Insanity of Gun Control

It is amazing how people in our society just don't think and instead react emotionally. The media seems to be really good at controlling people in this way as well.

With the recent lunatic killing children, we see the anti-gun people using the blood to push their bogus agenda. Why are those who have pushed the laws which prevent law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves to not be held responsible for that blood? The actions by lunatics can not be prevented, but the lunatics can be stopped by armed, law abiding members of society.

I hear the call for limits on the number of rounds a firearm magazine can hold, yet what I don't hear is how this is magically going to prevent the deaths of innocent people. The innocent people are still not going to have a firearm in order to stop the lunatic criminal. I also don't understand how a magazine that hold N rounds (where N is randomly selected as 10 currently) is acceptable, but by adding one more round make it unacceptable. The media and dishonest politicians call these magazines "high capacity", but the reality is that they are talking about STANDARD capacity magazines. A few states still have bans on the so-called high capacity magazines, but where is the evidence that this has any positive effect on stopping crimes? One politician got it and when this was being discussed previously to ask whether we could make it illegal to kill more than 10 people.

There is the call to ban the so-called a-salt weapons. This is a fraud in many respects. An assault weaspon in reality is a firearm which is select-fire, meaning that with one pull of the trigger, more than one round is fired. It can be fully-automatic where the firearm continues to fire until the trigger is released or it can fire a 3 round burst, or other number of rounds than 1. These firearms have been strictly controlled since 1939, but the criminals still have access since they don't care about the laws.

Often you will hear these so-called a-salt weapon called "high powered", but the reality is that most of these firearms are low to medium power rifles, which function the same as other firearms, such as actual high powered hunting rifles. Both are semi-automatic (which means that the next round is automatically loaded into the chamber after the previous round was fired), both often have detachable magazines. The difference is that that ugly, black, EVIL(tm) so-called a-salt weapon typically are much lower in power.

In California there is a so-called a-salt weapon ban. Only those who posessed them prior to the law being passed can own those firearms and only if they registered them (many people did not know about the law and did not register their firearms, so now they are a criminal, but just don't know it yet). The joke of the law is that you can have two firearms which are identical, function in the same exact way, but one has a different name stamped on it which makes it illegal and the other one doesn't. EVIL(tm) features can cause a firearm to be banned, but which does not affect how the firearm functions, such as a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock (which used to be considered a target stock), etc. You can have a legal firearm and even use so-called high capacity magazines with it, but if you make the magazine non-detachable, then using high capacity magazines make it a so-called a-salt weapon. So the firearm which has detachable magazines can use higher capacity magazines than one that is considered non-detachable (a tool required). How does that make sense?

How have these bogus gun laws helped innocent people?

Remember, the laws only affect the law abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws and a person who is planning on killing people most likely does not care if they also violate other laws.

It is important that people be honest and in that, I would ask everyone to include the "so-called" when referencing the so-called high capacity magazines and the so-called a-salt weapons. It might slowly sink into some people's minds that they are being lied to by the media, politicians and anti-gun people.

For more information about the issues, please read:

Then came this response "So, those that choose not to carry should just accept their imminent death?"

Right now, people are prevented from being able to defend themselves, which means that the statement applies to them, with a slight change "So, those that can not carry should just accept their imminent death?". If you give people a choice, then they have a choice to take responsibility for their own lives, rather than hoping that someone else chooses to protect them, but how do you get that they should just accept their imminent death if you allow a person to have the option to protected themselves and they choose not to? It is the exact same position as they are in today when they are being prevented from protecting themselves, with the exception that it would become more likely that someone else would be there to stop the lunatic and that with the elimination of gun free zones, it is less likely that a lunatic would attack when they know people are able to stop them. At least if they have an option, they can choose to defend themselves.

People are being prevented from defending themselves, thereby forcing them to accept their imminent death. How can adding an option for the person mean that they have to accept anything like that? It seems like when there is no rational response available, irrational responses have to be used.

Then there was another.

The response was "allowing concealed weapons has not stopped criminals either. Because if they want to kills people they'll do it regardless of it being gun fee or not. You're focusing on the wrong issue. It's meaningless in the grand scheme of things."

People with CCWs (government permission to defend yourself permit) have stopped criminals, so that claim is clearly false.

What I can not get an answer to is what the "correct" issue to focus on is. I am focusing on saving lives and stopping the lunatic. I am not sure why someone would think that saving lives is meaningless. Perhaps they think that gun free zones work, which history shows that it doesn't. They don't get that they are getting people killed and they should be held responsible.

It goes to show that these anti-gun people have some serious mental issues.