Why do guns get so picked on?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Melissia wrote:We understand this.

We just don't understand why you want to force that on us.

Aside from arrogance anyway.

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

And it isn't as though Americans are reluctant to place their values onto other society's, I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen any Americans claim how we can't be really free because we don't have guns to protect us from our government.

**Cadorius**

If people are going to talk about American gun culture, it may be wise for them to actually understand our gun laws so that they don't look stupid when they comment. It may be too much to ask, though, considering our own politicians can't even read what's right in front of them.

The 2nd Amendment states that it is necessary to have a well-armed/ready-to-fight militia, and therefore everybody has the right to bear arms. The Militia Code of the US defines what the militia is...it's every citizen able to serve in the military, and not currently doing so. Our own law states flat-out that it is necessary for millions of citizens to be armed. If anything, our government has a mandate to see that we are armed. See, the funny thing about a country's sovereignty is that it's the duty of every citizen to defend it, otherwise you can't really complain when some insane mass murdering dictator steamrolls over it with his army and takes all your freedoms away. You'd think Europe would've learned this lesson by now. Pretty sad that so many Americans had to go over there and die just so that lesson could be forgotten within a few decades.

lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

**RatBot**

Most of it is complete ignorance over US gun laws. People elsewhere in the world are told Americans can buy whatever ridiculous ordinance they want, with no effective checks and they believe it. They don't know the story of gun legislation, and how full of fail most of those efforts have been, nor do they know about the issues with poor enforcement of existing laws. They just think you guys all be crazy.

Anecdotal evidence supporting this: When I was studying in Japan, some of the Japanese students asked some of the American students (I was not part of this discussion) if they had ever been in a gunfight, as if this were an everyday occurrence for most Americans.

**Melissia**

I think you'll find that Japanese people are weird.

In a fun way.

**ifStatement**

Cadorius wrote:See, the funny thing about a country's sovereignty is that it's the duty of every citizen to defend it, otherwise you can't really complain when some insane mass murdering dictator steamrolls over it with his army and takes all your freedoms away. You'd think Europe would've learned this lesson by now. Pretty sad that so many Americans had to go over there and die just so that lesson could be forgotten within a few decades.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on the internet. What part of German blitzkrieg do you think armed civilians would have been able to prevent?

**Melissia**

Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note that I'm not supporting the point so much as stating that there is more to war than the front lines

**hotsauceman1**

Joey wrote:Most Europeans want to live in a society without guns. Americans do not understand this.
Similarly I don't want to live in a society that allows the populace to own firearms.

I dont understand it either.
If we actively worked to make a place safer we would have to let the populace bear arms.

**ifStatement**

Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

**RatBot**

Melissia wrote:I think you'll find that Japanese people are weird.

In a fun way.

Well... yes, that goes without saying.

**sebster**

Cadorius wrote:lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

Your naivety is in assuming that having guns means you can form effective resistance against a dictator. You need to reconcile your belief above with the fact that people in Hitler's Germany had access to guns, as they did in Saddam's Iraq.

That reconciliation will mean throwing away the naive belief that having guns means you're safe from a tyrant. The sad reality is, as I said before, the people with guns generally support the tyrant. Where they don't, the challenge is in forming effective cells that undertake meaningful operations while maintaining individual security, getting your hands on some guns is pretty easy in comparison.

**Monster Rain**

You'll know that the resistance is winning when a thread titled only "WOLVERINES!" appears in the Dakka OT forum.

**sebster**

ifStatement wrote:This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written on the internet. What part of German blitzkrieg do you think armed civilians would have been able to prevent?

To be fair, blitzkrieg (such that it ever really existed) did very well open field engagements, and broke down in urban environments.

Nah, the issue is that with guns or without, people rarely take up arms against their government. Especially not when the government is oppressing other people.

**malfred**

sebster wrote:
Cadorius wrote:lol @ all this "only the military should have the ability to do nothing but kill people (because that's all guns are for and only the military should have them)" nonsense. The naivety of some people is just absurd...

Your naivety is in assuming that having guns means you can form effective resistance against a dictator. You need to reconcile your belief above with the fact that people in Hitler's Germany had access to guns, as they did in Saddam's Iraq.

That reconciliation will mean throwing away the naive belief that having guns means you're safe from a tyrant. The sad reality is, as I said before, the people with guns generally support the tyrant. Where they don't, the challenge is in forming effective cells that undertake meaningful operations while maintaining individual security, getting your hands on some guns is pretty easy in comparison.

That's why we need ASSAULT GUNS. Duh.

**Sturmtruppen**

I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

**Relapse**

@Sebster,

I refer you to the links I posted earlier comparing gun deaths to deaths caused by drunk driving and a linkmfrom the CDC stating that there are over 75,000deaths yearly that are alcohol caused.

If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.

As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.
However, the truth is we get saturated with ads on the fine fun there is to be had from drinking.
People like you who don't think twice about such ads would be having fits if gun ads were as prolific on TV.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sturmtruppen wrote:I live in the UK. If someone breaks into my home, I won't need a gun because the person breaking in is very unlikely to have one either. Such is the effect of banning guns. Who'd have thought?

If alcohol were banned, maybe some of my friends that were killed by drunk drivers would be alive today. Who'd have thought?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just want to thak those of you coming down on guns while ignoring the fact that far greater numbers of people are killed by alcohol.
You're proving my point beautifully.

**SoloFalcon1138**

Pretty much, this:

SOFDC wrote:Because to some people, perceived intent supersedes reality.

A car is automatically morally superior to a firearm, even if the car kills 100,000 times more people than all firearms combined, because the car is not "Designed to kill"....as if this mattered, and as if that function did not have merit all on its own.

Second, you have these same people generally seem to equate the word "Killing" with "Murder"...which it is not, but when you are of the mind that the man who crushes another mans skull because he found this person raping his mother is no different than the man who kills another for the sake of killing...well...my opinions of this "thinking" aside, this person will view ANY weapon as a morally disgusting -idea-, let alone as a real physical object.

Thirdly, you have the camp of "It's dishonorable or too easy to use a gun!" .....This group in my experience contains the masses who may have watched too much anime and lord of the rings, and somehow attach "Honor" to the idea of people trying to hack each other apart like animals, which is simultaneously something missing when the parties are shooting at each other. These people may also be ignorant of the realities of fighting with a sword, polearm, other melee weapon, a firearm, unarmed, or in my experience...all of the above.

You have the group that projects themselves, for example, if you have ever heard the words "People shouldn't have guns. They'll get angry and shoot someone." ...well...I have five bucks towards what most of them are REALLY saying is "-I- have zero self control, and if I got mad I would physically attack someone, and I can't be unusual or weird...I HAVE to be normal! Thus, everyone else would have the same reaction as me!"

You have those who actively fear their neighbors. You have statists, who have their own interests in making sure that the peasantry cannot one day get angry and decide to knock them off their throne. You have people who cannot function without the status-quo being maintained and want to avoid the previous scenario as a result.

....I could go on and on.

Oh, but I will finish with this:

I wonder how many advocates of gun control don't think twice about driving drunk or stoned or buy drugs from Mexico.

How about politicians that advocate gun control and also carry concealed? For me, but not for thee...

**Relapse**

ifStatement wrote:
Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

**ifStatement**

Relapse wrote:
ifStatement wrote:
Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

**Monster Rain**

ifStatement wrote:Is Afganistan invading the united states?

Not anymore, thanks to the Bush Doctrine!

Take that, Commies!

**Relapse**

ifStatement wrote:
Relapse wrote:
ifStatement wrote:
Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11.
A large part of the population of the US is tired of the drain in money and lives because of the armed resistance and we are leaving,
much like Britain left the Colonies during the Revolution.
This is made possible in large part, thanks to an armed populace.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

I refer you to the links I posted earlier comparing gun deaths to deaths caused by drunk driving and a linkmfrom the CDC stating that there are over 75,000deaths yearly that are alcohol caused.

If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.

As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.

Except, as I already pointed out, that's bs. The news will show every violent death, whether it's from a gun or in a car crash. I mean, seriously, just watch the news.

At the same time you get no shortage of stories on alcohol abuse, especially when it comes to the dangers young people expose themselves to from drinking too much.

People like you who don't think twice about such ads would be having fits if gun ads were as prolific on TV.

People like me? What do you know about me, or my stance on guns or drinking? Don't just make things up so you can pidgeon hole me away to protect your little theory.

Just in case you're actually trying to learn something here and not just pick a fight with whoever thinks your theory is contrived at best, I have no problem with advertising guns on TV. None. It's a legal product with a decent purpose. I'm not sure it'd be a sensible idea, given it's only an occasional purchase and typically made by an informed consumer, but that'd be up for the marketing division of gun stores to decide.

Alcohol is the same, it's a legal product with decent purpose, so if they want to put ads on the telly then let them.

For both products there should be some level of community oversight to make sure any information presented is truthful, and they should be appropriate. So no ads implying people under the legal age were drinking, and no ads involving vehicles, and similarly no ads on telly about guns should give misleading figures on, like, home invasions.

And at the same time government should endeavour to make people aware of the dangers of drink driving, and the needs of gun safety.

I just want to thak those of you coming down on guns while ignoring the fact that far greater numbers of people are killed by alcohol.
You're proving my point beautifully.

No-one is ignoring it. We're just looking a

Your point is not being proved because it is a shambles.

**ifStatement**

Relapse wrote:
ifStatement wrote:
Relapse wrote:
ifStatement wrote:
Melissia wrote:Once they pass and you can hit their supply lines? Plenty!

Okay? So knowing the civilians in a country carry arms the invaders are just going to leave a ton of vunerable troops around them. No if the civilians haven't already been massacred because of the threat they pose they will be well held down.

Seriously I understood the idea of allowing gun ownership due to the rights of the people to tyake against an oppresive government. But the idea that it 's in place to aid in the event of an invasion is completely absurd.

Ummm, Afganastan?

Is Afganistan invading the united states?

You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11. .

The Mujahideen aren't exactly civilians squire.

**Relapse**

@Sebster,

I have a very good veiw on your stance with guns from past posts you've made.
You call alcohol a legal product with a decent purpose, yet it kills more than 5 times the number of people yearly that guns do.

As far as the news goes, I don't recall seeing the stats I've provided put forward like gun violence stats.
I don't see mayors of major cities going on the news with lawsuits against distillers and brewers the way I've seen them go after gun makers.
I don't recall a million mom march against alcohol being covered on the news.

I could go on, but you just prove my point with your comments. People focus on guns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@IfStatement,

They pretty much were back before all the invasions.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:You aren't much up on current events. Allow me to refresh you. Afganastan has a largely armed population, they have been invaded by Russia, and got the Russians out. More recently they have had US and other countries invade because of 9/11.
A large part of the population of the US is tired of the drain in money and lives because of the armed resistance and we are leaving,
much like Britain left the Colonies during the Revolution.
This is made possible in large part, thanks to an armed populace.

I think you need to read a lot more on the nature of both the Soviet and US operations in Afghanistan. At least enough so that you actually learn how to spell Afghanistan.

Seriously, the war isn't being won by farmers with AK-47s. Most of the heavy soviet defeats were delivered by infantry borne anti-tank and anti-air weapons, many of which were delivered by the US. Similarly, most of the kills inflicted against the US troops are coming from IEDs and RPGs, all of which are being supplied from outside sources.

The idea of local patriots battling invading forces with small arms is a complete myth, it ignores the reality of how warfare works today. Outside of very localised, small scale ambush operations you simply aren't going to kill that many people with small arms, and in the modern age if you're capable of deploying such an ambush you're simply better off using an IED. As such, it makes no sense to argue small arms are essential to needs of the populace to defend itself from invasion, but at the same time deny heavy machine guns and anti-tank and anti-air weapons.

I'll repeat my point from earlier, an effective resistance requires an organisation structure where individual cells can support and supplement each other, while maintaining independence that if one is compromised the others are not. If you can establish such an organisation, then you can easily access all the small arms you'll ever need, as well as some more meaningful heavy weapons.

Simply thinking you can buy a rifle and that's that, you're as capable as any revolutionary, is playing a fantasy game.

**ifStatement**

Relapse wrote:@IfStatement,

They pretty much were back before all the invasions.

No. It was a country run by territorial warlords before all the invasions. It wasn't a bunch of people who have 9-5 jobs and have firearms they bought from wallmart in their bedside cabinets.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
If you look, you will see the drunk drivers are running kneck and kneck with guns for killing people.

Illicitly. The statistics you provided indicate that guns are involved in more illicit deaths than alcohol.

Relapse wrote:
Alcohol caused 75,000 deaths in 2001 due to various reasons.
As I said earlier, if guns caused even half that many deaths, the news would be even more up in arms than it now.

In 2007 there were 31,224 gun related deaths in the US

Not quite half, but closer than you seem to believe.

Relapse wrote:
However, the truth is we get saturated with ads on the fine fun there is to be had from drinking.

I don't see why that's an issue. Automotive accidents kill more perople than guns, but fewer than booze, but car commercials are jut as prevalent as alcohol adds, and cars don't have warning labels.

Cars aren't designed to kill, booze isn't designed to kill, guns are. Its not quite that simple, but that's the thrust of it.

**Relapse**

No revolutionary ever started out as a full blown killer. They had to start somewhere. French and Norwegian resistance?
As far as spelling goes, whatever, the point is made.

**Private_Joker**

But then again driving while drunk is illeagal, in the pro-guns argument owning a firearm is not illeagal. Maybe if there was a pro-drunk driving advocate you could complain. I most definately would rather be killed in a car accident then shot in a local convienient store by a crook who had a readily available source for finding a weapon. Completely do away with weapons, people are not morally stable enough to have such power.

**Relapse**

@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

**ifStatement**

If you were approaching this argument from the standpoint of: alcohol is a bigger killer than guns therefore why isn't there a similar amount of debate over it. You might get a lot further.

Arguing that it is the worse of two evils isn't going to get you anywhere.