Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Firearms are basically tubes with various degrees of complexity designed to fire projectiles with the purpose of killing something, whether it's game in the case of hunting arms or people in the case of military and police weapons. Used correctly they can produce deadly force and used incorrectly they do the same.
The rate of their use for killing doesn't change the primary purpose they were created for. You could use them for other purposes but they make poor hammers or door stops for example.
I mean reduce, here in Canada we already have strict gun laws that would be even more effective if it weren't for illegal handguns and assault weapons that come up from the US in exchange for drugs heading south. The closeness of the huge American gun market skews the results of what would probably be effective gun control as they have in the UK.
We probably don't need to increase the level of gun control we have here, and we would most likely benefit from tighter restrictions on the sale and transportation of guns in the US.
Liberals do love to pass the buck, blaming somebody else....in this case, blame Canada's criminal element on the availability of firearms elsewhere......The old "look over there" tactic.......
Gun control does have one use.
Imagine what the lefties'd be getting up to if they weren't wasting their time and energy yapping about this lost cause.
Imagine what the lefties'd be getting up to if they weren't wasting their time and energy yapping about this lost cause.
Ya, it's such a waste of time being concerned about people walking into schools, businesses, churches etc.. and massacring other people with what are in essence combat weapons.
We don't get the violence to the same degree here, but it's pretty disingenuous to try and make this a left vs. right issue... unless you're taking the position that those on the right are defined by a complete lack of empathy. Which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Heh-heh. After straining and struggling, the lefties are now holding their breath, hoping against hope that they'll be able to pass. . .
SLIGHTLY ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS!
Woo.
Hoo.
Thank you for illustrating my point on a subject which is literally about life and death for thousands of people each year across North America.
Some people do take a "**** you all, I could care less" approach to this and other issues, personally I don't see any morality in that at all.
And guess what, Kid? "Semi-automatic assault rifles" are responsible for less than 200 out of the 11,000-odd gun homicides in the U.S. each year.
Here comes the big disclaimer, in big bold letters because some of our gun nuts are a little reading comp challenged. . .
I do not support the following argument. I only make it to show how damn stupid the lefties are being with their shrieking about "semi-automatic assault weapons."
Back to our regularly scheduled argument.
If the anti-gun forces gave a f*ck less about stopping gun homicides in the U.S., they'd go after handguns. Handguns are responsible for 90+% of the gun homicides every year. But instead, they piss around with weapons that are responsible for a tiny fraction of the gun homicides. Why? Here's my theory. They don't give a damn about all the kids being gunned down in the hood, or the barrio, or on the rez. They're just shocked and horrified when nice little white kids in the 'burbs get it.
So they go after the guns responsible for about 1% of the homicides in the country, and do little or nothing at all about the real killers.
It's symbolism, pure and simple. They have no intention of doing f*ck-all about the real killer.
I'm sure the problem has nothing to do with one of the most powerful political lobby groups in the US the NRA.
I'm reading Ricochet by Richard Feldman right now and it's hard to think of a more cynical organization than the NRA in the US at the moment. It exploits its long term members for dues while the CEO makes almost $1,000,000 a year, blocks any meaningful changes to gun control laws and is a mouthpiece for the gun industry which has sales of around $12 billion a year in the US.
So it's not the left that's standing in the way of preventing the deaths of thousands of Americans each year, it's the hypocrites who claim to be protecting individual rights while getting rich. We'll never really know if gun control would work in the US as long as the gun industry and it's PR machines dominate the issue.
Listen, I like you, Kid. I think you really care.
But try to wrap your head around this. The left, or the Democrats, or the gun-control people, or whatever the hell you want to call them, have not even proposed handgun control.
Would it fail? 99% certain. You know what? If nobody even proposes it, that certainty goes to 100%.
So spare me "The left (or whatever) cares." They're trying for a symbolic victory, which will change the number of homicides each year in the U.S. not in the slightest.
But they'll feel all smug about it. Hypocrites.
The gun culture in America is largely built on myth, it's going to take symbolic victories to build new ones to believe in.
My mom grew up in central Idaho in conditions that were closer to the 19th than the 20th Century, when my grandfather who was a prospector went to work with his pistol on his hip it was with the understanding that he might have to use it against competitors, something that was a little scary for a child to be hearing about, but that's the way it was. I also got to hear about how his great-great-grandparents fought their way across the plains, not against the Indians, but the Mormons who they had a week long running battle against, one where no one was killed just a few wounded. I get the gun culture in America, I've lived with some aspects of it my whole life and I know there's a lot of myths around it, for instance all this nonsense about the courageous cowboy gunslingers who were always ready to draw down, never happened, not once according to Bob Munden and I think he'd know.
So if a lot of the reason that Americans are holding onto their guns is due to symbolism then it follows that at least part of the solution is to change that symbolism, which is probably why the NRA and the gun lobby don't dare give up an inch.
I get that an America with tighter gun control is going to be a much different place and that it means giving up something that a lot of people value. But at some point all the deaths and the denial of the root causes become truly stupid.
Here's Bob talking about how much of myth at least some of US gun culture is based on.
Bob Munden Fastest Gunslinger ever Unbelievable - YouTube
And I really don't think caring about other Americans makes me a lefty.
Sigh
The National Rifle Association is the oldest civil rights organization in the USA.
It has trained hundreds of thousands of people in gun safety, has an award-winning gun safety program for children, and gives advanced training to police and other agencies.
It has 4.25 million members, that elect the board of directors.
Gun industry donations make up less than 4% of their annual budget.
The campaign to discredit the NRA is one of the most cynical attempts at thought control I have ever seen.
I'm just passed the part where Feldman describes the conference in 1977 I think where Maxwell Rich wanted to take the NRA out of the political battle and move its headquarters to Colorado and focus on gun safety and sportsmanship. A coup cared out by some of the more radical members removed Rich and most of the current council and put it on the road it's now on. One of the big players in that event was Neal Knox who thought there should be zero gun control, even heavy automatic weapons should be available to Americans.
The NRA has largely become a lobbying group for the gun industry and a way for the executive to make a lot of money. I think at the time Feldman wrote the book, and he was an NRA insider for years, Wayne Lapierre who was CEO was making $900,000 a year plus royalties on products the NRA was selling.
Hey, Kid, I want to make one thing clear to you.
I think you're misguided.
But I honour your concern. You're one of the good ones.
I think you're misguided.
But I honour your concern. You're one of the good ones.
You could be right, that's what I love about America, everybody gets a voice and if you can get enough people to agree with you, you can change things.
I respect people on the other side of the issue, they may be right that guns do preserve freedom in America, I don't think so, but they may be right.
The wiki article says Lapierre makes $970,300 a year and Feldman claims there's much more in royalties.
Wayne LaPierre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Got no use for the NRA. I own guns, but I'm not a member. I think they go too far.
I'll listen to any reasonable suggestion. I favour strict background checks for all purchases, private or otherwise.
Maybe someday reasonable folks on both sides can get together and do something effective about the carnage.
I'll listen to any reasonable suggestion. I favour strict background checks for all purchases, private or otherwise.
Maybe someday reasonable folks on both sides can get together and do something effective about the carnage.
According to Feldman the NRA is closer to a religion than anything else. I enjoy shooting and I respect people's freedoms in America, it's what the country is all about. But there has to be some way to de-escalate the constant gun violence.
Agreed. I personally do what I see as my part with veterans and with the Shawnee. I do my best to help them get to the kind of life where picking up a gun and shooting themselves or someone else seems like a bad idea. It's what I can do.
I've lived in gun-free societies. Japan and Germany. I liked them, and I didn't miss my guns when I lived there. I dearly wish we could get to that in the U.S. I'm open to ideas. But I'll criticise any idea rigorously, stress-testing it to see if it's likely to really work.
That's my definition of conservative.
Well, I originally said that I was going to let someone else disagree with you, but since your post has an air of absoluteness that strikes me as smug and ignorant, I have two reasons why you are wrong. The first one is simply a general appeal to your common sense. And the second reason is a technical explanation.
So, forgive me if I accuse you of making a point with semantics meant to misinform, but please hear me out.
Reason 1: If firearms are designed for the purpose of killing, then that means despite being a hunter and competitive shooter, firing thousands of rounds using different rifles and pistols, I've never used a firearm for it's designed purpose and fervently hope that I never do. And, a point that I tried to make with you earlier with no success, an overwhelming majority of 99.99% of owners and firearms are in a similar situation as I am.
Reason 2: From a technical point of view, firearms aren't designed to kill, they are designed to accurately direct/propel a projectile.
Ammunition on the other hand...Ammunition is designed for different purposes...
- blank ammo, designed to simulate firing a 'real' bullet.
- There are rubber bullets and other less lethal ammunition.
- This page shows different types of common bullets such as wadcutters, full metal jacket, soft point, hollow point, etc.
- Less common types of ammunition include armor piercing, incendiary, and tracer rounds.
- All of these different types of ammunition, in the same caliber, can be fired in the same firearm with no modifications (blank adapters being the only exception that comes to mind).
Perhaps, I am arguing semantics, as well, or making pointless distinctions? A firearm by itself is no better than a club. Ammunition by itself is about the same as a firecracker. Are firearms and ammunition so intertwined in a gun control advocates mind that one automatically equates with the other?
The basic purpose of firearms since their inception has been the projection of deadly force, whether against game or other people, that doesn't preclude their use for target practice which is closely related to the ability to effectively use deadly force.
And whether or not millions of Americans use that ability yearly isn't the issue I think, the issue is those thousands of Americas who do use it each year.
Pretending there is no problem and therefore no reason for discussion and possible compromise is going to create a political and social tension that could have a more negative effect on 2nd Amendment rights in the long run than finding a middle ground now. Many people in the US aren't deeply concerned about the potential of firearms being used to kill and maim large numbers of citizens a year, they're concerned about the actual killing and wounding going on constantly. How can anyone seriously argue there is no chronic problem when the facts show there is?
And whether or not millions of Americans use that ability yearly isn't the issue I think, the issue is those thousands of Americas who do use it each year.
Pretending there is no problem and therefore no reason for discussion and possible compromise is going to create a political and social tension that could have a more negative effect on 2nd Amendment rights in the long run than finding a middle ground now. Many people in the US aren't deeply concerned about the potential of firearms being used to kill and maim large numbers of citizens a year, they're concerned about the actual killing and wounding going on constantly. How can anyone seriously argue there is no chronic problem when the facts show there is?