Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401454 |
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
A.You say "We", yet you can only speak for yourself.
And here I come saying that restriction is better than an outright ban. But I had to stop posting on this thread because people kept being... well people...
And here I come saying that restriction is better than an outright ban. But I had to stop posting on this thread because people kept being... well people...
same here.
only do i want more restrictions then most of the people here.
Crimes happen quite often in gun-free zones. In fact, if you aren't trying to mass murder people, anyone who had the mind to break the law wouldn't even need to bring a gun into a gun-free zone to be successful.
Crimes happen quite often in gun-free zones. In fact, if you aren't trying to mass murder people, anyone who had the mind to break the law wouldn't even need to bring a gun into a gun-free zone to be successful.
No ****, Sherlock.
We never claimed restricting access to guns would do miracles. But every unnecessary death that can be prevented is worth it.
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.
Criminals have guns because other rival criminals have guns. Criminals have a whole lot more to fear from other criminals than any law abiding citizen.
Not really. Countries with less guns have lower gun homicide rates. It's pretty simple.
I looked up the homicide rate of the UK and their homicide rate is very low compared to the US but their gun ban hasn't seemed to affect it. I don't know, maybe the stats are wrong.
Killing sprees really aren't all that possible with other weapons, unless it's spaced out over time or bombs are used.
Yeah but what about the majority of gun murders that aren't part of killing sprees and massacres? Also, there have been mass killings with a machete in the US. You don't need a gun but they do make it easier.
I'm for stricter gun control. I think it should be a bit harder to get a gun. I'm not for banning anymore than the guns that are already banned.
I looked up the homicide rate of the UK and their homicide rate is very low compared to the US but their gun ban hasn't seemed to affect it. I don't know, maybe the stats are wrong.
That's because as partydevil mentioned, we're a very violently culture. We praise strength, and standing up for oneself. Kicking the crap out of whatever guy tried to mess with you is met with pats on the back and cheers.
Violence begets violence.
Yeah but what about the majority of gun murders that aren't part of killing sprees and massacres?
Still easier to shoot someone than physically swing a blunt object. 1 finger pull vs full body motion, not to mention you can be quite far away.
I'm for stricter gun control. I think it should be a bit harder to get a gun. I'm not for banning anymore than the guns that are already banned.
I can agree with that, if reasons can be provided why certain guns shouldn't be banned. Or if increased regulation is implemented regarding more potentially dangerous weaponry.
No ****, Sherlock.
We never claimed restricting access to guns would do miracles. But every unnecessary death that can be prevented is worth it.
Wait, hold on. So if an unnecessary death occurs due to a rare misuse of a firearm, that outweighs those that die due to an increase in the homicide rate, even if the homicide rate overcasts the amount of unnecessary deaths that occur?
Heck, you yourself just admitted that crimes happen commonly in a gun-free zone, which is basically an area of restriction for firearms. Do you, then, consider the increase in the homicide rate necessary?
Heck, you yourself just admitted that crimes happen commonly in a gun-free zone, which is basically an area of restriction for firearms. Do you, then, consider the increase in the homicide rate necessary?
>.> okay, new tactic.
Give me three legitimate, well founded and cited (provide sources) as to why we SHOULDN'T place reasonable restrictions on firearms.
Pro Tip: The Second Amendment does not count because it may be interpreted in a variety of ways.
as to why we SHOULDN'T place reasonable restrictions on firearms.
It depends what you mean by "reasonable restrictions", as something being "reasonable" is highly subjective. Could you be more specific?
Fine, a reasonable restriction would be something like a background check to make sure that the individual does not have a history of violence, criminal activity, and mental instability which may pose a potentioal threat at a future date.
Another one would be requiring the individual to show all around competency through some form of examination.
not have a history of violence, criminal activity, and mental instability
I'd totally agree with that on the surface, but the specifics could be unfairly implemented. "What counts as a history of violence?" How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone? "What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia. Also, "What types of criminal activity?" as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.
@zombinator, you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.
I said restrictions of gun licences will not get the US rid of all crimes. Point. What I mean by that is that is that there will still be certain crimes happening in all zones, independent of the gun laws; logically, as guns are not the source of all crimes. But compared to other zones, those with more strict regulations will be able to prevent a few unnecessary deaths, thus having a few less than the other zones. I don't see where you got that increase in homicide rate from, on the contrary, less homicides will happen.
How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone? "What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia. Also, "What types of criminal activity?" as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.
-_-' okay now you're just dragging this into the absurd.
Look, I'm not an expert, and you seem to be wanting me to give you a magical answer for the nitty gritty details I don't have.
Although there is a statistic in Australija where the homicide rate click here Just food for thought its a google link but all the links say the same thing.
whoop here's an actual site or search "did the homicide rate in australia increased after guns were banned" or something like that http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
You must be logged in to post a reply!