Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
flashkannon said: While I will not argue the point that pistols can be excellent for home defence, I disagree with the broader point this article is supposed to convince the reader of, i.e. that gun restrictions could prevent people from defending themselves. The sort of gun restrictions likely to be proposed would in all likelyhood not restrict handgun sales. What it would restrict is the sale of assault weapons, such as the one used to perpetrate the recent tragedy at Newtown.
It doesn’t matter what type of gun was used. If there are going to be new restrictions on “assault weapons”, then the next tragedy will happen with handguns. Then what? We restrict handguns? Next tragedy happens with a shotgun…we ban shotguns?
I’d like to know how restrictions on “assault weapons” will prevent a tragedy. Last time I checked most states had restrictions on marijuana but that doesn’t seem to stop people from getting their hands on it.
The anti-gun community doesn’t want to acknowledge that the gun is only a tool and the real problem is the individual. The mental health system of the U.S is pathetic at best and there never seems to be any communication between services about potentially disturbed and dangerous individuals. It’s always an after-the-fact issue.
I also hate how people use the excuse that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t pertain to high-powered “assault rifles”/semi-automatic weapons. If that’s the case then I don’t think the 1st Amendment should pertain to the internet/blogging/tweeting/youtube etc. It’s called technology, we progress, and guns…just like the internet, are tools. Don’t you find it ironic that people blame the person who is downloading child pornography but not the computer for doing it, but blame the gun for murder and not the person?
I’m gonna be frank: while I do come from a gun family (pretty much everyone on my dad’s side owns at least two, and both my grandad and step-grandad on my mom’s side own guns), there is no reason for a civilian to own a modern military assault rifle. There is absolutely no reason. You’re gonna hunt and use a semiauto, use a hunting rifle. Home defense, use a handgun or (again) a regular hunting rifle. Or a shotgun. If you’re a collector of militaria, suck it up and pay any potential extra taxes (most of which already exist, but that’s an aside) or get a permanently deactivated weapon for display purposes only.
WITH THAT SAID - I agree with you. Outright banning “assault weapons” when that’s just a vague classification that can include practically ANY modern gun is stupid. Especially considering how many hunting rifles are based upon the AR 15 platform just because of how reliable and ergonomic that design is.Blaming the tool rather than the user is moronic. This country undoubtedly needs to improve it’s mental health care. And let’s be realistic: this country is the leading producer of firearms. It is a part of our economy, and compared to a LOT of others it’s actually a pretty stable job market. Restricting “assault weapons” without specifically defining them as “fully automatic or select fire military-grade weapons” would negatively impact a job market that is, compared to the firearms manufacture market in other countries taken alongside our population, a rather massive job market.
Do we need to reform gun laws? Yes, yes we do.
Do we need to just outright ban certain guns without thinking things through? No.
The nation’s reaction to the Newtown shooting should not be just a ban. It needs to reform a LOT of things. Mental health care treatment and gun laws/education BOTH need to be re-examined.