ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151964
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
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,040 posts
1,770

I disagree there. Registry has proven itself time and again as a precursor to confiscation. No to mention the criminals don't register their weapons, why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Registry has proven itself time and again as a precursor to confiscation.


In what circumstances? For when a person commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning a gun?

why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?


You don't think laws should apply to you because you haven't broken any?
FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
2,867 posts
18,680

No to mention the criminals don't register their weapons, why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?


Simple: Because obtaining unregistered weapons doesn't need to be any easier for them.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,980

No to mention the criminals don't register their weapons, why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?


It is impossible to make ALL criminals that exist in the US to register their weapons, even if you presume that all criminals aren't born that way (born into crime). And also, what makes you, a military veteran, impregnable from doing crime? What if ,say two years from now you are going to gun down somebody and the authorities can't find you because you don't register your weps? surely that is detrimental to society, and it should be their best interest to register you as a gun owner. i don't think they should add a fee though
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,040 posts
1,770

Obtaining unregistered weapons is easy. Very easy. I can go on craigslist, or to the flea market and buy weapons with no check at all. Anyone in my state can do so. My point is that implementing registry or restricting sale will not make it more difficult to get weapons. It just means the criminals have more targets as the average law abiding citizen will no longer be armed.

My comment about about being a veteran illustrates the frustration many people have in states with restrictive laws. Our goverment trusted us with the tools to defend her, yet we are being denied the tools to defend our families. In many instances citizens with no criminal history are now on the verge of becoming felons simply because bureaucrats have changed some of the laws pertaining to high capacity magazines, assault weapons registry, and number of guns owned. I feel this is a slight to citizens and an infringement of our rights.

I don't think anyone is immune to committing crime, and I understand the argument that registry may aid in the apprehension of some of the offenders in instances of firearm related violence. Again, we must remember that these laws only affect those who abide by them. Look at the laws against the manufacture and sale of drugs. Look at the number of repeat sexual predators who are on a nationwide registry. These are largely ineffective measures which have a negligible impact on eliminating the issues which they are designed to address.

If we truly want to change things we need to move toward new methods. It's rather clear the methods being used aren't working.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Obtaining unregistered weapons is easy. Very easy. I can go on craigslist, or to the flea market and buy weapons with no check at all. Anyone in my state can do so.

^Because we have absolutely no gun control/enforcement in regards to this. It does no good if measures are not taken on both ends: preventing illegal sales, and collecting illegal guns.

It just means the criminals have more targets as the average law abiding citizen will no longer be armed.

A person with a gun is four times more likely to be shot. You aren't safer. You just become a target in a disadvantageous situation.

My comment about about being a veteran illustrates the frustration many people have in states with restrictive laws. Our goverment trusted us with the tools to defend her, yet we are being denied the tools to defend our families. In many instances citizens with no criminal history are now on the verge of becoming felons simply because bureaucrats have changed some of the laws pertaining to high capacity magazines, assault weapons registry, and number of guns owned. I feel this is a slight to citizens and an infringement of our rights.

To me, this is stupid. Veterans should be allowed to own guns. They were trained to do so and are experienced. Unless you have PTSD or some other thing that would disqualify you, veterans are the optimal citizens you want with concealed carry. Note: I'm not advocating walking around with an M-16.

Again, we must remember that these laws only affect those who abide by them

But they don't just affect those. Imagine if every gun retailer had to register their wares. When police arrest a criminal who had obtained it illegally, they can trace that gun back to that dealer. That way corrupt dealers can be found. If the dealer doesn't register their wares, they're officially in the black market, and will have to be getting their guns by illegal transportation - something which isn't exactly easy for just anyone to do.

And the registry is only one measure. Another tool to use. It's by no means the only thing that should be done, and it shouldn't be expected to fix everything by itself.

Look at the laws against the manufacture and sale of drugs.

Inapplicable comparison. Drugs can be made in your garage. Guns can't. It's impossible to regulate things that people can produce themselves, but you need specific materials and manufacturing equipment, plus knowledge, to make a gun.

Look at the number of repeat sexual predators who are on a nationwide registry.

That's a whole other issue related to our failed prison system.

If we truly want to change things we need to move toward new methods. It's rather clear the methods being used aren't working.

The problem isn't that the methods we have don't work, it's that we aren't using them, or specifically, aren't being allowed to use them, by people who argue that only the law abiding citizens will be affected. Europe seems to be doing pretty well with the whole not many guns thing. Even though criminals don't follow laws...that's really weird. It's almost like having a law actually does do something.

FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
2,867 posts
18,680

Obtaining unregistered weapons is easy. Very easy. I can go on craigslist, or to the flea market and buy weapons with no check at all. Anyone in my state can do so.


In other words, because it's already easy, the only solution is to make it easier.

My point is that implementing registry or restricting sale will not make it more difficult to get weapons. It just means the criminals have more targets as the average law abiding citizen will no longer be armed.


In other words, weapon registry is bad because "registry" means robbing you of all your guns, melting them down, and selling them as scrap metal.

In many instances citizens with no criminal history are now on the verge of becoming felons simply because bureaucrats have changed some of the laws pertaining to high capacity magazines, assault weapons registry, and number of guns owned. I feel this is a slight to citizens and an infringement of our rights.


If they are becoming felons, it is because they are acting in opposition to the laws. I agree that these particular laws are poorly implemented, but that is an issue altogether separate from gun registry.

These are largely ineffective measures which have a negligible impact on eliminating the issues which they are designed to address.

If we truly want to change things we need to move toward new methods. It's rather clear the methods being used aren't working.


So, you are not arguing against government regulation, but rather against the regulation measures which have proven ineffective. Why, then, do you side with the hardcore Republicans and NRA lobbyists who fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any effective regulation from being passed?
apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,670 posts
1,500

What were guns, crossbows, etc. FIRST purpose? For use in warfare. They were used to kill PEOPLE. I am not against ppl who use guns on the job, but do you really need mil-spec assault rifles just to defend what's yours? all u need is something to keep the baddies out of your castle. only until zombies are at my door, i will not use a gun.

MattEmAngel
online
MattEmAngel
7,843 posts
4,340

only until zombies are at my door, i will not use a gun.


I was taking you seriously up until that.

But I'll answer your question anyway.

but do you really need mil-spec assault rifles just to defend what's yours?


No. I don't. But that doesn't mean I don't want one or shouldn't have one. Do you really need video games just to entertain yourself? Do you really need cooked food just to eat? You could entertain yourself with a stick and eat raw vegetables. You don't need it, so don't worry about it.

See how it works? You'd be surprised how much of your life I could erase using the line "Do you need this?"
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

What were guns, crossbows, etc. FIRST purpose? For use in warfare.

I don't get what the "origin" has to do with anything. Gunpowder was discovered in attempts to make an elixir of life, not explosives; silly putty was made in an attempt to synthesize rubber for airplane tires, not a toy; Heroin was sold as a legal non-addictive morphine substitute, not an illicit substance; Pressure cookers were intended to cook food more quickly and efficiently than conventional methods, not as bombs.
FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
2,867 posts
18,680

No. I don't. But that doesn't mean I don't want one or shouldn't have one. Do you really need video games just to entertain yourself? Do you really need cooked food just to eat? You could entertain yourself with a stick and eat raw vegetables. You don't need it, so don't worry about it.

See how it works? You'd be surprised how much of your life I could erase using the line "Do you need this?"


This looks like a straw man argument to me. Let's consider a different analogy:

You don't "need" a second kidney or an appendix, but you have every right to keep them. If the kidney ruptures, well, you would have a bit of salt, acid, and urea in your abdominal cavity. If the appendix bursts, you have a mass of gut bacteria in there. Unless the kidney is filled with live pathogens when it breaks open (which I've never heard any case of), the appendix has a greater potential and liability to do harm. Therefore, if we were to choose only one to remove, it would generally be safer to lose the appendix.

Video games and meat (despite what some concerned parents, and possibly vegans, may think) do not have any great potential for use as lethal weapons. Why, then, should they be roped into this discussion about the non-vital items that do?

I don't get what the "origin" has to do with anything. Gunpowder was discovered in attempts to make an elixir of life, not explosives; silly putty was made in an attempt to synthesize rubber for airplane tires, not a toy; Heroin was sold as a legal non-addictive morphine substitute, not an illicit substance; Pressure cookers were intended to cook food more quickly and efficiently than conventional methods, not as bombs.


I don't get it either. It shouldn't be about origin, but specialization. Crossbows are...probably just for hunting wild game, unless we include the museum pieces. A significant proportion of firearms, on the other hand, are designed specifically to kill people.
MattEmAngel
online
MattEmAngel
7,843 posts
4,340

You don't "need" a second kidney or an appendix, but you have every right to keep them. If the kidney ruptures, well, you would have a bit of salt, acid, and urea in your abdominal cavity. If the appendix bursts, you have a mass of gut bacteria in there. Unless the kidney is filled with live pathogens when it breaks open (which I've never heard any case of), the appendix has a greater potential and liability to do harm. Therefore, if we were to choose only one to remove, it would generally be safer to lose the appendix.

Most of that was medical fact. The only real argument is "You don't 'need' a second kidney or an appendix, but you have every right to keep them." That proves my point, not his. The fact that you do not "need" something is not grounds for taking it away. You do not need two kidneys, but you can have them and they serve a purpose. You do not need a "mil-spec weapon," but you can have them and they serve a purpose. Granted, a kidney does more good than bad for the body, especially when compared to a firearm, but that is, in this case, irrelevant. The only significance I am placing on the object in question relates to whether it is required to fill a need in life.

Video games and meat (despite what some concerned parents, and possibly vegans, may think) do not have any great potential for use as lethal weapons. Why, then, should they be roped into this discussion about the non-vital items that do?

It has nothing to do with them being used as weapons. I think my response above this quote applies to this too (I'm trying to not repeat the same argument in the same post), but it isn't about what the items in question do. It's about whether you need them.

Side note: I didn't say "meat." I said "cooked food." That applies to meat, vegetables, eggs, etc. I specifically avoided saying meat because I suspected a vegan argument might be made, and cooked food covers a much broader range of choices. You need food to survive, but you could live off of uncooked vegetables and fruit. It's sobering to realize just how little mankind truly needs.

FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
2,867 posts
18,680

The only significance I am placing on the object in question relates to whether it is required to fill a need in life.


That's the problem. The criteria he's using are not that simple, so the reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply. We aren't, after all, allowed to possess nuclear warheads, but we don't need those either. Is this an injustice? No. Is this only because it isn't needed? No. Therefore, there must be additional reasons, but this by no means invalidates that particular reason.

Side note: I didn't say "meat." I said "cooked food."


I must have misread eat...or something.
MattEmAngel
online
MattEmAngel
7,843 posts
4,340

That's the problem. The criteria he's using are not that simple, so the reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply. We aren't, after all, allowed to possess nuclear warheads, but we don't need those either. Is this an injustice? No. Is this only because it isn't needed? No. Therefore, there must be additional reasons, but this by no means invalidates that particular reason.


I think I'll wait for him to post a new response. Right now I don't see anything I disagree with. You probably needed to hear that for once, what with the "Fun and haters" thread.

I must have misread eat...or something.


Ahh. Well, it's a side note anyways. As long as someone somewhere eats meat, when they don't need to eat meat, the argument is unchanged.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,980

What were guns, crossbows, etc. FIRST purpose?

I don't know if all of you know this anyway, but the first "guns" is a Chinese cannon that can spew out fireworks. the first Crossbows , also Chinese invention is a pretty huge crossbows that can extend the range of one archer like about 2 fold. Only that early crossbow need like 2 people to operate, so they are used like siege weapons. the first crossbow is akin to a superweapon, capable of uniting china in Shi Huang Ti's banner. So, only the crossbow are invented as a siege weapon, in other words, tools to kill people. Guns aren't

Showing 1066-1080 of 1127