I Can't Understand Why People Like Guns

Personally I detest them. However I understand and support hunters as long as it's about the desire to supply their own food. And to some extent I can understand the right to own a hand gun if you feel you need the protection. But one thing I will never understand is why anyone outside of the military should be allowed to own an assault rifle, a weapon made for the battlefield and designed to kill the maximum amount of people in a minimum amount of time. An assault rifle is not about personal protection, it's about an unhealthy attraction. It's not so much about the second amendment as an abuse of the second amendment and has no place in civilized society. And our Republican congress' refusal to ban them sends a loud clear message to me, the families of victims and the entire world that the rights of an individual to own a killing machine are more important than our lives are.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BizSuitStacy · M

I read this post a long time ago, but held off on responding. Given the timing of your piece, I'm assuming it written in response to the Orlando massacre.

I understand your position very well. I will also say I abhor violence of any kind. But I also understand human nature, and for that reason, I am a gun rights advocate. I've studied gun control and it's impact on violence for years. There are realities and fallacies on both sides of the debate.

If firearms such as the AR-15 had been banned, do you believe the massacre in Orlando would have been prevented?

It's a difficult question, but the answer is: very unlikely.

Mass murderers are evil. If the Orlando shooter was determined to use an AR-15, even if they were banned, it's highly likely he would have gotten one through illegal channels.

But let's assume for a moment that the Orlando shooter couldn't get an AR-15 or any other type of firearm that would be classified as an assault weapon. Would that have prevented the massacre, OR even lessened the carnage? Again, not likely.

I refer back to the Virginia Tech massacre. Prior to Orlando, it was the worst mass shooting in US history (except for Wounded Knee - but that's another story).

The Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock 19 handgun. He fired 170 bullet using 17, ten round magazines, killing more than 30 people before turning the gun on himself.

He did it with a handgun. He did not have high capacity magazines.

Columbine...similar situation (which occurred during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004). One shooter used a ban compliant rifle with 10 round magazines.

When I read someone refer to a firearm such as an AR-15 as an assault rifle, a weapon of war, or a firearm designed only for killing the maximum amount of people, I realize the marketing attempts to villify such a firearm has been successful.

The reality...it's not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are functionally different with select fire capabilities (full auto or multi round bursts). An AR-15 has never been used bybthe military and therefore cannot be a weapon of war. It's simply another semi-automatic firearm.