Sad thing of all of this, is the fact that so much crazed ranting from both sides, that we aren't all sitting down and understanding certain basic things.
Now, mind you... I'm not a gun owner. But I do like to fire off guns when given an opportunity.
I probably can't trust myself with a gun, knowing I am a fire cracker at times and I play violent games involving guns.
But suffice it to say, I am not a person who advocates 'disarming' or preventing people from owning guns.
Add to it, I am somewhat in favor of gun control at the level of what it means to procure a gun in the proper way.
So getting to the point here is simply this.
The sale of a rifle, semi-automatic or just single bolt is fine. Does everyone need an AR-15? Not really. The AR-15 is not a 'necessity' for personal defense unless you happen to live in the boonies or we are in a Zombie Apocalypse situation.
For Special Tactics squads like Police, Sheriffs or Specialized Private Security, I can understand it. For home defense, again, unless it is a Zombie Apocalypse or you are way out in the boonies where someone can't help you easily, perhaps.
Being able to have a shotgun or a hand gun should be a 'reasonable' weapon for self-defense in most urban areas. Rifles and Semi-automatics are best for non-urban self-defense reasons as you are dealing with ranged intruders more than close and personal.
Gun control being outlined is about making sure a gun is not procured in a way that can be detrimental to the rest of society. Some of the posts where people are ranting about how Gun Control is liken to things like what Hitler did in Germany or violating their second amendment rights leads me to believe people are fearing for the wrong reasons.
The gun control the US needs is the fact that getting a gun is difficult, not easy, to get. The second amendment is on the basis that we are not to be disarmed 'for our own sake' as what was the reasoning by the British back when the US was still a colony of Britain. Colonists were expected to not have any weapons, to allow the British government to hold sway over the colonies.
What has been harped is the belief that gun control means just that... We are being disarmed for our own sake. If this was the case, there has been no law or suggestion of a law to say that if you own a gun or a particular gun, you must give it to the government 'for your own sake'. What has been proposed is the limit to what can be purchased.
Of the current gun control restrictions I have seen so far, the ban on assault rifles and large magazines were to limit the destructive power a person can inflict with said weapons. It is rare to need an assault rifle for home protection or a need for a large magazine.
One thing I did cringe upon is the lack of informed understanding of a weapon. Such as the one politician who was arguing anti-gun:
However, looking at SB 808, with regards to the Gun Control Bill... Only loosely looking at it, has nothing to do with preventing a person from purchasing a gun or to have a gun.
The bill itself puts several stipulations that are necessary to get a weapon, such as the weapon has to be purchased through a licensed dealer, it has to have identifying marks and serial number. Much of the information here points to what should be 'common sense' with regards to at weapon with regards to public safety as well as stipulations with regards to the purchaser as well.
Going with Gersh Kuntzman's "report" with regards to the AR-15... Again, while I have never fired an AR-15, a few things I have fired is a Calico M100 Semi-automatic Rifle (.22), a .22 Pistol and a .38 revolver.
Given the AR-15 is a .225 Semi-automatic rifle, it is almost similar to the M100 Calico, the round being slightly larger. The difference between the M100 and the AR-15 is that the M100 Calico uses a much shorter round than the AR-15, meaning it doesn't have nearly as much propellant, and I also believe the muzzle is shorter than the AR-15. The M100 also sports over 50 rounds in comparison to the 30 round magazine that the AR-15 regularly has.
With this said, I have fired numerous rounds from the M100, with no ear protection, hence my earlier belief that the AR-15's muzzle is shorter and the fact the AR-15 has more propellant due to the round size.
From experience firing the .38 revolver, yes, I was temporarily deafen by the sound, hence my understanding of the 'terrifying' sound and my earlier statement about the AR-15's muzzle and round. The .38 is a larger round and a shorter muzzle makes the sound much more pronounced at close range. Compared to the M100's .22 and muzzle, I hardly needed ear protection from the sound.
Which comes back to the report Gersh makes. He makes himself foolish by claiming its deafening and bruising his shoulder. This is an over exaggeration, as shown by a few people recanting his story with images of a children firing a gun and one man literally firing the gun from the tip of his nose.
From my own experience, again, firing the M100, even with its short round, there was literally no kickback in comparison to the .38. And even then, the .38 didn't wrench my wrist and at the time, I was about 19 years old in comparison to 51.
The only 'terrifying' part of a gun is, of course, being on the end that spews the bullets itself. A fear of a gun is not in holding or using it, it is being on the end of its fury with a user pointing it at you. The fear invoked by it is the fact that you can die from it and mishandling it is like trying to play catch with a sharp knife, tossing it around carelessly.
The 'PTSD' part of it only comes when you have been hurt by it. If you are easily started by loud noises, perhaps a little PTSD comes with it, but then, you would be afraid of fire crackers or car backfires as well.
The simplest example of anything is that most people don't realize what a gunshot sound is other than a loud bang sound. Many guns sound 'different' based on the muzzle and round type they use, and that is not counting the fact that there are silencers that can also alter or mute the sound as well. Not being the gun fanatic, even I come to the conclusion of this. What more, many of us mis-identify a gunshot as a backfire from a car, because we are USED to some of those sounds or even with fire crackers, because, strangely enough, they are used more often than gun sounds.
From Gersh's perspective... His report is flawed simply on the fact that he has not been exposed to the world at large. Even more so than me, and I am not that exposed to many things.
The thing of it all though is that we have too many people hyping their own agenda, trying to make everyone believe their current agenda, often times going over board on what they believe are 'facts'.
We need people to be less sensational about it and be more factual and accurate about what they are proposing. While emotions are high about certain situations, in the end, being 'correct and accurate' will go a lot further than 'sensationalism'.
