Gun Control

Thank you for finally posting our response. First off, I would like to point out the last thing you said, "We are in dire need of gun control. Never before have we seen such frequent rates of mass-murder in our country, and it needs to stop here and now". And I completely agree with you! It does! However, have you ever taken into consideration why the gun related crime rates are so high? Or the people you may be supporting when you argue for gun control? The media likes to point out in exhaustive and irrelevant detail what criminals were doing, and how they did it. See Total Biscuit, The Cyinical Brit's YouTube video, "Video games and violence". He explains very well how and why the media is actually an an accomplice in the gun related crime rates in the particularly in the US, and also particularly but not limited to school shootings. I seriously recommend that you watch his video before you post your counter argument, as it contains a lot of very relevant information on this topic, even though it is mainly focused on how gun related crimes ACTUALLY correlate with video games. As for a link, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make one using an IPad, so you'll have to look it up on YouTube for yourself. Inconvinient, right? Moving on now. You have also stated that; "One gun control law I support would be making the possession of assault rifles and other heavy artillery illegal altogether, as such firepower isn't really necessary for self defense". Well... First I think you need a serious touch up on what your actually talking about when you say "Assault rifle" and "Heavy artillery", as this statement alone proves you DEFINITELY don't really know your definitions or terminology. Artillery, according to definition is; "Mounted projectile firing guns or missile launchers, mobile or stationary, light or heavy, as distinguished from small arms". A good example of this would be the Howitzer, or "Big Bertha" as it was nicknamed (Source: Wikipedia). I, however, am not here to argue over the usefulness of artillery for home self defense and/or sporting purposes (unless a LOT more people than I think would consider blowing up their home and effectively commiting suicide upon invasion as "Home and Self defense". Then I might have a case). Now as for the definition of assault rifles, all that really is is a semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip. Gun control advocates like to demonize this type of rifle because of 1: Agressive appearances 2: Typically high magazine capacities (30 rounds is standard for AR-15 type rifles, which is probably the weapon your thinking of when you hear "Assault rifle". I'll get to that later). And 3: Assault rifles just so happened to be the weapon of choice of certain criminals. All of these are seriously flawed. Reason one, controlling rifles based on their looks is just plain bullsh*t. You can't determine the usefulness of a weapon by it's looks, period. Some airsoft "guns", like those imitating the look of an actual Vietnam war era M16 A1 for instance, may appear more threatening than a simple youth youth rifle made by Henry's, while in reality that seemingly harmless youth rifle could have deadly consequences if used improperly, while the airsoft rifle really posses much less of a threat; a bruise at worst. Hopefully you get the point I'm trying to get across with this example. Reason two is flawed because of, well, why? Restricting magazine (NOT CLIP, MAGAZINE! Get your terminology right if you haven't already!) size doesn't solve anything, and people may need magazine size a larger magazine size for certain activities (for instance, it is reassuring for you to have extra amunition in your magazine in your home is invaded). If the laws worked under the flawed logic that if you make something illegal, you will get rid of it, then asking this sarcastic question would make perfect sense; "Hey, if we make guns illegal, that will take them off the street, right? Well then in that case, we should make meth and cocain illegal too!" If you have a normal thought process, than you should be able to see what I'm getting at here. And the third reason they are demonized, because certain criminals used assault rifles is also very, very flawed. Why? Take for instance the guy (I forgot his name) that killed the first theater audience members for the movie "The Dark Night Rises". He used an assault rifle to do this, and there for people justify banning assault rifles without even knowing what they are. But you see, the f*cking problem with this is that anybody could've f*cking done this WITHOUT AN ASSAULT F#CKING RIFLE! A ruger 10/22, a Remington 870, a colt 1911, a Berreta M9, it doesn't fuc*ing matter. All an assault rifle is is a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip! I don't think the term assault rifle should even be used as it implies that it is used to assault people. Now, what use would a currently legal assault rifle be of to a home owner that a non-assault rifle would have a much harder time pulling off? 1: These weapons were designed to be fired in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) situations. That gives a home owner an instant advantage over, say, a deer hunting rifle for too many reasons to even begin with, so if you want to know why, you have plenty of gun sites that look at this from an unbiased technical standpoint. So don't just claim out of the blue that my points are invalid due to a lack of proof. 2: These weapons are much better and cheaper to use rifles for target shooting. The biggest round that's actually used in any assault rifle that you've probably ever ever heard of (especially given that you are NOT anywhere close to being a gun expert, and that your only likely source of information is the media) is the 7.62x39mm cartridge, used by the AK series of rifles. FYI, the caliber of the round is actually just the measure of the diameter. This supposed "High powered deadly cartridge" that your calling a ban for is actually less powerful than your typical deer cartridge (like the .270). As for high capacity magazines? You need to provide some serious evidence that banning these will solve anything. You need to provide some serious proof that banning anything would solve any of our problems, and you also need to do some very, very serious research on firearms in general. If you are to have any validity in what your saying at all, then you need to educate yourself as much as you can in your spare time with basic gun facts and knowledge. After all, why would we want people making laws about what firearms that we can and can't use that don't even know the basics in firearm mechanics, shooting techniques, safety, or even anything at all? I say that people that don't even know what they're talking about when it comes to guns or gun laws shouldn't even be talking about what they should be in the first place. And by the way, I'm still sticking by the idea of stronger enforcement of current law regarding firearms, as you haven't provided even one example problem with them. All you've done is criticize me with being somewhat vague and sticking by what the founding fathers said despite the fact that some of them were actually anti slavery (Thomas Jeffreson being one). Anyways, I'm running low on the characters this is gonna let me type, so I can't provide a counter argument for every thing you said. But I believe I have provided one for the issue at hand now, which is the most important, so that'll have to do. Anyways, I look forward to your (hopefully) well researched next post. P.S. Yes, I know I did jump around a bit in this post. But I put too much time into posting this already, so I'm not gonna make major changes to it. I'll try to be more organized next time around.