Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401101 |
Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
- 1,089 Replies
Apologies, I'm a bit of an idiot. I misred the article you linked to about police chiefs. For some reason I thought they wanted to ban guns. My bad. Although, I do believe they are more biased than the average citizen. I'm not saying they shouldn't have a say (they might have some good ideas) just that they have a horse in the race.
I
t's just as easy to claim the police are inept and that people don't use guns for crimes. The statistics show otherwise.
No, most criminals do use guns to commit crimes. I wasn't saying all or even most police are inept and it's their fault but that its easy to blame something or someone else. I only meant that their experience with guns is almost always negative.
Perhaps, but hunting rifles are made for hunting. That's what people use them for. You don't hunt with an assault rifle. I would agree that large clip handguns might be reasonable to restrict, or have modified.
Some people hunt with ARs and AKs. You'd probably have to rechamber an AR to a higher caliber for any real hunting though. .223 is not very powerful. Guns are guns they mostly do the same thing.
Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
I never disagreed with that. Just the quoted statement, where he added something unnecessary to his post for the sole purpose of insulting Americans.
might be insulting. but it's just my mind at work. no insult mend, leave alone have a purpose.
No, most criminals do use guns to commit crimes.
they use them because their victims have guns aswell. it's a circle of violence that has to be broken.
if their victims have no gun then they would not need a gun either. a small criminal will rather buy some drugs then a gun.
and if you as victim has no gun then there is no need for the criminal to shoot you. only if you as victim point a gun at him he might start shooting in reaction. escalating the whole situation.
I only meant that their experience with guns is almost always negative.
That's because guns are a mostly negative thing...It's like, if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it.
There isn't an issue when something isn't abused.
That's because guns are a mostly negative thing...It's like, if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it.
There isn't an issue when something isn't abused.
That's pretty incorrect. Number of households with a gun = 117,181,000 and The number of gun murders = about 11,000 a year. If only 1% of gun owners use they're guns for hunting, target practice, competition, etc once a year then guns are used 100 times more for lawful purposes than for illegal ones. Legal uses of a gun far far outweigh the illegal uses. I'm not saying guns are great or everyone should have one, I just don't see how they're mostly negative when lawful positive uses far exceed the unlawful negative uses.
That's pretty incorrect. Number of households with a gun = 117,181,000 and The number of gun murders = about 11,000 a year. If only 1% of gun owners use they're guns for hunting, target practice, competition, etc once a year then guns are used 100 times more for lawful purposes than for illegal ones.
You missed the qualifier statement. Read it again.
" if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it."
Neutral uses do not affect it. If people want to blow up their watermelons instead of offsetting the deaths by defending lives with them, that means +0 lives saved, when other people are out murdering others by dropping watermelons.
Legal uses of a gun far far outweigh the illegal uses.
Injuries caused by guns far outweigh injuries prevented. You're comparing the wrong thing.
than they were used to defend lives
Well I have no idea how many times guns are used to defend lives vs taking lives. Gun statistics can get pretty weird, depending where you get em from.
Neutral uses do not affect it. If people want to blow up their watermelons instead of offsetting the deaths by defending lives with them, that means +0 lives saved, when other people are out murdering others by dropping watermelons.
Its a serious topic but the whole watermelon analogy gives me the giggles. I can't take talking about dropping watermelons to kill people seriously lol
Injuries caused by guns far outweigh injuries prevented. You're comparing the wrong thing.
I see your point. Though, I believe people don't put these statistics into context. They repeat these numbers and say how atrocious they are.
Well I have no idea how many times guns are used to defend lives vs taking lives. Gun statistics can get pretty weird, depending where you get em from.
That's the problem with statistics. How they are gathered, who was polled, how the data is presented, and many, many other factors influence how they turn out.
Its a serious topic but the whole watermelon analogy gives me the giggles. I can't take talking about dropping watermelons to kill people seriously lol
Oh well.
I see your point. Though, I believe people don't put these statistics into context. They repeat these numbers and say how atrocious they are.
The fool looks smart when he mimics the wise-man. Regardless, facts are facts even if people don't understand why something is what they claim. A crazy person saying a bus was going to run them over that day, without any reason to believe so at the time of the claim, wasn't wrong if it actually happened.
When everyone is talking about gun control, they miss one important point. If they outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. If this happens, then our cops and good people have what to protect them? a knife? No matter what they do for gun control, bad people will have guns. besides, i will never give up my guns. I shoot skeet and i also hunt. Their is no way that i will give up my guns.
When everyone is talking about gun control, they miss one important point.
The ones missing one important point are people who think increase gun control = no guns at all. Here, let me help you. This is from the previous page.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
No matter what they do for gun control, bad people will have guns
Except there will be less of them. That's like saying because firefighters arrive at the scene when the house is already burning, they should just let it burn to the ground because the house will still be damaged.
A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.
B.No, it's like installing more antivirus softwares in people's computers even though said antivirus software has failed to work to stop viruses.
C.Please educate me when a mass killing spree occurred outside of a gun-free zone.
D." if watermelons were used as tools of murder hundreds of times more than they were used to defend lives, watermelons would be restricted to people who weren't going to kill someone with it."
So we're looking at [Insert weapon here] deaths instead of total deaths?
A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.
Multiple people have expressed over the course of this thread that they wish an increase in gun control. Not complete revocation. Only a small number have said no civilian firearms at all.
B.No, it's like installing more antivirus softwares in people's computers even though said antivirus software has failed to work to stop viruses.
Not really. Countries with less guns have lower gun homicide rates. It's pretty simple.
C.Please educate me when a mass killing spree occurred outside of a gun-free zone.
An odd way to phrase that.
Here's a list of killing sprees. I don't know how many of those occurred with another armed person present, but the vast majority of them used a firearm.
Killing sprees really aren't all that possible with other weapons, unless it's spaced out over time or bombs are used.
So we're looking at [Insert weapon here] deaths instead of total deaths?
I'm comparing it to avoid using the word 'guns' since people flip out the moment you mention stricter gun laws. The idea was to create a hypothetical where an object which, when left alone, killed no one. It had it's uses for sport, was used as a weapon of murder, or conversely used to save lives.
I don't want stricter gun laws because they're guns. If no one killed with guns, no one would be complaining that people had them. If watermelons caused tens of thousands of deaths a year as a murder weapon, I'd be advocating a restriction on watermelons.
The point isn't "what they were made for" or "what people can do with them.'
It's what they ARE doing with them. Guns are the most common weapon in murders where countries have lackadaisical gun control. That should tell you something pretty obvious.
So far we've been looking at the tactical aspects of guns and their control. But WHAT about the personal part? What do guns do to our SOULS? Guns make murder so easy, so quick, weatheras without one you'd have to use other weapons like a club or knife. Squeezing the trigger is a small motion. Swinging a club is a pretty big motion. So a person can kill way easier with a gun than with a club. Murder is the most defining moment of a person's life-you end someone's exietence! They could've done so much, loved someone, contributed to charity, whatever-and you are responsible for stopping all of that. People will miss that person, people will suffer-you will cause untold suffering. Unless you're not already a psycho, it shakes you up inside, fractures your head at least a little bit. And you enjoy it, you enjoy the rush of addrenaline and you realize you have the power over LIFE AND DEATH ITSELF! You can take life whenever you please! And a psychopath is born.
That's just the mental/emotional part! Assume you wanna kill someone. You're fat, out of shape. All you gotta do is buy a gun and use one hand to shoot. Well, you're still fat and out of shape. If you didn't have a gun, and assuming you wanted to kill him badly enough, you'd work out, get tough and muscular and in shape, and then rip his head off. Okay, he's still dead, maybe a bit more mess, but now you're a hulking mass of deadly muscle. Well, i'd rather be fit than flab.
What's this have to do with gun control? I just gave a whole bunch of evidence that guns are dangerous. They should be controlled.
They could've done so much, loved someone, contributed to charity, whatever-and you are responsible for stopping all of that.
Or they could have killed someone else eventually. Just saying.
But WHAT about the personal part? What do guns do to our SOULS?
Well, you'd first have to prove that souls exist, then shoot one and find out.
And you enjoy it, you enjoy the rush of addrenaline and you realize you have the power over LIFE AND DEATH ITSELF! You can take life whenever you please! And a psychopath is born.
1) Psychopaths are not inherently violent.
2) You don't just turn into a psychopath like that.
3) Psychopath /= mass murderer.
4) Google psychopath and at least read the wiki.
Assume you wanna kill someone.
And....we stop there. If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it unless stopped first. Doesn't matter if it's a gun or arson or a knife or a car or whatever else.
If you didn't have a gun, and assuming you wanted to kill him badly enough, you'd work out, get tough and muscular and in shape, and then rip his head off. Okay, he's still dead, maybe a bit more mess, but now you're a hulking mass of deadly muscle. Well, i'd rather be fit than flab.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that we should keep guns around so fat crazy people don't get fit and then go nuts with their huge muscles? Please, go dunk your head into a tub of cold water for a second.
I just gave a whole bunch of evidence that guns are dangerous.
No, you didn't. All you did was inaccurately portray psychopaths and then say fat people need guns to kill others.
A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.
Though I really don't like guns in the hands of everyone, I also advocate restriction instead of ban. Cars also kill thousands of people, and they're not banned. Car licences are probably way more restrictive than gun licences, time to adapt the situation.
Besides, as already mentioned, other objects like cars or in your example, watermelons, don't have the initial purpose to harm anyone. You can use anything as a weapon. But guns are here, usually, for self-defence and work by harming or killing people. Yet gun owners live way more risky than those without guns, as a burglar is more likely to shoot on someone that opposes a real threat instead of an unarmed one he can simply rob. Imo guns for self-defence kinda spoil their own purpose.
You must be logged in to post a reply!