Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The Cafe The Cafe

I don't understand, help the naive person

Posted by   + Show Post

Can someone please help me understand this whole gun debate issue. I honestly don't understand why someone would need an assault rifle or a gun that can fire 100 rounds in a minute. I understand wanting a regular gun to protect your family. I just don't understand why anyone would need such a powerful gun.

Also, for those who say they shouldn't be banned. How do you propose guns are kept out of criminals hands? How do you prevent people who should have never been allowed to buy the gun from getting them?

Please keep it civil ladies. I am honestly curious to hear others thoughts on this.

by on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Replies (41-50):
cjsmom1
by Silver Member on Jan. 18, 2013 at 9:29 PM

You're right. I am all for punishing store owners who illegally sell guns to criminals. We need to start holding people accountable for what they do.

Quoting momto3B:

If other states had similarly strict gun laws it would be that much harder for NY criminals to get them.

I am sure all of the poor law abiding people who are stuck living in bad neighborhoods riddled with gun violence would be very happy to have stronger gun laws. 

cjsmom1
by Silver Member on Jan. 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM

I understand why peope have guns and I see no problem with it as long as they're safe about it. I understand some people love the feel of the gun shooting so many times. I think these rapid fire weapons should only be in the hands of the military or at shooting ranges. I don't know why anyone else would need a gun like that.

Quoting EireLass:

We have a half dozen guns in the house, some sentimental value (grandfather hand down), etc. Some hunting, some personal protection. I think the largest magazine holds 9, not sure. I don't understand the reason someone would need an 'assault' weapon (at least what you women are referring to). It's not good for hunting. If you can't kill with the first bullet, you're ruining the meat by cause of adrenalin and other hormone rushes in the animal that may die on the 2nd or 3rd bullet. Go back to the range and practice kill on first shot.

I have not been able to handle my gun for the past 2 years due to a hand/wrist injury....shredded tendons, ligaments, cartialge....surgery....metal...etc. I finallu picked up my 30 year old revolver last week......this is what I did.

3" target...at 30'....rapid fire.....yes, I'd call that an assault weapon.




EireLass
by Ruby Member on Jan. 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Mine is not considered 'rapid fire'. It's a revolver. I was shooting it rapidly. My point is...if I can do this well with a revolver after not picking it up for 2 years....why does someone feel they need an 'assault weapon' or high magazine weapon to protect themselves? Maybe if they just get a basic gun....like mine....and practice practice practice, rather than hoping the gun can do the trick.....

Quoting cjsmom1:

I understand why peope have guns and I see no problem with it as long as they're safe about it. I understand some people love the feel of the gun shooting so many times. I think these rapid fire weapons should only be in the hands of the military or at shooting ranges. I don't know why anyone else would need a gun like that.

Quoting EireLass:

We have a half dozen guns in the house, some sentimental value (grandfather hand down), etc. Some hunting, some personal protection. I think the largest magazine holds 9, not sure. I don't understand the reason someone would need an 'assault' weapon (at least what you women are referring to). It's not good for hunting. If you can't kill with the first bullet, you're ruining the meat by cause of adrenalin and other hormone rushes in the animal that may die on the 2nd or 3rd bullet. Go back to the range and practice kill on first shot.

I have not been able to handle my gun for the past 2 years due to a hand/wrist injury....shredded tendons, ligaments, cartialge....surgery....metal...etc. I finallu picked up my 30 year old revolver last week......this is what I did.

3" target...at 30'....rapid fire.....yes, I'd call that an assault weapon.





websorceress
by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 5:03 AM

I got into this debate with my SIL, my opinion is NO ONE needs assault weapons, they were not available years ago and I have no clue when they became available.....only the military had them and that's the way it should be. His answer to me was, 'Because they are fun'........men and their big toys........I hate he owns them but I have no say in it, I hope they ban them......

But guns are like drugs, drugs are illegal and people still get them......the government itself needs to stop trading arms.......they are the biggest drug dealers and gun traders around.......they should practice what they preach.

I do not believe guns should be banned, just assault weapons. According the the 2nd amendment we have the right to bear arms and protect our own self, family and property.

What needs to be changed are the mental illness laws. People who tote guns to kill people are not sane and those laws need to be changed more then the gun laws. A sane person does not kill because they are angry, for fun or to prove they are something BIG.......they are insane........these are the ones killing, the sane are not....

GertieK
by Silver Member on Jan. 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM

In order to understand this whole issue, you need to do some digging into history and understand why the 2nd ammendment was important enough to be 2nd in the list of personal freedoms.  Our founding fathers knew that there is nothing as dangerous as an out of control government.  The natural tendency of the government is to grab more and power and control.  They had just extracated themselves from a tyranical government, and wanted to make sure the people had a way to prevent that from happening again.  They knew that in order to preserve all of the other freedoms, the 2nd ammendment had to remain intact, and not to be infringed upon.  It is the freedom that keeps all of the others in place.   History shows us that the way leaders have gotten total control of the populous is by first disarming them.  They took their guns, and then were able to do as they pleased.  this has been repeated many times.  Many people refuse to even consider that America, the land of the free, etc., could never have anything like that happen.  That is a very dangerous attitude.  Freedom is not permanent, it must be maintained.  The Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever written.  It is why people have held American up as the place where they can fulfill their dreams...why they do whatever necessary, legal and illegal, to come here.  There are so many gun laws already.  The good guys follow them, and the bad guys don't.  More laws will only hurt the good guys.  Statistics show that the more strict the gun laws are, the more gun related crimes/homicides there are.  The current POTUS is by-passing the constitution (repeatedly), and it is getting really scary to me.  You need to learn what is considered to be an assault weapon, because the definition used would place all but two of our guns into that category.  You will NEVER be able to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys/criminals/crazies.  There will always be a way for them.  More laws would cripple the good guys.  Where I live, the schools have had armed guards for many years.  It is a very small town.  The school works with the local Sheriff's dept, and pays off-duty deputies to work during school hours.  They have no problem finding people to work.  It doesn't pay a lot, but the deputies feel that they are doing a good thing.  The parents love it.  They have even stated that if the budget gets too tight, they are willing to pool their funds and pay out of pocket together for the protection.  Taking rights away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.  During WWII, the fact that Americans were well armed is what prevented Japan from actually doing an invasion here.  The exact quote  "You cannot invade mainland America.  There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."  Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Admiral).  If you would like to understand the facts and statistics related to guns, crimes with guns, gun ownership, how gun laws affect crime, etc., here is a link with just the facts as related to those things.:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Those  who believe that America is immune to becoming a country ruled by tyrrany are living a dream.  History is on-going and is being written every day.  We must always be vigilant and protect our freedoms.  We are a nation who is unique because of those personal freedoms... it is why we are so special.  To think that letting even one of those freedoms go in the belief that we will be safer is falling for one of the biggest lies often used by governments.  Using the fear that is present in the wake of a tragedy is a technique that has been used  by many governments over time.  Make no mistake, it is only a perceived safety, not an actual one.  It actually makes  the general public more vulnerable to any kind of bad guy - be it a crazy individual or a tyrannical government.

1likeme
by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM
Quoting Anonymous:

I don't understand people's problem with the "well regulated" portion of  maintaining a well regulated militia. Regulated clip capacity, regulating the types of firearms civilians can own, regulating ownership by use of universal background checks  does not take away anyone's constitutional right to bear arms.  I also do not believe the spin that a well regulated militia was meaning a militia to defend itself against our government. It was written in that manner because at the time the US did not have a standing regulated government military.  Militias of civilians were used in place of the military. We have a government ran military, the national guard is the civilian equivalent to a regulated militia.  Too many people are trying to construe the right to bear arms to fit their own paranoia and agenda.





You are interpreting the word regulated in today's term for regulation. When the constitution was written regulated meant well trained and well equipped. The founding fathers intended for the US militia to have fire power equal to the military so that the government was unable to overtake the country through brute force.
ReadWriteLuv
by Casey on Jan. 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Why do I need a 100 round drum mag? I don't need one, but I love them. End of story. It's a pain to reload after 10 or 20. I don't give two shits if people like it or not. 

ReadWriteLuv
by Casey on Jan. 19, 2013 at 1:53 PM

You do realize that any weapon's purpose is to assault, right? Hammers, clubs, big sticks, baseball bats, knives, arrows, all of those things are assault weapons. 

Quoting websorceress:

I got into this debate with my SIL, my opinion is NO ONE needs assault weapons, they were not available years ago and I have no clue when they became available.....only the military had them and that's the way it should be. His answer to me was, 'Because they are fun'........men and their big toys........I hate he owns them but I have no say in it, I hope they ban them......

But guns are like drugs, drugs are illegal and people still get them......the government itself needs to stop trading arms.......they are the biggest drug dealers and gun traders around.......they should practice what they preach.

I do not believe guns should be banned, just assault weapons. According the the 2nd amendment we have the right to bear arms and protect our own self, family and property.

What needs to be changed are the mental illness laws. People who tote guns to kill people are not sane and those laws need to be changed more then the gun laws. A sane person does not kill because they are angry, for fun or to prove they are something BIG.......they are insane........these are the ones killing, the sane are not....


vicki77433
by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 2:02 PM

The idea that the second amendment was put in the Constitution so that we could overthrow the government is absolutely ridiculous.  It was put in there because we had no military at the time and needed to be able form a militia quickly.  Those who keep their guns for the purpose of rebellion seem to forget that the US Military is the largest and most powerful one in existence.  You wouldn't stand a chance against their tanks, planes, drones and nuclear submarines.

I don't think that the government should go into people's homes and take the guns that are already there.  I do think that they should stop the manufacture and sale of assault, automatic and semiautomatic weapons to the general public.  If one of these weapons is used in a crime, the weapon should be melted down, period. 

Saphira1207
by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I think you missed my point.

The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent.

The vast majority of people who are violent are normal.

That has been proven multiple times.

But blaming the mentally ill is more convienient and causes less emotional upheaval for people than admitting that it's actually our culture and society that encourages shootings like we've seen lately and not mental illness.

Since just about everything we encounter can kill us in one way or another, living in fear seems kind of senseless.  It would make us all paranoid to leave our homes.


Quoting vinny25:

So mayb there is no way of knowing who is crazy or who is not just buy a background check. Because if someone who is under care an under medications shouldnt be deprived of their right. But then there's the possibility that they decide to to get off their meds and kill a school.

There's really no way of protecting ourselves is it?


Quoting Saphira1207:

The NYS Office of Mental Health's Acting Commissioner Kristin M. Woodlock recently spoke about this issue.  I can't copy/paste it - my browser won't let me(sigh) - but she makes it very clear in her address that the large portion of mentally ill are harmless.   

The very few who do act violently are just that,  very few and most likely not under any care.

After working in the mental health field for the last 2 years I can attest to that.  Most of them are more interested in their own drama than they are in doing any one else any harm.  The 2 (out of thousends I've seen) that were violent had things like fetal alcohol syndrome (that needed a med adjustment to go back under control) and/or were new to the services so they hadn't gotten the meds properly adjusted yet.  After they had some counseling and the right dosages, they became harmless.  In fact, they came back and apologized for their behavior.



Quoting lga1965:

 


Quoting vinny25:


only the people who obey the law will  give up their guns, leaving the criminals at an advantage. there is such thing as a black market and only the criminals will be left with guns. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


 What about the mentally ill? It seems the only shootings that we hear about are by the mentally ill who never should have had access to weapons. They are far more common than shootings by the everyday average criminal. How do we keep guns away from these large numbers of mentally ill shooters?







Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)