ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151147
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
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

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


They don't just like them, they're obsessed. Plus, there are lots of highly paranoid people who believe they have the right to shoot anyone they suspect of being a home invader. There's also a ton of hard drugs around. This is not the right social climate for firearms.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

Plus, there are lots of highly paranoid people who believe they have the right to shoot anyone they suspect of being a home invader.


There's nothing wrong with buying a firearm because you are afraid of a home invasion and there is nothing wrong with attacking someone committing a home invasion. Given the number of home invasions committed, the average citizen has reason to be wary of them. If you have a statistic on the number of home invaders (who were not actually home invaders) shot by home owners, I'd like to see it.

There's also a ton of hard drugs around.


That has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

This is not the right social climate for firearms.


There are illegally-owned firearms and illegal drugs in America, so take away legally-owned firearms?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,818 posts
18,265

09philj:

[...] people who believe they have the right to shoot anyone they suspect of being a home invader.

MattEmAngel:
[...] and there is nothing wrong with attacking someone committing a home invasion.


Spot the difference.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

The problem is not legal gun ownership, purchases from gun shows or criminals stealing firearms from those who own guns legally. Here. Have some facts.
---
ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that stolen guns (private gun owners' homes and cars) account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes.

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

A study funded by the Nation Institute of Justice interviewed recent arrested criminals who used a handgun as a weapon.
-56% said they paid cash (illegal purchases)
-15% said it was a gift (illegal transaction)
-10% said they borrowed it
-8% said they traded for it
-5% only said that they stole it

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed that:
-39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member (non-theft)
-39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
-8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets
-3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
-1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
-0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show

According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft.

When it comes to legal firearms sales, nearly 60 percent of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number (1.2%) of crooked gun dealers selling firearms "off the books."

The vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun.

Sources:
- "how criminals get guns" (PBS Hotline)
-Jay Watchel's personal website
-"Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth" (Gun Victims Action, 2005)
-"Where criminals get their guns" (Daily Caller, 2013)
-Where do criminals get guns?" (Metro Trends Blog, 2013)
-"The Importance Of Crime Gun Trace Data to Studying and Reducing Illegal Gun Trafficking" (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health)
-"Guns Used in Crime" (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics)

yielee
offline
yielee
616 posts
1,830

The vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun.


And if guns didn't exist there would be 0 annual gun murders and 0 non-tafal shootings. That's just what they're saying.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

And if guns didn't exist there would be 0 annual gun murders and 0 non-tafal shootings. That's just what they're saying.


No, they aren't. The statistic is a comparison between crime and those committing the crime (in this case, those who could not legally purchase a firearm), not between crime and the number of firearms in circulation.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

The following argument and quotes occurred in the "Non-gun weapons control" thread. I'm posting my response here, since it involves guns.

I'm not advocating (Lethal edged) sword ownership. I'm merely stating that it's easier to defend with a sword than a gun.


Let me simplify it for you.

Your statement: "If we are talking in terms of the USA, I would prefer to ban all weapons except longswords."

My response: "I want proof that this a good idea. Specifically regulating weapon possessing to long swords as a means of defense. Prove it."

I don't care if you're advocating non-lethal sword ownership or not. I've made my request quite clear.

Defending is not the same as preventing attack, which is what killing an assailant with your gun does.


That was a Wikipedia definition. Let's consult the Oxford English Dictionary.

Defense: The act of defending or resisting attack.

Resistance: The refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument:

So you see, defense is an act of resistance, which is refusing to comply and taking action to prevent something. The tool you use to defend yourself is irrelevant. A firearm fits the requirement as well as any other object. Killing an assailant is an act of resistance and is therefore defense, or self-defense, but the definition of self-defense doesn't help your claim either:

Self-defense: The defense of oneâs person or interests, especially through the use of physical force.

A firearm conveys physical force in the form of a projectile.

Swords are long things. Like many long things, you can use them to stop swings from another weapon, or to push weapons out of the way.


A majority of criminal acts are committed with handguns. I doubt you could push one away using a blunt sword, and it's certainly not going to stop someone from swinging a pistol, since the attacked will most likely attempt to shoot you with it rather than swing it at you.

You could do the same thing with a rifle, but if you have a rifle you're likely to go in all guns blazing anyway.


A surprising number of citizens armed with rifles use them as rifles and not melee weapons, since they purchased them to use them as rifles. Also, give me a reference to a time when a citizen went in "all guns blazing" with a rifle (I assume that means emptying the magazine at a target).
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,818 posts
18,265

Right, so let's look at this logically. Guns are quite durable and are typically secure from theft. Therefore, the supply currently held by the populace should be sufficient for most needs at present. We can therefore expect modern day gun dealers to be catering to a notably diminished market, which would be a big deciding factor for going crooked.

If the guns used to commit crimes are confiscated at the time of arrest and not returned, the supply of illegally owned guns is diminished until more are aquired, but the guns used only for defense would remain relatively static.

You stated that nearly 60 percent of the guns used in crimes are from crooked gun dealers. Your statistics suggest that the remainder is almost entirely in the form of illegal gifting and borrowing.

Does this make sense so far?

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

If the guns used to commit crimes are confiscated at the time of arrest and not returned,
they do what with them?

You stated that nearly 60 percent of the guns used in crimes are from crooked gun dealers. Your statistics suggest that the remainder is almost entirely in the form of illegal gifting and borrowing.

Does this make sense so far?


Matt is focusing on guns used in crimes, instead of focusing on the wisdom of letting the general public (In America. If you're icelandic, no debate needed, knock yourself out) have guns.

Also, give me a reference to a time when a citizen went in "all guns blazing" with a rifle (I assume that means emptying the magazine at a target).

Here.
I have complied with your demands. I don't care if this actually supports your viewpoint, because it's an isolated incident. Let's go large.

In Iceland, 30.3% of people own guns. They have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world (Basicly 0). In the USA, 88.8% own guns, and 60% of murders are by firearm. The reason Iceland can enjoy this level of security is that it has a large number of things that the US doesn't, mainly a lack of hard drugs, a government that cares about you, and effective gun control. People have guns, but feel safe enough to keep them out of harms way. It is the world's most peaceful nation.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,818 posts
18,265

The reason Iceland can enjoy this level of security is that it has a large number of things that the US doesn't, mainly a lack of hard drugs, a government that cares about you, and effective gun control.


They also have a relatively small land claim and population, so I don't see that as being a valid comparison.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

They also have a relatively small land claim and population, so I don't see that as being a valid comparison.


It's the thought that counts somewhat though, isn't it?
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

I have complied with your demands. I don't care if this actually supports your viewpoint, because it's an isolated incident.


No one was injured, the break-in was thwarted and the police commended the homeowner's actions. One of the intruders was already armed, and he never got a chance to attack. All of this is in favor of homeowners possessing firearms as means of self-defense.

I'll reply to your other arguments when you respond to the first half of my statement, which you've been effectively dodging since you brought it up on Page 3 of "Non-gun weapons control."
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

Criminals buy guns from crooked dealers. In case of gun control, I'm inclined to think that nothing much will change as more gun obsessed citizens will go looking for illegal guns. To control guns, that bit needs to sorted out.

As for the Longsword thing, that was from when I was thinking of ways to constitutionally disarm everyone. Longsword is the least practical weapon I could think of at the time. Since then, I have decided it's more important to stop the obsession with guns first.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

They don't just like them, they're obsessed. Plus, there are lots of highly paranoid people who believe they have the right to shoot anyone they suspect of being a home invader. There's also a ton of hard drugs around. This is not the right social climate for firearms.


You're making generalizations and blanket statements which are simply inaccurate. You act as though all legal gun owners are obsessive freaks.

Second, a person is not classified as paranoid if they are owning a firearm in the instance of home invasion. That is one of the best reasons to own one. For protection in the event of an emergency that would cause harm. I would call that prepared, not paranoid.

Third, what do hard drugs have to do with anything related to this? You are a sensationalist.

To control guns, that bit needs to sorted out.


There is nothing to sort. There will likely be criminals for the remaining duration of human existence. You deal with it.

All in all, philj, I feel you have a lot of misconceptions on this topic.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

All in all, philj, I feel you have a lot of misconceptions on this topic.


I am, to be fair, facing the problem from the UK, where the state has taken a hard line on gun control and licensing, and gun crime is very low.

Third, what do hard drugs have to do with anything related to this?


In retrospect, it's the drug laws rather than the drugs. My reasoning is that in most of the US, possession of illegal drugs of any kind will land you with a colossal sentence if you get caught. Consequently, dealers committed to selling hard drugs will not be so bothered with comparatively small sentences for having an illegal gun.
Showing 1006-1020 of 1127