Why is it that people who don't know anything about guns are the biggest opposers?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thehustleman, Apr 18, 2013.

  1. thehustleman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #1
    It's like that all over.

    People are so anti gun yet don't know the first thing about them


    Examples?


    Calling a magazine a "clip" clips are magazines are 2 different things

    Saying things like "did you know there are online gun shops that you can buy a gun from with no background check and have it shipped to your door?" um no, that's super illegal

    Calling a 30 round magazine on an AR-15 a "high capacity" magazine. Um, 30 rounds on an AR is NORMAL/standard capacity. A high capacity magazine is a magazine with a higher capacity than what originally comes with it

    Saying dumb things like "people don't need guns to protect themselves" when crime statistics in places like dc, Chicago, even Atlanta say otherwise. How is disarming the good guy that did go through the background checks, got his permit, his fingerprints on record with the FBI going to protect him from that thug on the streets that's willing to kill? Not to mention ALL the major anti gun politicians either have tons of armed security and/or carry permits themselves.


    Or those that think certain guns are more deadly because of COSMETIC FEATURES that don't affect lethality at all.

    Or those that support handgun bans when a shotgun will do so much more damage


    I honestly don't think someone in Congress should be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about.

    Why is it that it's so rare to find people that know about guns that are anti gun?
     
  2. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    Does that prevent someone from having an opinion on the effects of guns? I'm sure if any laws were passed then they would make sure the correct difference existed in the bill, anyway.

    I don't know of any websites where you can have a company deliver the gun to your door, but there are numerous websites that allow you to purchase firearms without a permit (if the individual allows it, which they shouldn't) or check, and I'm sure you could easily pay another individual to deliver it to your door. http://www.armslist.com/ is one.

    See above point.

    It is certainly not dumb to say that.

    Nobody is saying disarming the good guy whilst leaving the bad guy with a weapon is the desired situation (it is laughable that some people think anti-gun people are actually arguing for this).

    And, for the record, nobody is proposing to disarm you in relation to the recent legislation. Those involved with lawmaking are simply proposing common sense preventative measures.

    I don't think you have to be an expert on something to have an opinion on it. Do I have to know how to operate a gun, reload it, service it, and/or holster it just to have an opinion on them? I think not.
     
  3. thehustleman thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #3
    When people that don't know about something cause problems for people that do know and are LEGALLY doing what they are supposed to do, that's when they should sit down somewhere.


    And this isn't about the recent gun legislation, i agree with a lot of it, most actually.

    I don't mind reasonable restrictions. I support things like background checks (I even have a great solution for all parties involved).

    Also Armslist doesn't sell guns they hook up people to sell guns, all they do is help people meet for private sales. The sale is actually in person. That's legal without a background check (unfortunately). But they can't ship the gun, that's still illegal.

    And no, you don't have to be an expert, but at least know the basics.

    I don't expect someone to know how to break apart an AR - 15, clean it, and put it back together to have a vote on gun rights, but naming cosmetic things (pistol grips, heat shields, certain stocks) on guns that don't affect lethality as illegal, yeah that's a problem.

    And yes, it is dumb to say you don't need a gun to protect yourself. Myself and my mother are proof that sometimes you just do. It's especially dumb when you have a ton of armed security protecting you, but don't want us to have just ONE protecting us. We can't afford our own private security detail so we have to protect ourselves as best we can.

    And many anti gun people ARE calling for bans.

    Even Obama called for a ban on the debate.

    Obama once voted for and supported a handgun ban in Chicago, yet he claims to believe in the second amendment? Which one is it?

    Dc even had a gun ban, but even now they still have the most strict gun control ever and the highest murder rate which proves that if you make it hard for the good guys to do it legally, the bag guys who DON'T do it legally will have an easier time
     
  4. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    Three things:

    1. Your entire post here is a fallacy starting right from your title, unless you have specific citations that prove your claim.

    2. What good does arguing semantics do? Who gives a damn if it's called a "clip" or a "magazine"? A 30-round mag is a 30-round mag whether or not you call it "standard" or "high" capacity.

    3. Since when do you have to be an expert marksman to have an opinion on guns?

    This thread is going nowhere.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Many of them wouldn't have a vote at all.
     
  6. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #6
    Name one thing over the past 10 years that Congress voted on where they knew what they were doing.
     
  7. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #7
    I think this is an awesome idea!!

    Only women should be allowed to vote on women's issues like abortion and birth control.

    Only gay people should be allowed to vote on gay rights and gay marriage.

    Regarding the rest of your OP, I'd think you'd be surprised at how much some of them know about guns. Gabrielle Gifford and Diane Fienstein both have been (and I think Gifford still is) gun owners.

    The difference? Is that they either have been victims of gun violence or have seen the aftermath. Perspectives can certainly chance. Or maybe we should only let victims of gun violence vote on such things.

    ----------

    They voted to give themselves raises.... ;)
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    That is the one thing they can all agree on.
     
  9. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    You are not a target 24/7. The people you're talking about can be subject to crimes planned months if not years in advance. That is different to some guy approaching you aggressively with a knife on the street corner. If you die, the country will not collapse (I'm not saying their lives are more valuable than yours, though, just that their deaths would have greater effects). A gun is not necessary to protect yourself. Have you looked into non-lethal weapons which can be just as effective at incapacitating an aggressor without killing them?

    Indeed they are. I personally support bans. But what I said is that nobody is proposing active legislation that is going to disarm you.


    I don't know Obama's conclusive opinion on this, but I always thought the Second Amendment was more than "The right to keep and bear arms."

    Some others will interpret it differently, but I have always held the view that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved only for a (well-regulated) militia. A militia is a people's army. What the US has now is not a militia, but rather 300 million guns across 100 million households. And it certainly isn't well-regulated, either.

    No, one case does not prove that gun control equals higher crime rates. I also think you'll find that in states with higher gun ownership, more people tend to die as a result of guns.

    And, referencing the NRA's insane argument that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with more guns" - How many mass shootings have been prevented by good guys with guns in recent years?
     
  10. thehustleman thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #10

    1. How can I cite real life situations? There's no website nor recording of my life 24/7 and the comments of so many people (especially my mother-in-law). Doesn't make it false, but I can cite how anti-gun politicians don't know anything about guns, here's one example [​IMG]

    If she knew anything about guns, she wouldn't have her finger on the trigger, have it pointed in a safe direction, wouldn't have the magazine attached because she'd know that you treat every gun like it's loaded and never have your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.


    2. Because clips and magazines are 2 TOTALLY different things.
    [​IMG]

    While yes, a 30-round mag is a 30-round mag, but when you use certain terms, you make the ignorant think it's something worse than it actually is. You say "standard capacity magazine" no one thinks anything but you say "high capacity magazine" the average ignorant-on-guns person thinks this
    [​IMG]

    3. No one said you had to be an EXPERT, but before condemning something one should at least have a limited working knowledge of that something, especially when BANS and such things can come into play. If you're gonna vote to get rid of something, it should certainly be a requirement that you have a minimal amount of knowledge of HOW it operates and know at least theory of how to SAFELY operate one.

    That's like me voting to ban homosexuality because I don't have a working knowledge of it. Or me voting to ban Mexicans because I don't know any. Or someone without a drivers license and doesn't know how to drive voting to ban cars.



    You missed the point, didn't say "you have to be a knowledgeable expert gun owner" to vote on gun laws, no, but you should at least know something about them.

    Also Feinstein obviously doesn't know enough about trigger discipline

    Also I've been a victim of gun violence (lost a cousin) and I've seen the aftermath. I agree with reasonable restrictions, can't say that enough.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    So who should vote on drug laws or food laws, stoners and fat people?
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  13. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #13
    I'm sure you're right. But then again, based in the picture included...neither does Rambo.:rolleyes:
     
  14. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #14
    Well obviously, by looking at one picture taken over the course of a 40 year career in public office you know exactly how much she knows or doesn't know. How long has she been working for stricter gun regulations? You don't think she may have picked up a little knowledge along the way? :rolleyes:

    That picture has been overused by the NRA and by Fox News. It still doesn't change the fact that she carried a gun for years. Why should you be the judge on how much she knows or doesn't know? The only thing that picture tells me is that you are one more person who has allowed themselves to be brainwashed by rhetoric.
     
  15. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15

    Welcome to Gobbler's Knob... as it were.
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    Under our current laws they don't have to know how to use the gun they can still own one. We don't want to impede their rights to the second amendment, who cares if they have no clue how too shoot the thing, it's just they they deserve the right to do so.:rolleyes:
     
  17. thehustleman thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #17




    No, my death wouldn't ruin the country, but as you stated my life is just as important as theirs. I DESERVE the right to have my gun with me to protect myself and family as any decent family man would.

    And yes, I see you're in the UK, you don't have a high gun crime rate there, but here in the US, the bad guys have GUNS and they carry them FAITHFULLY. Good luck trying to take out a gunman with a knife, possible yes, but highly unlikely. That's the difference between your country and mine, here in America criminals have guns (that's why police have them). If police didn't have guns, then I'd be pretty sure they found a way to disarm all criminals, then I'd graciously give up my own guns with a smile. But until our criminals stop shooting and using guns to kill, I'll keep mine. I'd be a fool not to. Especially with the situations that have occurred near my home lately.


    You support a ban, you're in the UK, it works for you guys. Here, it wouldn't. We have the 4th amendment that makes it illegal for cops or other LEO's to search our home, person, vehicle without permission or a warrant. Do you think some crook is gonna submit to a search? nope. the cop would be powerless to search without a warrant OR if he has REASONABLE suspicion to believe there's a need to search (such as smelling an illegal substance for example). Here all a ban would do is disarm the legal people, so then who's gonna protect us? I don't know how it is in the UK but here in the US it can take up to 20 minutes for a cop to get to you. You could be dead and they can be gone in 20 minutes. Even our supreme court ruled that police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT CITIZENS. So if the police won't, who's supposed to protect us from the most violent of criminals?


    Also on the militia, if it was that way it would say

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the Militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


    Yet it says THE PEOPLE.

    People can't form a militia if they can't obtain and keep arms.

    Actually if gun control worked DC, Illinois, California, would be the SAFEST places in the country (even though several of their cities have been voted most dangerous cities) and the Newtown shooting wouldn't have happen (the guy broke SEVERAL laws doing that, so how is a LAw supposed to stop him?).

    Meanwhile Vermont's gun death rate is lower than the national average as is Georgia, but hte majority of firearms deaths in Georgia occur in ATLANTA and surrounding areas. Coincidentally those are the main, most anti-gun places in the whole state. But meanwhile, Kennessaw, GA had a problem with home invasions and other various gun crime and enacted a law that EVERY homeowner that wasn't a felon MUST own at least one gun. Guess what happened after that? They didn't have not one single murder for over 26 YEARS. not months, not days YEARS.

    I'm not gonna say more guns less crime works ACROSS THE BOARD because I think it doesn't, but there are examples of more guns less crime working in some places and fewer guns more crimes happening in other places, as well as the opposite. It's more so about the local culture than it is about the gun laws. When the laws are in place that ban guns, people who believe in gun bans move there, but people who want to victimize people that can't fight back travel there because they'll remain unopposed.

    Look at NY, strict gun laws works for them because they're more of an international culture type of state. There's EVERY imaginable nationality there. Most countries don't share America's views of guns (as you've proven) and NY is so international that all cultures kinda mesh. But there are certain parts of NY that a gun could definitely be beneficial to someone - Red Hook comes into mind...


    One point to bring up - these places where these mass shootings are taking place - good guys aren't allowed to have guns there. The aurora colorado mall, newtown connecticut, those 2 that made the news in NY last year, in chicago, the school shootings (it's against the law to bring guns onto school campuses) the good guys couldn't even bring guns there, so no, it wouldn't have prevented it because those good guys WEREN'T THERE with their guns.

    They weren't allowed. That's all laws truly do - reveal who's the good guys (they follow them) and who's the bad guy (they break them). This is common sense.

    But at least you feel passionate about your views, and I can agree to disagree due to cultural differences. You've earned my respect.

    LOL, hey at least Rambo isn't a real person

    ----------

    Actually that depends on which state you're in.

    some states DO require knowledge of guns to own one, some don't, but I think all should and issue a test.
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    But if the federal government doesn't do it will those states?
     
  19. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #19
    Because if you are anti-gun, you probably don't own a gun. You never trained with a gun. You never went shopping for a gun. You don't belong to a gun club. You don't have gun-owning friends who you hang out with and talk about guns.

    If you are pro-guns, you probably own a gun. You trained with one. You went shopping for one. You belong to a gun club. You're friends own guns and you hang out with and talk about your hobby with.

    Your point is valid. And if someone really was anti-gun, they SHOULD know more about them so they can at least argue intelligently. Once someone who is anti-gun says something stupid about them, the argument is usually over: the other guys just says: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    And they are right.
     
  20. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
    their pay and insurance increases.

    ----------

    Pro gun does not equal knowledge. There are way too many news stories about people that are pro gun shooting themselves or others because they were playing or cleaning a loaded gun. Including a vet playing cowboy with a loaded gun and killing a child.
     
  21. thehustleman thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #21
    Yeah when debating a not so knowledgeable anti gunner and I hear them show their hand, I stop the debate and tell them that
     
  22. Huntn, Apr 18, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2013

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    That's quite an assumption you've made. Secondly how much do you need to know about guns to know that 25k+ citizens are murdered each year by guns? That statistic in itself is enough to hold something against guns. As far as your clip comment, the focus is mass murder. Part of that concern is the number of rounds the gun holds before reloading is required, very valid. Don't split hairs.

     
  23. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #23
    There is also a huge misconception about "anti-gunners" (??)....

    Just because someone is in favor of tougher regulations, doesn't mean that they are anti-gun. It's more like anti-regulators and pro-regulators....

    And as I've said before, Gabby Giffords and Diane Fienstein are both examples of women who have owned guns. And carried them (at least in Feinstein's case, she carried a weapon to work for years). What makes you more qualified then they are?
     
  24. Toltepeceno Suspended

    Toltepeceno

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    SMT, Edo MX, MX
    #24
    Neither does anti gun. Outlawing a weapon based on shape only, and not rate of fire, makes them look clownish. I'm willing to bet if someone that actually knew something about what they were trying to ban came forward they would get more support. To me this is one of those "DOH" things. Probably cross party support.
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    The same reason that the people who have never been poor, never needed help from anyone, and live a highly privileged life seem to think they know everything about people on welfare. You know, how they are all lazy, on drugs, and want nothing more than handouts.
     

Share This Page