ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1091 157764
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
807 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?

  • 1,091 Replies
09philj
offline
09philj
2,832 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
3,045 posts
Archduke

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
1,267 posts
Shepherd

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

Ronokar
offline
Ronokar
3 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
3,045 posts
Archduke

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.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

For once I agree with FishPreferred, Ronkar's reasoning is absurd. A gun is only as good or as bad as the person holding it.

abt79
offline
abt79
59 posts
Jester

I think that would be bad if only the law enforcement and army carried weapons....I don't want to say why though....don't want to get carried away in the night....

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

It's to bad that there are so many gun laws. I would like to own some of these:
http://information2share.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/gau-8-08.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-As9prg_7Vig/To09xKM8N5I/AAAAAAAASlI/odZx36lO1B4/s1600/Minigun+%25284%2529.jpg

Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,267 posts
Shepherd

...Why would you want that? That's frankly just COMPLETELY unjustifiable.
Now, Matt. I apologise for nitpicking, but this is the intertubes. Someone else can refute the stuff I left out. Anyway...

The country exists because citizens carried guns. The origin of America was a war fought between the most organized army in the world and families with guns. Plus, people do not only carry guns for protection. Hunting and sport shooting come to mind and neither are bad.

I understand you're refuting an earlier point, but the Britain thing is completely useless as an argument against gun control. One, you're referring to guerrilla warfare. Not viable in modern American cities. Two, the UK is now an ally and even if it wasn't, it's still nowhere near strong enough to attack the US.
Three, aircraft. Modern tactics revolve around bombing everything flat, then sending in some troops to mop up the remains. As for hunting, the UK allows that too. However, that's only shotguns for those who have a good reason to use one. Like idiot toffs who enjoy brutally eviscerating foxes using angry dogs. Or farmers.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,267 posts
Shepherd

CURSES! A NINJA HAS APPEARED!

Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,267 posts
Shepherd
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,033 posts
Farmer

Nerdsoft got me.

Son of a bee sting.

EvilKittyCat666
offline
EvilKittyCat666
45 posts
Peasant

Whatz dis? Guns? Nah...

They should make a law that says MICE FOR EVERYONE!!!! Meow...?

09philj
offline
09philj
2,832 posts
Scribe

I have said before, and will say again, the problem lies in Americans liking guns too much.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,033 posts
Farmer

I have said before, and will say again, the problem lies in Americans liking guns too much


I'm not really sure why you'd think that liking or enjoying a firearm is THE cause for issue revolving around firearms.

This is like saying enjoying a vehicle is the problem people have with wrecks.
Showing 976-990 of 1091