Gun rights
 

Ok, I wanted to ask and start a debate on gun rights. I know a lot has been posted in the Newtown shooting thread, but wanted to focus that debate here.

I just have one question about the debate...how much money would the NRA, and the Gun manufacturers lose IF there were to be another assault weapons ban?

BG

To be honest I don't care about the NRA lol. I don't see a full ban happening in the US any time soon, but I don't see why anyone needs a gun other than for hunting (which I'm not a fan of, but whatever).

^ Self-defense. That's all I'm going to say on that topic.

Personally, I'm not totally against an assault-weapons ban. What really irks me is the way that the media promotes their own agenda and refuses to discuss any other solutions to help end violence other than gun control. Mental illness needs to be discussed as much, if not more, than gun control.

PLEASE, if you're going to start this thread, define your terms.

What do *YOU* mean by "assault weapon"?

Given that so many publicly involved in this debate think a black stock and pistol grip make a .22 rifle into an "assault weapon", it would be useful to start from a common point.

Ok, I'll make it easier. Is the NRA or congress really looking out for our safety or does this whole issue really revolve around the gun manufacturers and the amount of money they would lose if a ban on any weapons were to be enforced....

To me, it seems that the issue is always about money and not much else.....it's all talk on one side or the other.....

And I guess I was referring to "assault" weapons as being defined by the media or congress...

Self-defense against what, though? If it's against other guns, that doesn't alleviate the violence in situations. :/

I agree with this. However I don't think it's fair to say that only the liberal media is promoting their own agenda. The right wing media is just as bad.

Why is this issue always so "right side, left side"? I've read a lot from other countries and they never seem to make such issues so polarized....

I'll play, but only for a moment. I've had this discussion on this forum some time ago, and the level of discourse at this time in most every medium has kept me out.

If Congress or the administration wanted to do something for *safety*, they'd address simultaneously firearms laws, mental health laws, and societal violence. The fact they have not tells me they are using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

The fact they're attempting to ban standard-capacity magazines (which they call "high-capacity" and "clips" and dozens of other terms), semi-automatic rifles (which they call "automatic weapons" and other terms), and cosmetic features of standard rifles means they're playing games.

The fact they're exempting law-enforcement officers (in many cases, to include such "officials" as off-duty states' attorneys, city treasurers, etc.) says they're playing games. Granted, NY forgot to exempt police, but it's coming.

Firearms manufacturers are not the ones who will profit. FOR THE MOST PART, I suspect it will be the middle man, the dealer. As it should be. Supply and demand. I know I got soaked after the 2008 elections for an AK-47; others are doing the same thing now. (Why do I *need* an AK-47? Why did Rosa Parks *need* to sit at the front of the bus? I wanted one, and could afford it.)

Ammo manufacturers cannot keep up with the demand, so prices are going up. When Congress doesn't have the votes to pass bans, the prices will come back down.

The NRA won't lose anything. "The NRA" is being used to refer collectively to gun owners, a significant number of whom are not NRA members. NRA uses this to try to coerce gun owners to send them money; the more anti-freedom our gun laws become, the more money NRA can beg for. In fact, I would not be surprised if the NRA doesn't cave on some of the administration's requests - not because it's the right thing to do, but because they want to have leverage down the road.

On the self-defense issue, which I realize is not part of the original question ... I carry a firearm everywhere I legally can, because I never know where the next robber, rapist, meth head, or psychopath is coming from. I have been raped, and will NEVER let it happen again. In all the years I've carried, I've never used it, thank the gods. Only once have I had my hand on it, prepared (with my other hand on my phone) -- and there was a police officer not 40 feet away pointedly ignoring my assailant. One other time, I believe a bad guy came in to the business I was patronizing, but left when he saw my firearm. That was the sense I got from his demeanor, but since nothing happened, I'll never know if I'm one of the 2.5-million/year defensive handgun uses. I DO know that my area has significantly more handguns than a few miles away, and significantly lower crime rate. But not zero. I don't hunt. While I appreciate people who do, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Because a complete gun ban would never work. Criminals would obtain guns illegally, and law-abiding citizens would have no way to defend themselves against a psycho breaking down their door in the middle of the night (just as an example).

EDIT: I think I read your question wrong. I thought you were suggesting that no citizens own a gun (maybe you were?), and that was my response.

Yes, self-defense against criminals with guns. DGTess said it much better than I could, so I'll just refer to her response. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and police could be several minutes away.

I agree. However, I don't watch Fox News because I think they misinform their viewers, so I guess the liberal media seems louder to me.

Another thing that irks me is although I'm not completely against an assault weapon ban, I think the belief that it will help is ignorant. You can ban assault weapons all you want, but the crazy people will still be crazy. They will either a. Obtain a weapon illegally or b. do something else to murder mass numbers of people (ex. Oklahoma City bombing). As we can see from the fact that we can't take liquids onto planes, a bomb can be made of almost anything. Even without guns, the crazy people will find outlets for their craziness, for lack of a better word. That's why I think turning our focus, as a country, to treating mental illness will have a much better result in preventing violence.

I haven't really taken a side one way or another on this issue.

That being said, I'm tired of arguments and analogies being thrown around that really make no sense. An argument like this - "why get rid of guns if people will just find another way to kill anyway?" - is like arguing that people should be allowed to take liquids through security at the airport because people will find a way to blow up the plane anyway. To say that we shouldn't make something illegal because people will do it anyway.. well again.. I'm sure you can see why this argument falls flat without my having to explain it.

Another thing that I keep reading/hearing all over the place is, "Maybe we should ban cars, and knives, and alcohol.. because all of those things kill people, too!" Yes, that's true. But they're not specifically made to kill. A person drives a car and they get in an ACCIDENT, and another person is killed. They didn't get in their car so that they could kill someone on their way to work in the morning. Apples and oranges, people.

I will definitely agree, though, that some (or possibly all) of our attention should be on mental health.

Because that's how things are nowadays. It's sad. It's most likely a fact that more Republicans than Democrats believe that this gun ban talk is ludicrous, but any time I see someone argue against the ban, someone starts yelling, "You ignorant, redneck Republican!" and if someone argues for it, it's, "You hippy, big-government-loving Democrat!" There are so many assumptions thrown around peoples' political affiliation based on beliefs which us intelligent people know can cross party lines.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't discuss gun control or make certain weapons illegal. I was saying that I believe there are other solutions that would be more successful.

Aurora, Newtown, and Va Tech, and OR, these were crimes by individuals who were I assume angry and just wanted to kill people, as many as they could, with weapons which were very easy to get their hands on.

Ok city bombing, I thought was a crime against the government? Stuff I read was that Mcveigh planned this attack not to just kill as many as he could, but as a terrorist attack towards the "establishment". Those being killed in the blast was just collateral damage....or am I wrong? (And I mean no disrespect to anyone whose lives were lost or ruined by these attacks, I'm trying to determine the mindset of WHY these crimes were committed).

EVERY political issue is this way. It's not unique to the gun control thing.

/hating the two-party system
/gets off soapbox