification), and an unconquered wilderness. These attitudes will not disappear over night. Furthermore, there are many gun owners that are highly responsible and enjoy the ownership of their firearms for their uses (sport and self-defense primarily). There are a great many gun owners that exercise extreme caution (as they should) with their firearms and believe that stronger restrictions on purchases are not only constitutionally acceptable, but a moral necessity. Public attitudes among the population, including gun owners, are beginning to change. Please don't make the mistake of assuming all gun owners are "red neck wannabe navy seals." That is categorically false. For those that do, feel free to enlist in one of the five branches of military service.
Unfortunately, the firearms industry generally markets many of the assault style weapons like the AR-15 to a mass audience, and uses fear tactics to drive marketing. If you look at the NRA's public videos, there is a constant stream of "being prepared" and to not let government "take [our] rights." This is fear tactics. If you look at firearms sales during Democratic administrations versus Republican administrations, it is amazing how well firearms sales increase simultaneously during a Democratic administration. Furthermore, firearms sales increase immediately following any mass shooting with large publicity in the USA (for fear the weapon will be outlawed). Another harsh reality that we must face is that the NRA is controlled, exclusively, by the firearms manufacturing companies, and actively lobbies (heavily) with campaign donations. Much can be said on this, but my personal belief is a lot of it is marketing based on fear tactics and an inability of the population to deal with a drastically changed family unit and what it means to be "a man." Masculinity, and how we talk about it, needs to be addressed in this country as well.
You want to see the quickest about-face in history with regards to gun rights in America? Have African Americans walk around brandishing fully loaded AR-15 weapons systems. Hint* It happened when the Black Panthers, as a well-defined organization that had created a "militia" did just that. The racism of laws concerning weapons in the United States is palpable, and I am saying that as a privileged person who has not had to deal directly with those very issues.
TLDR: It is a complex issue with a long history in the United States. It will not be solved simply. It will not be solved quickly. But, it can be solved (on a large scale). I don't believe, however, that eliminating one weapons platform or style of weapon will results in no gun deaths, or even mass shootings, in the USA. We have a lot to talk about.
Nuh-uh.
Maybe you didn't get the irony there. Look, if you are going to argue about things, do so like an adult. If you deliver a "nuh-uh", you have to follow with a list of considerations so I can't just say, "yeah-huh".
Believing something really hard does not equate to fact. Do you know what defines a fact? Do you know what the scientific method is? Politics and religion aside, if you want to be good at working with computers, i.e. troubleshooting, understanding the scientific method is going to benefit you greatly. That way you won't be guessing at things and relying on others to figure things out for you.
It's essential. And don't say, "yeah I know that stuff, I went to high school," because your post history demonstrates otherwise. You don't have to concede anything here -- just do yourself a favor by taking some time to really learn the best way to discern facts for yourself. Don't take my word for it -- the big man himself commanded, "place no head above your own". So do your duty.
Sigmafie wrote:
What non-Americans need to understand is that there is a very real, very large contingent of the American population that owns guns out of a multitude of reasons, among which are sport and self-defense. These are traditions steeped in American history and culture (you need to remember when we were founded, we were under constant threat of foreign invasion (Native Americans included for purposes of brevity and simplification), and an unconquered wilderness. These attitudes will not disappear over night. Furthermore, there are many gun owners that are highly responsible and enjoy the ownership of their firearms for their uses (sport and self-defense primarily). There are a great many gun owners that exercise extreme caution (as they should) with their firearms and believe that stronger restrictions on purchases are not only constitutionally acceptable, but a moral necessity. Public attitudes among the population, including gun owners, are beginning to change. Please don't make the mistake of assuming all gun owners are "red neck wannabe navy seals." That is categorically false. For those that do, feel free to enlist in one of the five branches of military service.
I'm an ex-pat Kiwi, now a naturalised Australian citizen for many years after serving with the ADF (Australian Defence Force - Army) throughout the 1980's. Historically the country of my birth's colonial inception resembles that of the United States as I think the same can be said for those predominantly Anglo Saxon/Celtic centric 'settler' nations today once ruled from Westminster during the heyday of the British Empire. Anyway born with Maori (Polynesian) ethnicity, indigenous too New Zealand my perspective is shaped mostly via that period of the country's history stemming from the signing of the Treaty Of Waitangi culminating in the New Zealand Wars which in turn similarly engendered a strong gun culture.To wit I've memories of being schooled when a kid in the late 1960's by my uncle, a semi-professional hunter in the correct handling and responsible use of firearms, an attitude I have to say highly prevalent especially in the rural areas of the country.
Now despite shared historical similarities plus equally 'woodsy' outdoor lifestyle enjoyed by both the differences however remain poles apart in terms of gun ownership and multiple avenues of legal purchase available for the consumer, although "A Class" military style assault weapons are awaiting re-classification:
NZ Gun Laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Zealand
American ex-pat view:
http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2012/08/06/getting-strapped-in-new-zealand-shooting/5740
Indeed overall, a perplexing situation for the outsider looking in. Actually I re-watched Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" last night in order to reacquaint myself with the underlying love affair most Americans seem to have with guns so can this mentality perhaps be realigned coining a phrase by FDR:
"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"?