I don't want to throw down with anybody on this thread or anything, so please everybody take what I'm about to say like it is intended. - just passin' on a few observations in a nice way...
I am not taking any side in this issue with this post. It is just that there have been a few threads started since the VA Tech shooting and I have noticed a few consistant misunderstandings. Mostly from outside the US posters, but not all. I'll list them here in this thread since it seems to be the appropriate. I'll be leaving the implications to other posters - I'm not debating just clarrifying some problem undrstandings.
1) Americans are running rampant and carrying fully automatic military assault rifles.
This is not true. Only a very small percentage of americans with special permits have those. What we do have is semi-auto rifles that are built on the same platform as their military counterparts. This is a huge distinction. I can not walk into a gun shop and buy an M-16. I can walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15. They do not have the same function, only the same shape (the trigger group is different). I live in an area where gun ownership is very common. Of the 30 or so people I can think of off the top of my head that own firearms, only 1 has an assault rifle class firearm, and he is a collector, not a nut job. None of his firearms are full auto - he couldn't buy them if he wanted to - he doesn't have the permit for it . As I stated earlier, I am not trying to argue with anyboy over this point, but it is a misconception that has been repeatedly stated on these threads. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of owning semi-auto rifles with this point. Clear? Good.
2) The "Americans do get to legally have guns, and it still didn't help at VA Tech, so you all should ban your guns." line of thought.
I am sorry to have seen this thought expressed. It shows a basic misunderstanding of how our gun laws work. Once again, I am not arguing for or against banning guns entirely. You see, right or wrong as that thought may be, it just doesn't apply in this case. That school has a no carry policy. Heck, in my state it is a Class A Felony (and that is damned serious to those who don't know) to bring a firearm onto or even near ANY school campus of any kind. We will never know if the students or teachers could have stopped the shooter if someone had been carrying a gun. They legally aren't allowed to. It is a moot point.
It is like saying 2 + 2 = blue.
3) " Americans just want guns so they can kill other humans."
Again, sorry. We are a very, very large country, far larger in sheer topographic size than our British Isle friends (who appear to be the most vocally oppossed to our guns on these threads). We are culturaly diverse and our reasonings on issues swings as wide as our country. We have many reasons for owning firearms. As alleged by those accross the pond, some DO own them for personal protection (shooting other people). That is very true. But, many do so for hunting. Some for target shooting, collecting, clay pigeon shooting, on and on. In my case, I enjoy target shooting when I have the opportunity. But strictly speaking, I own a few firearms because I have to take care of varmints that are common in our area. There is no other practical way to deal with them. There are no resources locally to take care of these kind of things. I have had to do so since I was a teenager. (please animal rights fundies, don't start with me here) We, as a country, tend to be a very "take care of it yourself" kind of place. Again, for right or wrong, that is in our blood. Slightly diverergent, here, but as an interesting point: in WW2, the fighter pilots from a rural US background who hunted to put food on the table were by far the most successful. It was attributed to their ability to "lead" a target. Skills they only learned through years of training on the farm with a rifle.
Once again, not trying to debate or argue, I just keep seeing these misconceptions popping up. Don't shoot the messanger.
