ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151189
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
2,175

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
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

I actually went to your profile to see if you were even from the U.S.

I'm against all kinds of war, violence, torture, rape, gun ownership, mutilation, spying or fighting in common.


"Gun Ownership" does not belong in this list. Gun ownership is a legal process by citizens undergoing a background check. I fail to see how American gun ownership relates to espionage and mutilation.

Citizens carrying guns for their own protections is never and will never be a good idea,


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.

but the US is the land of the cowboys and Indians, the so called Wild West,


I haven't heard anyone call the U.S. "The Wild West," especially since it would be both wrong and a few centuries out of date.

although there are almost no Indians any more.


Seriously?? There are over 5.2 million American Indians as of 2012, and they are living in every state in the U.S. The government recognizes 565 different tribes.

All most all Indian tribes were massacred by the so called forefathers of the US


The Indian tribes helped early America survive. You appear to be confusing the 18th century (George Washington considered American Indians as equals and wanted America to coexist) with the 18th century (Andrew Jackson and the Removal Act).

And with the latest developments it seems the US did not loose its wild side yet...


Has the U.S. been forcing natives out of their homeland lately? I'm afraid I'm going to need to see some ID.

Owning a gun is what terrorists do.


Over 270 million American citizens own guns. Care to re-think that statement?

They cause fear by blowing things up, killing people with their guns in cinemas or schools, etc.


Post a link stating that the men involved in legitimate terrorist attacks purchased firearms legally.

If you own a gun, you are a potential terrorist!


If you own a car, you are a potential drunk driver!

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.


Give me a link to how many American gun owners have become "true terrorists." You are taking things to an unfair extreme. With a knife, you have the ability to become a serial killer.

Only law enforcement and the army should carry guns,


For the record, why can't a policeman become a terrorist? He could just as easily walk into public, draw his handgun and start shooting people.

but I guess that won't ever happen in the Wild West...


You really don't know anything about gun control, do you? You even posted in the NYC Administration Code thread, where firearms are becoming actively banned.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,395

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.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

Sorry, typo:

with the 19th century (Andrew Jackson and the Removal Act).

abt79
offline
abt79
61 posts
2,120

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
2,869 posts
4,395

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

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

It's to bad that there are so many gun laws. I would like to own some of these:


Poor choices for your sarcastic comment.

The first one is an M61A1 Vulcan, a six-barrel, air-cooled, electric-powered rotary cannon that is operated by an aircraft's hydraulic system. If you want one, you'll need a fighter jet, like a $14.6 million F-16. You could always go for a nicer $150 million F-22 Raptor, though. And it eats ammunition at 6,000 rounds per minute. Better stock up.

The second is an M134D, and you can own one legally. It must have been made, and registered with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before May 1986, and the $200 transfer tax paid on it. The National Firearms Act states that any fully automatic weapons constructed before 1986 are legal for a civilian possessing a Class 2 permit to own. Apparently there are only 11 left and all are privately-owned. And they cost anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000, assuming someone with a Class 2 permit wants to sell one.

In other words, you can own both, but you'll need to steal a fighter jet for the first one (you wish) and a good $500,000 (plus an annual fee, a permit, a Class 2 license and a seller) for the second.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,274 posts
430

...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
1,274 posts
430

CURSES! A NINJA HAS APPEARED!

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

the Britain thing is completely useless as an argument against gun control


You're missing my point. I wasn't saying that armed citizens could defeat an army in any era. I was saying that armed citizens made America a nation. The claim was "Citizens carrying guns for their own protections is never and will never be a good idea." The key word is "never." At one point in history, American citizens (as a well-regulated Militia) used their guns to defeat the largest, strongest army in the world. That's a historic event, and it proves that the claim was false. Whether the same could happen today or not is irrelevant.
Nerdsoft
offline
Nerdsoft
1,274 posts
430
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

Nerdsoft got me.

Son of a bee sting.

EvilKittyCat666
offline
EvilKittyCat666
45 posts
195

Whatz dis? Guns? Nah...

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

09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

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

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

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.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

I rest my case.


*salutes* Nicely played. Nicely played indeed.

Whatz dis? Guns? Nah...

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


Wrong place for this kind of communication.
Showing 991-1005 of 1127