ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151571
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
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

So? It has no bearing on the severity of the issue, as demonstrated.


His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.


That would be a logical conclusion, but I'm fairly certain he means to argue something to the contrary.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,747 posts
4,340

gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

A lethal weapon, according to USLegal for example, is "Any firearm, device, instrument, material, or any other substance that is capable of producing great bodily harm or death from the manner it is used or intended to be used."

A casualty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary for example, is "A person killed or injured in a war or accident."

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,747 posts
4,340

I only found two definitions of "gun nut." One was on Urban Dictionary (hardly a valid source) and one was on Rational Wiki (which calls it a "snarl word," which means "a derogatory label that can be attached to something, in order to ignore it or hate it without guilt." This is a biased label with no practical meaning.&quot

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument, unless we are expected to use your personal interpretation of them as valid material. Through using the actual definition of the words (I took the liberty of using the Oxford English dictionary definition of &quotroliferate&quot, you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."

No. A lethal weapon is exactly what you stated above. Proliferating them, whether they be guns, knives, bows and arrows, bombs, or anything else, will never reduce the amount of violence caused by them. It can only increase the potential for injury.

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

I was referring to the people who are constantly ranting about how they'll shoot anyone who tries to take their guns and that everyone should be armed so we can all just engage in a firefight whenever anyone tries to do something and that they'll rise up in revolution and etc.

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument,

Wasn't particularly making an argument.

you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Although casualties does not have to refer specifically to a war or accident, only some kind of event.

apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,670 posts
1,500

I am introducing a new argument to this topic, also bumping this thread.

There is nothing wrong with having guns. It is a beneficial tool, and has numerous uses. However, if you love guns, and when I mean 'love', I mean that you have a rigid, one-sided opinion about guns. You feel that any attempts at gun control is an 'infringement on your rights.' People like this are blind. They do not realize that owning a firearm is like driving a car: When an experienced driver is behind the wheel, the car is very beneficial to the driver. But when an inexperienced person is driving, he poses a risk to people and can unintentionally hurt or kill.

Gun-loving people feel that they will not be able to survive the real world without owning guns. They feel that the world is too dangerous, and must own guns. Their fear is not unfounded. Crime in the world is increasing steadily. But gun-lovers let their fear get the best of them. They become paranoid, perceiving anything as a threat that must be handled with a firearm. Take, for example, these innocent people who have been killed as a result of guns: Chad Oulson. Trayvon Martin. These people were murdered by men who were inconsiderate. These men simply shot without asking questions, without stopping and thinking. They value their lives over other people's lives.

When will they wake up? Only when such a tragedy happens in their own family. Then, these people will realize how foolish they have been in thinking that guns are a solutions to everything. Then they will stop loving guns.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,730

Take, for example, these innocent people who have been killed as a result of guns: Chad Oulson. Trayvon Martin.

Both assaulted their shooters.

These people were murdered

Pretty sure you can't say that about the latter, as Zimmerman was acquitted.
killed =/= murdered
Only when such a tragedy happens in their own family.

If anyone in my family is stupid enough to assault (initiate force against) a legally armed man without cause, then too bad for them.
Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

Both assaulted their shooters.


Define assault. Olson threw a bag of popcorn at the guy who shot him over an argument about texting at the theater (during the previews), and not a single witness ever corroborated Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him. Considering the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck and chased down Martin, legally Zimmerman initiated the conflict with that very act.

Pretty sure you can't say that about the latter, as Zimmerman was acquitted.


The law isn't perfect, just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean they can't be considered a murderer. OJ was acquitted but most people still consider him a murderer.

If anyone in my family is stupid enough to assault (initiate force against) a legally armed man without cause, then too bad for them.


Yeah, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if your family member was shot after being chased down a dark street in the rain by a stranger and that stranger just happened to have a legal firearm that they used when verbally confronted. Or if they get shot for tossing a bag of popcorn at some grumpy old man that's complaining because they're texting in a theater before a movie starts. You'd have to be insane to consider either of those situations assault or anything even remotely severe enough to warrant lethal force.

Not really taking a stance on the subject, just pointing out some inaccuracies in your post. To try to justify the actions of George Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves as a response to assault is an outright lie. These men entered into a situation, antagonized another person, and then shot that person for the crimes of throwing popcorn and not being recognized by a neighborhood watch member on a dark and rainy night.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,730

Define assault.

"Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states."
here

Olson threw a bag of popcorn at the guy

The type of object is irrelevant.

and not a single witness ever corroborated Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him.

The objective evidence was far better than any witness:
"In a police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.[...]
A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor, taken a day after the February 26 shooting, shows Zimmerman was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of his head."
here
"The Volusia County medical examiner found that Martin was killed by an injury resulting from a single gunshot to the chest, fired at "intermediate range", between 1 and 18 inches according to a forensic expert.[15][Note 7] An FDLE analysis of Martin's body and clothes described the distance as "a contact shot".[107] The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death."
here
Considering the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck and chased down Martin, legally Zimmerman initiated the conflict with that very act.

Legally approaching someone is not initiating a conflict and does not justify a use of physical force.

that they used when verbally confronted

*that they used after being punched in the face repeatedly while being slammed against the pavement, and only after (reportedly) an attempt to seize the weapon was made

To try to justify the actions of George Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves as a response to assault is an outright lie.

I did not say that either was justified, only that the victims were at least somewhat culpable.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

No good will come from arguing for more gun control; believe me, I've tried. The real issue is, why is it in the US many people have such an obsession with guns, and feel the need to have them?

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,730

The real issue is, why is it in the US many people have such an obsession with guns

Some people like dangerous things (fast cars, explosions, thermite, etc). Some are nostalgic (like if they went hunting with relatives or adult role models).
and feel the need to have them?

For most, stuff like this.

For others (the &quotreppers&quot, it's the fact that all of our domestic wars have involved armed civilians fighting for what they care about. In that sense, it's like physically voting. Should the need arise, they don't want to be stuck without a ballot.

poiqwe321
offline
poiqwe321
1 posts
2,545

Hello! I love your game!

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

The type of object is irrelevant.


No it is not. There is no realistic threat from a bag of popcorn and no reasonable person would respond to that situation by shooting someone. You're the one who tried to claim that in these situations the victim initiated the shooting by assaulting the person who shot them, but a bag of popcorn is not sufficient to be labeled assault (the word reasonable is very important in legal matters). Unless you believe that a bag of popcorn is enough to make a reasonable person genuinely believe that they're about to be violently beaten, there is no assault there.

The objective evidence was far better than any witness:


No it wasn't. The "objective" evidence only shows that Zimmerman got hurt, not how. Pretty much every witness stated that they heard arguing before the fighting and several said that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, both of which disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him out of nowhere. It makes a lot more sense (especially when you consider the fact that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and was trying to stop him from running away) to believe that after arguing Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground, received those injuries in the struggle, and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.

"...shows Zimmerman was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of his head." "The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death."


I don't know if you've ever actually hit someone or fallen on any type of paved surface, but neither of these injuries fit the severity of what Zimmerman described. Had Martin really knocked him down, grabbed his head, and started bashing it against the pavement as Zimmerman claimed there'd be far fewer injuries to Zimmerman's face and far more to the back of his head, including the strong possibility of a cracked skull. Hitting someone in the face also tends to do more damage than a single small abrasion on one knuckle on your weak hand when you have a position of good leverage to punch someone full force, like if you're standing next to them or sitting on top of them.

Legally approaching someone is not initiating a conflict and does not justify a use of physical force.


Getting out of your truck, at night, to chase down a person that has already shown reasonable fear by running from an unknown vehicle that's been following them, and then pursuing that person onto another person's property is valid reason for someone to believe you intend to harm them. Plus, there's still the fact that the witnesses state they heard arguing so clearly Martin didn't just attack Zimmerman the second he was close enough. And, he was ignoring the rules of the neighborhood watch and the recommendations of both the police and 911 operators by recklessly pursuing someone he believed to be a criminal. The fact that they didn't convict him of anything is astounding when that alone can make for a very powerful 2nd degree murder case.

*that they used after being punched in the face repeatedly while being slammed against the pavement, and only after (reportedly) an attempt to seize the weapon was made


None of that is backed up the witness statements or the evidence. The fact that you only put "reportedly" before the attempt to seize the gun shows that you either know very little of the case or you're foolish enough to genuinely believe George Zimmerman's story. Unfortunately for you, his story changed every time he told it and he was caught lying more than once about what happened.

I did not say that either was justified, only that the victims were at least somewhat culpable.


Neither victim was culpable at all and to say that they are is an attempt to justify the shootings. As I said before the shooters were men who went into a situation armed, intentionally antagonized the victims, and then used way more force than the situation called for. Reeves decided that texting during previews was worth starting a fight over and then reacted to a, and I cannot say this enough, BAG OF POPCORN by killing another human being. George Zimmerman decided that any black kid in his neighborhood must be a criminal (in 2 years on the neighborhood watch he made over 40 phone calls to the police, most amounted to telling them there was a black teenager in the neighborhood he suspected might be a criminal) then grabbed his gun and chased down someone who had every right to be afraid of the stranger following him.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,730

Why did you ask for a definition of assault if your aim was to ignore it?

several said that they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin

Counter-witness.

and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.

Then the burden is on you to find those rocks.

(in 2 years on the neighborhood watch he made over 40 phone calls to the police, most amounted to telling them there was a black teenager in the neighborhood he suspected might be a criminal)

2004 to 2012 is more than 2 years, 7 (including the second call regarding Trayvon) is not most.
Source

There is no realistic threat from a bag of popcorn

Assuming it's somewhat dark (as the altercation took place during or shortly after the previews), an object was hurled at him. The prosecution would have to demonstrate that he knew what it was at the time and did not perceive a threat from it. If his response relative to the object being thrown was immediate (within roughly a second), the self-defense angle is plausible. If any longer, then there's a strong case that he did it in anger rather than fear. I'll wait until the trial for those details.
Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
363 posts
2,835

Why did you ask for a definition of assault if your aim was to ignore it?


I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that in neither case did the shooter have a reasonable fear of physical violence. The link I posted has the same definitions, it just goes into greater detail of what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent attack.

Then the burden is on you to find those rocks.


Why? There was no blood on the pavement where Zimmerman claimed his head was being bashed into the ground. Even if I did find them, what would stop you from claiming that Martin was hitting Zimmerman's head against them? My point wasn't about the rocks, it was that several witnesses and his own injuries contradict Zimmerman's story. The same story that you're giving as &quotroof" that Martin assaulted him.

I'll wait until the trial for those details.


Likewise, there's no point arguing this one until full details are available.

Counter-witness.


Also mentions that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered in grass which disproves his claim that Martin was bashing his head against concrete. That witness did not counter any of the people who stated that they heard arguing before the fight nor provide any indication of how exactly the fight started.

Good said he could only see one person at first. Seconds later, he saw two people laying flat, one on top of the another in the grass.


Some say that Zimmerman was the aggresor while one witness says he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman moments before the shooting.


Some who claim to have heard and seen the start of the fight (the moment you claim Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman thus earning culpability for being shot) vs one person who never makes any mention of the actual start of the fight. I never said that Martin never had the upper hand, just that he did not assault Zimmerman.

It makes a lot more sense (especially when you consider the fact that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and was trying to stop him from running away) to believe that after arguing Zimmerman tackled Martin to the ground, received those injuries in the struggle, and was knocked off Martin hitting his head on a couple rocks in the yard.
Showing 1096-1110 of 1127