SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Guns are not a part of the culture of my homeland, except perhaps for the occasional Bollywood movie in which the bad guy meets his demise staring down the wrong end of a barrel.
My childhood in India was steeped in ahimsa, the tenet of nonviolence toward all living things.
The Indians may have succeeded in ousting the British, but we won with Gandhian-style civil disobedience, not a revolutionary war.
I grew up not knowing a single gun owner, and even today India has one of the strictest gun laws on the planet. Few Indians buy and keep firearms at home, and gun violence is nowhere near the problem it is in the United States. An American is 12 times more likely than an Indian to be killed by a firearm, according to a recent study.
It's no wonder then that every time I visit India, my friends and family want to know more about America's "love affair" with guns.
I get the same questions when I visit my brother in Canada or on my business travels to other countries, where many people remain perplexed, maybe even downright mystified, by Americans' defense of gun rights.
I admit I do not fully understand it myself, despite having become an American citizen nearly a decade ago. So when I learn the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention here in Atlanta, right next to the CNN Center, I decide to go and find out more.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/world/indian-immigrant-nra-convention/index.html
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday May 05 2017, @03:53AM
When socialists use automatics, they are AK-47s, based on the Kalashnikov, a gas-operated assault weapon that can be either automatic or full automatic, or jihadi "spray and pray" modes. Anti gun propaganda? That would make no sense! But anti-ammosexual propaganda? Yeah, hell yeah. Only the most fake-patriotic wannabe play-soldiers would want an automatic weapon. Autos are for the extremely lazy. And the highly inaccurate.
REAL MEN are marksmen, which means they will not use a magazine, or a clip, or a belt. They only need one shot, and maybe a second for backup, so double rifles for dangerous game, single-shots otherwise. And why play with a .22? Seriously, your bore is 5.56mm, and you call yourself a real man? Pathetic.
Of course, this brings up my pet peeve, which should be yours as well (stop worrying about socialists, it dates you): newspeople referring to "high-caliber" weapons, when they have no idea of what "caliber" refers to. There did used to be a idiom of "high-caliber" that was used in relation to things like people, meaning something like "of good quality". But for me, real guns need to be over half an inch. .54 is tolerable, but .68 is good, and a Brown Bess .75 is even better. So newspeople, stop saying "high-caliber" when you mean "high-powered". Of course, even that term is totally ambiguous. Maybe we should use the term, "beloved by many ammosexuals" to stand in for "dangerous weapon only intended for killing other humans beings." Good enough for me! But then, I am not really a Socialist.