Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401975 |
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
Do to the fact I don't live in the US, I am intrigued by this picture. What's so bad about it? Tis a girl using a machine gun.
Oops, I thought her name was in the picture. She's Bristol Palin, daughter of the infamous Sarah Palin.
You really think we don't have that over here. example of exactly what you stated.
It shouldn't be happening in the US because it is supposed to be a civilized country.
Dis someone post that before? I remember reading it.
It probably showed up in the Theism and Atheism thread back when people like macfan1 were claiming that Christians couldn't be extremist and any bad they did was from nonreligious motives.
It shouldn't be happening in the US because it is supposed to be a civilized country.
If you read the whole article, you'd probably be disgusted. The Christian family kept trying to intimidate the storyteller. At the end of the sentencing they made comments like "The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist" and to think, they have "Thou shalt not kill"
It shouldn't be happening in the US because it is supposed to be a civilized country.
How things should be has little to do with how things are. What about the extremist nut in Norway? He got all of his guns (apart from some imported magazines) and bomb materials in Europe. Europe should be civilized, too. How did that happen?
How things should be has little to do with how things are. What about the extremist nut in Norway? He got all of his guns (apart from some imported magazines) and bomb materials in Europe. Europe should be civilized, too. How did that happen?
Exceptions of the general. It's rare, that's why it still matters.
The point is, he made an exception lowering gun restrictions in places with extremism/terrorism, yet wants it limited in other places with extremism/terrorism. According to a report (granted, it's a bit old) there are 25k (high estimate) taliban members in Afghanistan of a population of, according to wiki, 30,419,928. That's less than a tenth of a percent. What warrants his support of guns there?
The point is, he made an exception lowering gun restrictions in places with extremism/terrorism, yet wants it limited in other places with extremism/terrorism. According to a report (granted, it's a bit old) there are 25k (high estimate) taliban members in Afghanistan of a population of, according to wiki, 30,419,928. That's less than a tenth of a percent. What warrants his support of guns there?
OMG, you really have the need to win your point that badly?
OMG, you really have the need to win your point that badly?
Win it he did though. You previously stated that it's reasonable to have guns to defend yourself from those crazy people, and he just showed that the amount you deem necessary is less than a tenth of a percent for it to warrant gun ownership.
So either find some different statistics, revoke your statement, or accept that what we're arguing is reasonable.
Win it he did though. You previously stated that it's reasonable to have guns to defend yourself from those crazy people, and he just showed that the amount you deem necessary is less than a tenth of a percent for it to warrant gun ownership.
Afghanistan and USA are two different countries with different traditions and history. They've (Afghanistan and the surrounding regions) been at war for a few thousand years and got occupied by many nations, had all kinds of conflicts started even before the silk road.
The US history is totally different and there is no Taliban here, except for the Tea Party maybe.
Afghanistan and USA are two different countries with different traditions and history
If you want to argue traditions, it's the USA's tradition to allow people to own guns.
If you want to argue history, you're contradicting your prior statements in that it's better to not have guns in civilian hands, period.
The US history is totally different and there is no Taliban here, except for the Tea Party maybe.
But there are crazy people.
If you want to argue history, you're contradicting your prior statements in that it's better to not have guns in civilian hands, period.
Yes it is, and it should be like this everywhere in the World if guns didn't exist.
and it should be like this everywhere in the World if guns didn't exist.
"If guns didn't exist, guns wouldn't exist"?
"If guns didn't exist, guns wouldn't exist"?
Would you exist if you didn't exist? xD
I think he meant that those who do not have access to guns, (hint: everyone who isn't a guard or the military) cannot buy body armor. But why is this?
He doesn't define who needs it, and seems to cover a very broad range of people. Shopkeepers. Lawyers. Politicians.
hey've (Afghanistan and the surrounding regions) been at war for a few thousand years and got occupied by many nations,
afganistan was a normal civilized country untill russia invaded it.
if we go back thousands of years. almost non of the countries of today exist. they all have been in wars.
what i dont understand is just how you can compare usa whit a country where a war is going on.
You must be logged in to post a reply!