Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401624 |
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
Now, you people who argue against gun ownership, regarding the fact that we support OWNING A GUN FOR RECREATIONAL OR SELF DEFENSE PURPOSES and not YOU HAVE TO OWN A GUN, what wonderful arguments can you shoot around now?
Who said that we think you think that everybody has to have a gun?
Are you getting confused? I think you need to take your meds. xD
Who said that we think you think that everybody has to have a gun?
You and partydevil and danielo.
Danielo - "you say the entire population need to be armed?"
SSTG - "Because half of it's populace is a barbaric savage who likes to feel powerful and collect deadly weapon and shoot them to fuel his power trip."
"Gun lovers don't think, they have this narrow vision of a violent World (that they helped create) in which you have to hide behind a murdering tool because everyone else is the enemy and he might try to attack you at any time. Soon they'll start collecting bazookas and missile launcher, just in case."
partydevil - "it is what they promote."
Half of my post got cut off.
Anyways, you constantly attack everyone who you thinks that guns should not be illegal as "violent" "barbaric" "rednecks" "hillbillies" and more ad hominems. You do not, from what I have seen, distinguish between different viewpoints and simply lump together everyone who doesn't agree with you into one of those statements.
I still don't see where I said that wI think you think that everybody has to have a gun? Anyway there's no arguing with a Republican because no matter what, he think he's right so I'll stop here so I don't start the year on a negative note. Have fun being right (in your mind). Also, Happy New Year! xD
I still don't see where I said that wI think you think that everybody has to have a gun?
You've implied it numerous times.
Anyway there's no arguing with a Republican
There you go again, stereotyping everyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat.
because no matter what, he think he's right
That goes for many people. The word you're looking for is "stubborn" and you are being hypocritical by making this statement: "Have fun being right (in your mind)."
there is so much wrong in this topic AGAIN!!
but i'm getting tiered of repeating myself. you guys keep this going for another week. maybe then i'll blast through it again.
only 1 thing:
kasic, knifes do not only kill less fast. they are allot less lethal and less dangerous in general.
No one replied to my last post, except for some long story by SSTG that Kasic already got to for me.
Anyway there's no arguing with a Republican because no matter what, he think he's right so I'll stop here so I don't start the year on a negative note. Have fun being right (in your mind).
We shouldn't go there... again.
Anyway, it would probably be a good idea to start over, as this is gone so cyclical it's funny.
I still don't see where I said that wI think you think that everybody has to have a gun? Anyway there's no arguing with a Republican because no matter what, he think he's right so I'll stop here so I don't start the year on a negative note. Have fun being right (in your mind). Also, Happy New Year! xD
My respect for you just went down further than a crow can fly. I am not a Republican, where the hell did you get the idea that I am? "Oh, he supports gun ownership, he must also support the Republicans and mindless killing" No, I do not. So, unless you can actually come up with an argument that doesn't lump me or the likes of Kasic and Emperor in one stupid, stereotypical heap, keep your hatch battened.
kasic, knifes do not only kill less fast. they are allot less lethal and less dangerous in general.
I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if I slashed at your throat now.
Knives can be just as deadly as guns, they have worked for thousands of years, but you need to be close to use them. If you are attacked in an alleyway, the most likely scenario if the attacker wants to kill you will be him slicing your throat open, or stabbing your gut, taking any goods he wants and running off, while the world falls dark around you. If he has surprise, you're doomed. Even a gun wouldn't remedy this.
Either way, knives are no better than guns. They're just melee weapons only. In fact, depending on the gun, knives can be even more deadly because most civilian pistols are small caliber.
kasic, knifes do not only kill less fast. they are allot less lethal and less dangerous in general.
That is true.
It is also irrelevant.
What is the issue we're discussing? Whether guns should be legal or not to own. Agreed? However, murder is already illegal, regardless of what weapon you do it with. Same goes for every other crime. We aren't talking about how guns can be used as more dangerous or destructive weapons in the hands of a criminal, because as I hope you realize, it's only the criminals/crazies who are using guns in ways which lead to harm. Therefore, the issue is this: How to keep the guns out of the hands of people who would use them to cause harm.
We all agree on that point, yes? The only difference between your stance and our stance is that you have some idea that people who own a gun are more likely to commit murder than someone without a gun, which simply isn't true.
Yes, guns are more dangerous than knives. Yes, restricting who has a gun needs to be done. However, there is no reason why someone who is responsible should not be allowed to own a gun for sporting/home defense purposes if they want to. Further, there are good reasons to allow qualified individuals to carry firearms on the off chance that someone does get a hold of some illegal automatic gun so they at least stand a chance at defending themselves if it comes down to it.
Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go on a murder rampage.
Just because someone shoots a gun doesn't mean that they're aiming for a kill shot either.
Anyways, long story short, the real issue is guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Our ideas of what methods are better may be different but I'm sure that we all agree people shouldn't be using guns to harm others.
It is also irrelevant.
I think it is relevant. Many of the arguments thrown up against gun control revolve around the idea that even if guns were wholly banned, there would still be murder with other weapons. Yes and no, I think a significant number of murders will not be perpetuated, due to the lack of such an item that can kill people so easily. No, because yes there still will be murders, but knife victims have a far higher statistic of survival, which will serve as a backup point to anyone taking that route of argument, and hence is a little relevant.
I think it is relevant. Many of the arguments thrown up against gun control revolve around the idea that even if guns were wholly banned, there would still be murder with other weapons. Yes and no, I think a significant number of murders will not be perpetuated, due to the lack of such an item that can kill people so easily. No, because yes there still will be murders, but knife victims have a far higher statistic of survival, which will serve as a backup point to anyone taking that route of argument, and hence is a little relevant.
You write a whole paragraph dealing with two lines of text, and ignore the remaining four paragraphs. It may be prudent to actually address the subject, instead of blasted knives, no?
As Kasic said, we're talking about why guns should/shouldn't be legal to carry around.
You write a whole paragraph dealing with two lines of text, and ignore the remaining four paragraphs. It may be prudent to actually address the subject, instead of blasted knives, no?
As Kasic said, we're talking about why guns should/shouldn't be legal to carry around.
I am only interested in addressing certain bits of his argument that I do not concur with. That is agreeable right? Or do I have to disagree about everything?
My stance on guns and gun usage has already been pointed out quite clearly throughout all 35 guns.
call it irrelevant. it is because of gun lovers that that argument came on the table as nicho pointed out.
so instead of telling me that it is irrelevant maybe you should adress the gun lovers that they should not bring up knifes in the 1st place. thank you.
I think it is relevant. Many of the arguments thrown up against gun control revolve around the idea that even if guns were wholly banned, there would still be murder with other weapons.
Wholly banning doesn't even fully eliminate murders done with guns anyways, it just reduces them. The reason they're reduced is because there are simply less out there. The same effect can be achieved without making guns illegal as long as there is strict gun control.
it is because of gun lovers that that argument came on the table as nicho pointed out.
so instead of telling me that it is irrelevant maybe you should adress the gun lovers that they should not bring up knifes in the 1st place. thank you.
The reason "gun lovers" bring that up is that they're trying to show that crime and murder are still there in the pseudo absence of guns because people who argue that guns should be illegal often act like guns are the source of all violence and crime.
You must be logged in to post a reply!