The gun thing - a question from a European

[Litcrit]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

 

[Giants]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

In America, the argument you’ll usually run up against is the slippery slope. Take away the assault rifles, next it will be semi-automatic handguns, then shotguns, then eventually all firearms entirely. And then how will we defend ourselves against the government when it tries to impose a martial law dictatorship?

 

[katy]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

China is a horrific country to live in. The problem is with the violently mentally ill. Connecticut already has quite stringent gun laws. So does Britain. Villains still get them, and people do need to defend themselves.

 

[TEPO]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

I think you might be confusing assault rifles with machine guns. Machine guns are illegal in most cases in America I think unless you really want to jump through a thousand hoops.

Assault rifles are just guns that are meant to be used in the field, they’re durable and capable of holding more bullets than say a revolver for instance.

…but I’m not really a gun expert myself.

 

[po18guy]

Some say guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

There have always been psychos in this world. But psychos wielding knives are different than psychos with automatic assault weapons. The psycho in China that had his own school massacre on the same day Adam Lanza did his, was “only” able to wound 22 children - there were no deaths. Also, he was chased away by a couple of adults with brooms.

Here is a conservative judge advocating a ban on assault weapons.

And, here is a Catholic Bishop explaining that such will not solve the problem. The problem is that God has been expelled from our schools and society, allowing the devil free reign. isthmuscatholic.org/resources/media/448

I really don’t understand the gun thing. Why would any civilian need weapons that kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds, anyway?

Guns were written into the DNA of the United States to provide a means of opposing an oppressive government - such as that of King George III which necessitated the formation of the United States.

That such incidents happen points to an abject failure of government to control the violent in society. Connecticut had rejected a mental health law update in July, as it would infringe upon the rights of the violent. What rights?

Are we defining freedom by the lowest common denominator? It is lamentable that the incident occurred at all. It is more lamentable that government failed miserably in dealing with a violent young man before this all happened.

 

[Litcrit]

I think you might be confusing assault rifles with machine guns. Machine guns are illegal in most cases in America I think unless you really want to jump through a thousand hoops.

Assault rifles are just guns that are meant to be used in the field, they’re durable and capable of holding more bullets than say a revolver for instance.

…but I’m not really a gun expert myself.

I’m certainly no gun expert. Here’s a picture of what Adam Lanza used:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...s/landscape_635/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg

One of them is an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine. It’s not a machine gun but it can shoot a lot of bullets pretty fast, I suppose. I don’t understand why anyone who’s not living in a war zone or a zombie apocalypse would need this in their home.

 

[Litcrit]

In America, the argument you’ll usually run up against is the slippery slope. Take away the assault rifles, next it will be semi-automatic handguns, then shotguns, then eventually all firearms entirely. And then how will we defend ourselves against the government when it tries to impose a martial law dictatorship?

So, in effect, the government has to allow the people to be able to defend themselves against said government?

China is a horrific country to live in. The problem is with the violently mentally ill. Connecticut already has quite stringent gun laws. So does Britain. Villains still get them, and people do need to defend themselves.

The violently mentally ill certainly need to be controlled, I’m with you on that. But if there are no guns all around the place, the best they can get is a knife or a baseball bat. And then they can be overpowered by brooms.

 

[TEPO]

China is a horrific country to live in. The problem is with the violently mentally ill. Connecticut already has quite stringent gun laws. So does Britain. Villains still get them, and people do need to defend themselves.

True, and really the same amount of damage done at the school shooting could have been done with two pistols -one in each hand.

 

[Litcrit]

Guns were written into the DNA of the United States to provide a means of opposing an oppressive government - such as that of King George III which necessitated the formation of the United States.

That such incidents happen points to an abject failure of government to control the violent in society. Connecticut had rejected a mental health law update in July, as it would infringe upon the rights of the violent. What rights?

This is what I’m trying to understand, but it’s hard.

I came across this article with pictures of proud US families posing with their arsenals. In one of them, there’s a toddler just feet away from assault rifles. In another, young children are holding huge military-style rifles.

The violently mentally ill need to be controlled, but so do extremely dangerous weapons they (or simply children, or anyone not fully mentally stable and professionally trained) might come across.

…

Surely no one is expecting the Brits to attack or the government to necessitate a new revolution right now, are they? Would you secede from the USA and form a new country using arms right now if taxation upset you?

 

[JerryZ]

So, in effect, the government has to allow the people to be able to defend themselves against said government?

The violently mentally ill certainly need to be controlled, I’m with you on that. But if there are no guns all around the place, the best they can get is a knife or a baseball bat. And then they can be overpowered by brooms.

The government CANNOT infring on the right of it’s citizens to be able to own and bear arms. Since this right ensures that no government will become oppressive like the king George of England had become.

The framers of the US Constitution envisioned that without checks even a local government could acrue power onto itself and become the same as what they were fighting against (The English).

 

[TEPO]

I’m certainly no gun expert. Here’s a picture of what Adam Lanza used:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...s/landscape_635/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg

One of them is an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine. It’s not a machine gun but it can shoot a lot of bullets pretty fast, I suppose. I don’t understand why anyone who’s not living in a war zone or a zombie apocalypse would need this in their home.

Well, there’s no doubt that not everyone needs an assault rifle, for instance someone living in an apartment might be better off with a .22 caliber. But if I owned a large ranch or a farm out in the middle of nowhere, I would definantly want to own a couple assault rifles. I’d have handguns available for the kids should we ever come under attack from a home invasion or something like that.

 

[Litcrit]

The government CANNOT infring on the right of it’s citizens to be able to own and bear arms. Since this right ensures that no government will become oppressive like the king George of England had become.

Many governments around the world can and do. Democratic ones too, at that.

Are individuals here seriously suggesting that American people will and should start an armed rebellion against the US government at some point if they find it oppressive?

The US government still has nuclear weapons, military aircraft, tanks, that sort of thing. They’ll win anyway. Or should every individual be allowed to have these as well, to ensure the government doesn’t become oppressive?

 

[tabycat]

I’m certainly no gun expert. Here’s a picture of what Adam Lanza used:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...s/landscape_635/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg

One of them is an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine. It’s not a machine gun but it can shoot a lot of bullets pretty fast, I suppose. I don’t understand why anyone who’s not living in a war zone or a zombie apocalypse would need this in their home.

If I understand right, you can get a smaller (less then 30-round) magazine for the rifle. There are some that believe that they and their families are living in a war zone or will be soon.

 

[po18guy]

I’m certainly no gun expert. Here’s a picture of what Adam Lanza used:

Let us study this photo and discern just what, or who, it was that planted the seed of mass murder in this heart.

 

[Litcrit]

There are some that believe that they and their families are living in a war zone or will be soon.

I get that feeling here, but not the reasoning behind it or the reason for it. I don’t understand where so much fear comes from.

 

[tabycat]

Many governments around the world can and do. Democratic ones too, at that.

Are individuals here seriously suggesting that American people will and should start an armed rebellion against the US government at some point if they find it oppressive?

The US government still has nuclear weapons, military aircraft, tanks, that sort of thing. They’ll win anyway. Or should every individual be allowed to have these as well, to ensure the government doesn’t become oppressive?

I wonder what that little dust-up that we had (1861-1865)? I think it was called the Civil War.

 

[Litcrit]

Let us study this photo and discern just what, or who, it was that planted the seed of mass murder in this heart.

I don’t understand. Are you being facetious or was this a genuine proposal? I, for one, can’t deduce anything from the photo.

I put the picture of the weapons his mother had in the home because the picture, quite frankly, shocks me. I’ve never seen weapons of this sort in my life and I hope I never will. I suppose not everyone will share that reaction.

 

[po18guy]

Surely no one is expecting the Brits to attack or the government to necessitate a new revolution right now, are they? Would you secede from the USA and form a new country using arms right now if taxation upset you?

What I am saying is that most citizens of this earth are subjects of their governments, and must live under that subjection, or leave, if they can. To most of the world, the US, by comparison, looks like heaven. An armed citizenry is the only thing keeping our current government from asserting total control of its citizens. This is simply human nature.

 

[Litcrit]

I wonder what that little dust-up that we had (1861-1865)? I think it was called the Civil War.

I don’t understand what your point is. Please, clarify.

 

[maximus]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...s/landscape_635/newtown-guns-12152012-390.jpg

Wow, that is a lot of cash for these weapons. So this is what the killers Mother owned and he stole? I can understand the Glock for self defense, the Bushmaster is for use during a societal breakdown.