ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151559
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
2,195

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?

  • 1,127 Replies
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

Let me set a scene-
It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.

thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Let me set a scene-
It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.

Or may be you can control this drug habit of your society, and all this unnecessary freedom.
Yoou guys, you make me laugh, you make a problem yourselves and then complain about it.i have a blood feud or something.
Also, even in that case, a revolver is enough, I don't need big guns unless i have a blood feud or something.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

I didn't mean you need ak-47 to defend yourself, and I'm not a criminal, I just chose the username "thematsaplaya" for the cool effect. I've never been arrested and I'm a law abiding citizen.
I certainly agree that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun or have military weapons.
Also, complete gun control, wouldn't solve the problem, it would only hurt people who don't get their guns legally since illegal weapons are easy to obtain.

Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,725 posts
3,620

I certainly agree that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun or have military weapons.
Also, complete gun control, wouldn't solve the problem, it would only hurt people who don't get their guns legally since illegal weapons are easy to obtain.


Well, that's one thing we agree about. I believe I might have mentioned all of that somewhere else in this thread...maybe not the part about obtaining illegal firearms. Yet it is true. It's easier for Carl Criminal to obtain firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) through illegal venues than Law-abiding Larry. Even if we banned the sale of guns to civilians totally, it would be easy to find a gun. Our gov't 'loses' entire shipments of firearms in Mexican drug-war stings gone awry. Guess where a good deal of those show back up? In American gang and drug shootings.
JohnWrot
offline
JohnWrot
1 posts
1,015

Love the new ad about the Bill of Rights!

A+ Armor Games!

IceClaw247
offline
IceClaw247
860 posts
3,835

The problem with people acquiring fire arms for self-defence in the USA is that it builds up like the USA vs Russia arms race, until one lunatic ends up with one and goes on a mass killing spree; which unfortunately happens fairly regularly. Guns should be only allowed to those who actually need it. People with lots of land who need it to shoot pests, or say a Hunter who gets paid to shoot game. Not people with metal illnesses or normal town people for "self defence" as they say.

Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

Dumb hippies, weapons are necessary for anyone and if someone wants a gun it's there decision. Ridiculous thread.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,726 posts
20,765

weapons are necessary for anyone

I've lived without one until now and I'm doing just fine. Tell me how they're necessary? Because even for self-defense there are always better alternatives.
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

I disagree with HahiHa for these reasons.
There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.
-Tasers are ineffective on people with thick clothing since the barbs on a taser are quite small. They are also ineffective on people under the influence of drugs such as meth. If there is more than one attacker, multiple tasers would be needed.
-Chemical deterents and pepper sprays don't work if the attacker is wearing face protection and they are weak and have a short range.
-Martial Arts are not suitable for the elderly, physically challenged, and obviously, not everyone has the time to become skilled in martial arts. Also martial arts don't help much if the attackers are armed with firearms.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,726 posts
20,765

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

Did you do that on purpose? That's not what I asked. You stated guns where necessary for anyone, and I asked why necessary.

There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.

Ok, so let's look at guns for SD. If there are multiple attackers, they could overwhelm you as well. Guns in the hands of elderly and physically challenged is not a good idea. And if the others have guns too, you lost. So ok, the alternatives are not great, but so are guns.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,747 posts
4,340

Hey guys, Matt here with his opinion (humble or not).

First off, I'm pretty sure Fiends is trolling, and you're better off not feeding the troll. Short, crude opinions are generally a good indicator, along with the limited number of posts. Just saying.

I might as well give my current status. I'm 21 and I own two guns. One is a double-barrel break-open shotgun that was passed down to me. The other is a .45 Carbine with an attached scope, bipod and two spare magazines in a stock holster, which I purchased at a gun show for several hundred dollars and a full background check.

Gun ownership:
I believe people have a right to own guns. Not only is it constitutional, it's a part of capitalism. The flaw is that those against guns constantly ask the same question: "Why do you NEED this? Why do you need a 30-round magazine, fore grip, scope, etc." You may be surprised to learn that all of that is irrelevant. The question is "Why DON'T you need this? Why shouldn't I buy an assault rifle with all the attachments?" That's a part of capitalism: If it's legal, you can buy whatever you want with your money. If you sit down and think about it, there are a lot of things you own that you don't NEED. You have them because you wanted to own them, and now you do.

Assault rifles (and other "military-only" firearms):
I believe a citizen should be allowed to buy an assault rifle for reasons stated above. Sometimes it's just a "thing." Stereotypically, girls like talking about their life, watching specific kind of movies and using specific beauty products. Guys like seeing things explode. I've never held an assault rifle and wondered what it would be like to kill someone with it. I've wondered how high in the air it would throw a cardboard tube if hit with a bullet at close range (the answer is over 10' from ground level). It's just a "thing." It's also an expensive thing.

Self-defense:
The biggest and easiest claim for gun ownership is self-defense. You're walking past an alley and a big nasty dude with a crowbar tells you to hand over the cash or he'll beat you to a pulp. You draw your Glock 19 from a side holster and shoot him 13 times, saving your life and defending everyone else. That is extremely unlikely. The odds of you wandering by an alley and being attacked by a thug in broad daylight are minuscule. But it IS a reason. If I was threatened, I would want a handgun to defend myself. You may be surprised to learn that the average human is not brave enough to attack someone aiming a gun at them.

This rule stretches considerably when applied to assault rifles. "I keep a loaded AR-15 beside my bed because if someone breaks into my house I don't want them touching my wife." In the interest of your own safety, that's a terrible idea. The average assault rifle chambers a .223 cartridge capable of going straight through drywall, plywood, glass, etc. If you open fire in your house, you will do a LOT of property damage and run a literal risk of hitting a neighbor if you have them. Sure it gives you an adrenaline "high" and makes you feel like Chuck Norris on a good day, but come on. It also applies to shotguns. Buckshot does not spread instantly. It will do as much damage as a slug at close range.

"I don't care if I damage my house. I can replace my house but not my life." Come on. Guys I know do not own assault rifles for self-defense. They own them because they are cool and you can blow holes in stuff with them. I know people who use guns for self-defense, at home and away. They carry a semi-automatic handgun and leave it by their bed. People often assume that the rifle is a trump card and it will automatically take down a bad guy. It isn't. You have to know how to use it first.

Having said all of that, there is nothing wrong with having an AR-15 beside your bed. It's going to do way more damage (and deafen your wife) and it's much more expensive, but you can.

Kids with guns:
As soon as I was old enough to pick up a gun, my Dad went over gun safety. He took me out to our backyard (we live in the woods) and showed me how to hold one, how to shoot it and how to reload. Before all of that, he explained to me that guns are dangerous and do not EVER play with them. Guns are not toys. NEVER aim one at anything you don't want to shoot, especially a person. Always check a firearm to see if it is loaded before picking it up.

To prove this, my Dad put a buckshot round in his 12-gauge and opened the breach. It scared the crap out of me. We were in the basement and I thought he was going to shoot it right in front of me. He didn't, but I still remember that from 15 years ago, and I still always check a gun when I pick it up.

Here's the thing. If parents and schools went over gun safety when kids were actually kids, gun violence would drop. Forget video games. I played "CoD 4" as soon as it came out and I was underage (stupid me). I shot people with all kinds of guns and it was realistic. Never once did I want to actually try it in real life. Why? Because my Dad was responsible enough to train me to NEVER do that when I was young, and it stuck.

Gun bans to reduce crime:
It doesn't work. It has never worked, ever, at any point in history. One of the few successful gun bans happened in Germany right before Hitler took over. Most of Germany had no interest in slaughtering everyone who wasn't German, but they didn't have a choice. No guns, no freedom, and with enough excellent speeches from Hitler they signed up.

Background checks:
I am okay with background checks. They are not as painful as everyone thinks. Mine took less than an hour and all I had to do was sign the bottom line, and it's good to know who has a few marks on their police record.

Conclusion:
Guns are dangerous. Teach your kids that guns are dangerous. If you want a gun, you can buy a gun if you pass a background check and have the money (if you don't know anything about assault rifles, look up the sticker prices for them. You have to really want one to pay that much). Gun bans will not stop gun violence to any useful extent. The best solution for a bad guy with a gun is, and always will be, a good guy with a gun (including the police). People that love guns will never convince the world that guns are safe, and people that hate guns will never make all of them go away.

And now I'm going to bed. That was a lot of writing.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

Well, that's a pretty thorough post, and I agree with all the way.
By the way, I'm just listing possible reasons why guns are useful. I don't need everybody who disagrees with me to try to nit pick my rational opinions.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

You have them because you wanted to own them, and now you do.


The issue isn't that people want to own them. The issue is that they're dangerous if used incorrectly and that there a lot of people that shouldn't have them.

I believe a citizen should be allowed to buy an assault rifle for reasons stated above.


I believe they should be able to as well, provided it's not kept in their house and is instead stored at a gun club of some sort. Why do you need to keep le dangerous machine made to kill crap in your home where there's nothing you could possibly shoot, instead of at a place with targets in a safe area?

The biggest and easiest claim for gun ownership is self-defense.


Those who are carrying a gun are far more likely to be shot than those who are not. Obviously, this is because anyone else armed is going to shoot you first and ask questions later. In the event of a home robbery, you're probably asleep or not already holding your gun.

The robber is. Going for the gun is a great way to get shot at.

You draw your Glock 19 from a side holster and shoot him 13 times, saving your life and defending everyone else.


You shouldn't have a gun if you think shooting someone 13 times with intent to kill is legitimate self defense when there's only one guy and he has a crowbar.

As soon as I was old enough to pick up a gun, my Dad went over gun safety. He took me out to our backyard (we live in the woods) and showed me how to hold one, how to shoot it and how to reload. Before all of that, he explained to me that guns are dangerous and do not EVER play with them. Guns are not toys. NEVER aim one at anything you don't want to shoot, especially a person. Always check a firearm to see if it is loaded before picking it up.


I agree that this is something that needs to be done. Kids should be taught how to safely handle things they may encounter, from matches to power tools to guns to chemicals. Not doing so is negligent on the parent's part.

Here's the thing. If parents and schools went over gun safety when kids were actually kids, gun violence would drop


Gun violence would also drop if we didn't give crazy people with a vendetta firearms and kept better control on the market. Less guns = less gun violence.

Gun bans to reduce crime:


Gun control /= Gun ban. This is such false dichotomy made so often it feels like everyone who isn't against everyone being able to own an RPG if they so wish thinks that instituting background checks, requiring training, and limiting the more military grade weaponry is the exact same as outright denying firearms to the public when that just isn't the case.

Not many rational people are arguing for the ban of guns. They're arguing for better gun control. That's extremely different. I'm for stronger gun control. I'm also for people being able to own guns and CC. What I'm not for is any random bozo walking into a gun shop and walking out with a pistol no questions asked.

Mine took less than an hour and all I had to do was sign the bottom line


See, that's not a very thorough background check. They probably just looked you up to see if you had a criminal record and where you went to school. That's barely better than nothing at all.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,747 posts
4,340

The issue isn't that people want to own them. The issue is that they're dangerous if used incorrectly and that there a lot of people that shouldn't have them.


The exact same description could be applied to motor vehicles. I clarified in the "background checks" section.

I believe they should be able to as well, provided it's not kept in their house and is instead stored at a gun club of some sort. Why do you need to keep le dangerous machine made to kill crap in your home where there's nothing you could possibly shoot, instead of at a place with targets in a safe area?


You're asking the wrong question. It's not "Why do you NEED this?" It's "Why DON'T you need this?" Why do you need a car capable of going over 100 MPH when there's nowhere you could possible go to travel at that speed? The answer is simple: you didn't buy it so you could travel over 100 MPH. The same applies to firearms. I didn't buy a shotgun to go break the law with it. And I live on 14 acres of private property. There are plenty of things to shoot (usually 1-Liter bottles of soda and cardboard boxes).

Those who are carrying a gun are far more likely to be shot than those who are not. Obviously, this is because anyone else armed is going to shoot you first and ask questions later. In the event of a home robbery, you're probably asleep or not already holding your gun.


A majority of home invasions wake the homeowner. Very rarely does someone wake up and realize their valuables have vanished. The only possible situation in which not having a gun is safer is if you sleep through the home invasion. If you wake up, you are infinitely safer with your firearm than without one for one simple reason: YOU know what you do with a gun. You have no way of knowing what the "bad guy" will do. You will use your gun to stop the home invasion.

There is literally no guarantee that the burglar will have mercy on you because you are unarmed. If you are at home with your wife and are faced with an intruder with a gun, you can only hope that he will simply take your valuables and leave. What if the intruder decides he wants to rape your wife? You can sit back and watch, and if you don't, he'll kill you and do it anyway. I would rather die defending myself with a firearm, if it came to that, than die without even fighting. Never, EVER put yourself at the mercy of an intruder unless you have no other options.

The robber is. Going for the gun is a great way to get shot at.


Doing nothing is also a great way to get shot at. He's already broken the law by forcing entry and committing theft. The best you can do is assume that he won't go any farther than that.

You shouldn't have a gun if you think shooting someone 13 times with intent to kill is legitimate self defense when there's only one guy and he has a crowbar.


Actually, I was being overly dramatic. I hear a lot of gun-happy people talk like that. I don't personally take that stand, and I don't conceal-carry. It's illegal anyway where I live.

I agree that this is something that needs to be done. Kids should be taught how to safely handle things they may encounter, from matches to power tools to guns to chemicals. Not doing so is negligent on the parent's part.


I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes without a father, and he's seen several of his students in prison only a few years later (he's a prison minister). Even parents who hate firearms should explain gun safety to their children. It's certainly better than nothing.

Gun violence would also drop if we didn't give crazy people with a vendetta firearms and kept better control on the market. Less guns = less gun violence.


Feel free to point out all of them so we know who to restrict sales from. Less guns = less armed citizens. Criminals very rarely purchase a firearm legally for several hundred dollars. Gangs have fully automatic weapons that cannot be purchased legally. Look at the current crime rate in America. This country has the highest jail population in the world, and it's growing. It's too late to restrict gun sales to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Criminals already have them.

Gun control /= Gun ban. This is such false dichotomy made so often it feels like everyone who isn't against everyone being able to own an RPG if they so wish thinks that instituting background checks, requiring training, and limiting the more military grade weaponry is the exact same as outright denying firearms to the public when that just isn't the case.


I assume you meant "=/=," as in doesn't equal. And I know what you're talking about. I didn't say "gun control" because I wasn't talking about gun control. I was talking about literally banning guns entirely, i.e. outright denying firearms to the public. I mentioned gun control afterwards. Gun BANS are indeed an issue because some believe that no one should ever own a gun at all. I was arguing against that, not control.

Not many rational people are arguing for the ban of guns. They're arguing for better gun control. That's extremely different. I'm for stronger gun control. I'm also for people being able to own guns and CC. What I'm not for is any random bozo walking into a gun shop and walking out with a pistol no questions asked.


No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it.

See, that's not a very thorough background check. They probably just looked you up to see if you had a criminal record and where you went to school. That's barely better than nothing at all.


What other records do I have? Besides blood work and a urine sample, there are no other records worth checking. I don't have a psychological profile and neither does anyone else I know. The concept of gun control is to keep people with a bad history from buying a gun. Checking for a criminal history is all that they need, and it is much better than nothing at all.

I think people often forget that guns are expensive. You have to save up or get a hefty bonus to buy one and pay it off. Why in the world would anyone, bent on killing someone, wait until they're old enough, spend a serious amount of money and go through a background check? Even if they did go through all the hassle and paperwork, it would if nothing else make background checks look less reliable.
Showing 946-960 of 1127