ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 153036
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
Blacksmith

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
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,712 posts
Scribe

If you're going to try and provide counter-arguments, you are going to need to do better than that. I expect better from you.

Let me get back on my computer and I'll respond. I'll delete this post upon getting on. This is simply a placeholder.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

Which is what I had gathered. That you believe these people are 'irresponsible' and 'rebellious' due to a father not being present is sexist. There are far more factors at play than the lack of a male figure in the home. Correlation does not equal causation.


It is NOT sexist. It is a fact. In 2007 alone, 13.7 out of 22 million parents (over half of all families) raised a child while the other parents was "somewhere else," and 82% of custodial parents were mothers (this from the government census bureau), and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families (this from the National Criminal Justice website). An article by Kay Hymowitz titled "The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime" states that "there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched. Few experts...dispute this." (posted on The Atlantic's news website).

Then please explain why it is not responsible to leave a gun sitting on the counter.


I never said it was responsible. You only asked "do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?" and the answer is that neither is more harmless.

I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.


You already said that you stated it multiple times. I have already replied: you have no way of knowing that. The concept that "a criminal will more likely harm you if you have a gun" is not an absolution, as you keep insisting it is. The criminal may be willing to harm you regardless to avoid a witness. They may also be willing to harm you because they enjoy it. They are also entirely likely to flee at the sight of an armed homeowner.

As I have already stated, I would rather be armed and defend myself than be unarmed and hope that the intruder would have mercy on me. Your life is in danger if he is armed. You can hide (and hope you aren't discovered), surrender (and hope he doesn't hurt you) or fight back and at least have a chance at losing neither your life, the life of anyone else in your house or your property.

I'd like to hear your response to this part below.[quote]

As you said, you've stated it "multiple times." I have responded multiple times. Asking me one more time isn't going to change the answer.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

Sorry, those last two lines should have been reversed: the first is a quote and the second is my response.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

It is NOT sexist. It is a fact


Yes, everything you said there is a fact. What's not a fact is that it's because the father is missing that the child is poorly behaved. The father missing is a consequence of other symptoms on the mother's side, such as not having time to spend at home due to work, divorcing probably due to relationship problems, having a child while not married and thus being a single parent without help, and so on.

The father not being present isn't why the child is often poorly behaved. It's a slew of other reasons which are heavily related to the father not being present, or to be more precise, there being only a single parent. It's hard to raise a kid, much less raise one alone. But it's sexist to say that a father is needed to make the kid behave when that isn't true at all.

and the answer is that neither is more harmless.


Inherently as an immobile object, yes. But the gun has a far greater propensity for violence.

The concept that "a criminal will more likely harm you if you have a gun" is not an absolution, as you keep insisting it is.


Higher Gun Ownership Rates Correlate With Higher Amounts of Gun Related Death (Duh)

Gun Owners Are Far More Likely To Get Shot

From the second link,
"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."


Sorry, those last two lines should have been reversed: the first is a quote and the second is my response.


Oh. That would explain why I just spent 5 minutes scratching my head and thinking, "I don't remember reading this before..." while scrolling back through the posts looking for it.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,901 posts
Bard

I believe that the necessity for firearms varies depending on the are where someone lives.
Example:

A person who lives in a relatively safe suburb won't in all likelihood need a gun for self defense although they may want to get one for legal activities like skeet shooting.

A person (perhaps a single woman) lives in a place like South Atlanta or East LA and is greatly concerned about his/her safety. He/she legally obtains a firearm in case he/she is attacked, but he/she has no desire to use it unless absolutely necessary. I see nothing wrong with this at all. I fact it seems highly sexist to say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to protect herself from being raped.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

Recently, NYC initiated Administrative Code 10-306 b, which effectively bans possession of rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Anyone who has registered their firearm is now required by law to turn in their gun, send it out of the city or have the firearm &quotermanently modified," which I assume means disabling it.

This is directly related to the Second Amendment and it has shown that the government now has the ability to selectively ban firearms. Will this change crime rates, or is it a waste of time? Is disarming Americans (who purchased their firearms legally) a good strategy? They didn't do anything wrong by buying a gun. Or should they have been allowed to have one in the first place?

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 7:33pm
09philj

Previous post is a bit over the top in retrospect.

I've some time to kill, so I'm going to argue against every claim made about why people need guns:

1. For defense.
A gun is an offensive weapon. Unless you want to block blows with it, you are attacking, not defending. There is usually an alternative to attacking.

2. For hunting.
You can hunt with a variety of other weapons. If you couldn't, we wouldn't be alive today.

3. For sport shooting.
Keep the firearms for that safely stored at the licensed venue. Also, you don't need assault rifles for this.

4. I have the right to bear arms.
If you can bear at least one kind of arms, you can bear arms, so the constitution still stands.


Sorry, but you killed your argument immediately with this:

I'm going to argue against every claim made about why people need guns


"You don't need this" is, as I have said before, not a valid excuse. America is a Capitalist society. Free market. If you want to buy something, and you have the money (and it is legal to buy), you do not need a reason to buy or not buy it. You would be surprised by how many things you do not actually need.

You don't need a car. Just run wherever you want to go. Sure, it will take longer, it will be much less convenient and in the long run it would be better to own a car, but you don't need one.

Let's hit the bullet points anyway.

1. For defense.
A gun is an offensive weapon. Unless you want to block blows with it, you are attacking, not defending. There is usually an alternative to attacking.


Self-defense refers to the defense of life and property. Attacking in order to protect life and property is a means of defense. A variety of martial arts (which all involve attacking an assailant) are labeled as "self-defense."

2. For hunting.
You can hunt with a variety of other weapons. If you couldn't, we wouldn't be alive today.


If you would like to hunt fowl with a bow and arrow, feel free, but hunting with a semiautomatic shotgun is a much more practical method. In fact, there is no other way to hunt some game besides using a firearm (known commonly as "big game&quot.

3. For sport shooting.
Keep the firearms for that safely stored at the licensed venue. Also, you don't need assault rifles for this.


I'm not going to leave my $1200 rifle in someone else's safe, especially if I want to practice before the event, and if you want to compete in competitions like 3-Gun, you do in fact need an assault rifle.

4. I have the right to bear arms.
If you can bear at least one kind of arms, you can bear arms, so the constitution still stands.


By this logic, you have the freedom of speech as you are allowed to say at least one word. How ridiculous is that? Besides, in NYC Administration Code 10-306b, you are not allowed to discharge a firearm under any condition inside the city. You're allowed to own a few kinds of guns that you cannot shoot. You call that "bearing arms?" An unloaded rifle or shotgun capable of firing less than five rounds?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,914 posts
Duke

"You don't need this" is, as I have said before, not a valid excuse.


Shortly before I explained how your counter argument is invalid.

A variety of martial arts (which all involve attacking an assailant) are labeled as "self-defense."


People suffering from scizophrenia are labelled as &quotsychopaths". This makes it true, right?

In fact, there is no other way to hunt some game besides using a firearm (known commonly as "big game&quot.


If we take that as our premise and examine the evidence, we have to conclude that the firearm was actually invented by Homo erectus.
See Here

I'm not going to leave my $1200 rifle in someone else's safe, especially if I want to practice before the event, and if you want to compete in competitions like 3-Gun, you do in fact need an assault rifle.


1 I think he means that they should provide the guns, rather than confiscate them. Not to say that it would be a very good idea either.
2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs three banderillas and a sword because traditional bullfighting would be impossible without them. Do you see the problem with your reasoning here?

By this logic, you have the freedom of speech as you are allowed to say at least one word. How ridiculous is that?


Nearly as ridiculous as an argument from incredulity intended to refute an obvious fact via an erroneous reductio ad absurdum.

Besides, in NYC Administration Code 10-306b, you are not allowed to discharge a firearm under any condition inside the city.


If self defence is sufficient grounds to kill someone without conviction, I highly doubt this will still be enforceable under the same conditions.

You call that "bearing arms?" An unloaded rifle or shotgun capable of firing less than five rounds?


Technically, it is correct. Therefore, yes.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs...

Everyone in Spain is not a bullfighter.
He's not saying that everyone needs an assault rifle, just people who want to participate in specific competitions that require experience with one. But I agree that ownership is not essential for practice.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

People suffering from scizophrenia are labelled as &quotsychopaths". This makes it true, right?


The dictionary definition of Martial Art is "any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports." When I said "labeled," I meant labeled by fact, rather than by stereotype. In other words, no, but it doesn't prove anything.

Nearly as ridiculous as an argument from incredulity intended to refute an obvious fact via an erroneous reductio ad absurdum.


Fine. I'll be a bit more generous. If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm, "The right to freedom of speech" can be reduced to only one language, since limitations are irrelevant when the only parameter is "at least one kind." The only kind of firearm is an unloaded rifle, and the only kind of speech is oral English.

If self defence is sufficient grounds to kill someone without conviction, I highly doubt this will still be enforceable under the same conditions.


The conditions are "No shooting." It is illegal to kill in self-defense and will result in conviction regardless of circumstances.

Technically, it is correct. Therefore, yes.


Technically, it eliminates the purpose of owning a firearm, making the right useless. Therefore, no.

But I agree that ownership is not essential for practice.


The rules for a professional shooting league match, in regard to firearm, are: "Any firearm chambered for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge may be used. Any Scope may be used. Competitors may use any number of firearms to complete a target." That means you buy, tweak and practice with your own weapon. Any attachments are your expense. These rifles are designed for target shooting competitions, they are marketed to those interested in that form of competition and they are expensive. Plus, competitions occur in multiple states at multiple times.

For reference, here is a picture of an Anschutz 22, one of the more expensive rifles:
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/Users/groups/RifleTeam/Public/HTML/OtherImages/1913_lg.jpg

If I want to compete, I want to be able to take my customized rifle and ammunition from my place of residence to a range for practice and then to the location of the event. It is the most convenient, safe, and practical place for storage.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,876 posts
Scribe

Firstly, with a martial art, there is a lower chance of killing them outright and you have a greater control over the damage you do.

Secondly, for sports shooting, it should be a test of who has the greatest skill and not who has the most money to modify a rifle. A .22 rifle is sufficient for most purposes. As for 3-gun, it's one competition type out of many.

Thirdly, no market is entirely free. The ones that decide to be entirely free end up in deep trouble. Markets need restricions

If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm,

You seem to be under the impression that it's the right to bear firearms. It's not. It's the right to bear arms. All weapons are covered by it, and thus as long as a ceremonial broadsword is legal, it stands.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,914 posts
Duke

Everyone in Spain is not a bullfighter.


They are "needed" for the sport. Therefore, we can conclude, as Matt has demonstrated, that it is necessary for people to own them. Not just proffesional sportsmen with special permits, but the general populace.

"any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports."


Why did you omit the part that relates to their use of lethal force?

Fine. I'll be a bit more generous. If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm, "The right to freedom of speech" can be reduced to only one language, since limitations are irrelevant when the only parameter is "at least one kind." The only kind of firearm is an unloaded rifle, and the only kind of speech is oral English.


Yeah, that's about what it amounts to. Unless there is an explicit stipulation that says otherwise, such a restriction can hypothetically be enforced.

The conditions are "No shooting." It is illegal to kill in self-defense and will result in conviction regardless of circumstances.


"It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any gun, pistol, rifle, fowling-piece or other firearms in the city; provided that the provisions hereof shall not apply to premises designated by the police commissioner, a list of which shall be filed with the city clerk and published in the City Record."

So, what does the City Record have listed as the exempt premises?

Technically, it eliminates the purpose of owning a firearm, making the right useless. Therefore, no.


Irrelevant. The definition stands, no matter how impractical or contrary to public opinion.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,271 posts
Shepherd

Let's just agree to disagree with the NRA's recommendation on arming teachers.

Ronokar
offline
Ronokar
4 posts
Jester

I'm against all kinds of war, violence, torture, rape, gun ownership, mutilation, spying or fighting in common.
Citizens carrying guns for their own protections is never and will never be a good idea, but the US is the land of the cowboys and Indians, the so called Wild West, although there are almost no Indians any more. All most all Indian tribes were massacred by the so called forefathers of the US. Think about that. Guns were used to kill and guns will always be used to kill. And with the latest developments it seems the US did not loose its wild side yet...

Owning a gun is what terrorists do. They cause fear by blowing things up, killing people with their guns in cinemas or schools, etc. If you own a gun, you are a potential terrorist!
With a gun you have the ability to decide to kill a person or keep him/her alive, remain a potential terrorist or become a true terrorist. Only law enforcement and the army should carry guns, but I guess that won't ever happen in the Wild West...

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,914 posts
Duke

Citizens carrying guns for their own protections is never and will never be a good idea, but the US is the land of the cowboys and Indians, the so called Wild West, although there are almost no Indians any more. All most all Indian tribes were massacred by the so called forefathers of the US. Think about that. Guns were used to kill and guns will always be used to kill. And with the latest developments it seems the US did not loose its wild side yet...


You should probably consider doing some research before making statements like this.

Owning a gun is what terrorists do. They cause fear by blowing things up, killing people with their guns in cinemas or schools, etc. If you own a gun, you are a potential terrorist!


This is nonsense. Terrorists don't have to own guns. Having a gun does not make you a &quototential terrorist". There is no correlation between fanaticism and weaponry.
Showing 976-990 of 1127