I am pretty sure that even most of the gun lovers, see those people among their ranks as nutjobs, but they defend them, because that's what people do.
Partly true. But hunters (or so called "fudds" with old wooden stocked manually operated rifles) are notorious for not giving a shit about sport shooters and self-defense.
But yes, largely, we band together. Why? Because we've already tried being reasonable and applying "common sense". The only result is that every 10 to 15 years, the left wing asks for more & more & more "common sense" restrictions. From full auto bans, to suppressor bans, to magazine capacity restrictions, to minimum weapon size ordnances. It gets stricter and stricter and stricter until there's nothing left.
That's why there's so much push back. We've been through this many times before. And it's only getting worse and worse. Often for things which are entirely irrelevant. And most often in knee jerk reactions aimed to exploit emotional reactions to a large tragedy. The fact you're "doing something" is more important than doing something which is actually effective. Because tightening gun laws (as is common in the EU) is so much easier than actually tackling the source of the violence. It doesn't help at all, but at least you can tell your voters you got weapon X & Y off the streets!
In the end, some things can never be regained. Like Cast Doctrine or the right to protect your personal posessions with violence. I can shoot someone that threatens me, but if someone knocks out my window and steals my computer from under my nose, I'm not even allowed to attempt to grapple him. I'm supposed to let him walk out with my belongings. How is that reasonable?
Once you lose these rights, they are virtually never returned. And when they are, it's usually by revolution or conquest.
Right now, in New Orleans, there is an organization offering free firearm lessons to the public. It's even advertised on commercial radio here.
I give shooting initiations and tutor novice shooters for free.
I like sharing my passion for the shooting sports.
I like Ice-T, still listen to his songs. However, it's really interesting that the guy who wrote the song "Cop Killer" is now quoted by the NRA-GOP'ers.
It's hilarious. I was at GMM 2015 and when he tried to get the public to shout about killing cops it was mostly silent where I was standing. Everyone just shrugged it off. I guess that's Belgium for you.
Do I have to KEEP SAYING IT?
That makes no sense, because Australia has strict gun laws and YET it has a lot less gun related homicides in comparison to America, which has a high amount of gun ownership. Places that have their gun rights stripped away usually have a lot less gun murders (there are exceptions, such as Mexico which suffers from cartels, corruption and crime) then the US, even though they have no 'protection'.
And do we need to retort each time that for every single example that proves you right, we have an example which proves you wrong?
Each side is cherry picking statistics and studies which suit their point of view...
"We can just make the guns ourselves" is a common fallacy amongst pro gun people. You cant just grab some scrap and make a pistol. Proper guns are built by professionals, and professionals only, with training, experience and machines.
You know nothing of gun smithing. While yes, you will not be building any olympic grade target pistols, you'll have a very easy time making double barreled shotguns (a simple trip to home depot suffices), submachine guns (do you even know what a STEN gun is and what made it so popular? well, there's even simpler guns out there that don't even need to be as complicated as a STEN), revolvers (cylinder timing is the hardest) and pistols (single shot & semi auto).
Anyone with a decently equiped garage can make this. The hardest part is rifling (but considering we made rifles in the 16th century, it's not that damn hard either) and munition (single shot is easy enough, but reliable ammo for use in semi automatic weapons without using existing parts and components is fairly hard).
What many people like yourself don't even seem to realize is that if you do end up making a gun, it's easier to make it fully automatic than it is to make it semi automatic. This is due to sear complexity in semi automatic or burst fire. Fully automatic is just press & release. So while you might see less guns on the streets, you'll see more spray & pray guns which cause more collateral damage.
And sure, guns as you discuss aren't going to last you a lifetime, but you forget that guns of this type used in crime are meant to use once and dumped.
If Polish and Czech resistance forces succeeded in producing THOUSANDS of submachine guns INSIDE heavily populated cities (Cracow, Warsaw,...) constantly patrolled by German forces, do you really think we can stop organized crime from doing the same thing?
Maybe you should take a look at Philippine home gunsmiths...
Either way, it's an entirely moot point. The amount of legally owned firearms which account for crimes in european countries is almost negligible. Criminals will find their guns. As long as there is sufficient demand, there will be supply.
That doesn't stop us from refusing Iran the permission to own nuclear weapons.
Which is highly ironic. If you built your nuclear weapons quickly (or covertly) you get to join the club of the "mighty" countries around the world who are allowed to make nuclear policies for the entire world. Yet, if you're not part of that select group of "friends" from the start, you cannot join.
One nuclear armed group uses bullying and intimidation to make sure their little powerful group is restricted to the countries they like. If a young upstart were able to build his own, he could threaten the other group with violence as well, and suddenly becomes an accepted member of the little secret society.
Nukes tend to be a defense thing in our society. Nukes allow for Mutually Assured Destruction (or at least "fear of damages too large to contemplate war over" in case of an upstart nation).
If Ghadaffi had nuclear capability, do you think France, Britain and USA would have tried deposing him as they did?
If Saddam really had a vast arsenal of effective Weapons of Mass Destruction within effective range of Israel and other western allies, do you really think the USA would have invaded?
The cold hard truth is that nukes for Iran are a form of self-defense from foreign influence. Sure it does not prevent meddling or even war entirely, but it does ensure everyone understands the stakes in the game. The upstart nation has gained the right to self-determination. It's a sad state of affairs that countries need to go to such lengths to prevent foreign meddling.
If we carry on the analogy, the nuclear armed nations are "the world police", whereas the non-nuclear states are mere citizens (maybe even "subjects" if you will). Once the subject acquires nukes or other WMDs (firearms), he becomes a free citizen. He has the means to cause harm to those who wish to hurt him. Sure, he does not really stand a chance in open conflict, but chances of him being abused and repressed are far lower than would otherwise be the case.
Which scenario is the preferred one, entirely depends on your morals and world view.
. I like to imagine that things are simply not as black and white as either side says it is.
