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
I've already discussed it in another thread, but overall the U.S. averages only slightly higher than seemingly peaceful European nations that do have gun control laws, like the UK, and that's without factoring in matters like population, landmass, population density, and population diversity.I already explained this on the last page so: No.
News organizations, lobbyists, and corporations are all notorious for cherry picking who they poll for the sake of swinging the results in their favor.Yes, and the gun lobby is one of those habitual cherry-pickers.
In this case, gun control advocates are using the same means of manipulating stupid people into supporting their cause rather than using actual facts or evidence to convince those in power.The whole and entire point of gun control legislation is to reduce the occurrence of crimes. It is as much rebranding as calling gumballs "candy".
You propped up an article as a good read with substantive claims, but after reading 20% of it I found myself wading through enough blatant unsupported rhetoric that I wasn't even willing to finish reading the article.Really? Show me any 5 that weren't from quotes.
When I refuse to finish something that quickly, it's garbage.Because your personal opinion on the validity of an article is the universal standard that everyone must adhere to. Of course, I must have forgotten.
That first section of the article was 4 paragraphs, 3 sentences, and 1 presidential quote but that was all it took for me to lose interest in the article.If you can't be bothered to look at any of the details in the remainder of the article, your analysis isn't going to be worth much. All you're doing here is making a fool of yourself, and conveniently ignoring reality isn't going to change that.
He's spent 25 years reading politically biased news stories, watching politically biased news channels, and discussing it with friends who hold the same biases on the subject he does.The pretentiousness of that assumption is only surpassed by its hypocricy. All news stories are biased. Every opinion is biased. All you've established here is that he's been living a normal life in a modern first-world setting. You attempt to discredit him by suggesting without evidence that he is ignorant of the reality of the issue due to his biases, yet, by your own admission, you have shown that your own biases prevent you from even reading the whole article.
He's most well known for the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, a hypothesis that states legalized abortion is killing off criminals before they can be born but shrugs it's shoulders at why nations that haven't legalized abortion are seeing similar drops in crime rates.1 It's a study (as in, an analytical investigation of real data); not a hypothesis (a speculative proposal as to the possible outcome of a study or experiment).
2 The study compared the crime rates of different U.S. states. What happened in other nations was beyond the scope of the study.
3 It does not state that legalized abortion is killing off criminals. It doesn't even conclude anything like that.
This is a very wide subject that requires a lot of time spent studying details and defining the severity of events to gain a true understanding of it.
That is precisely why I mentioned his 25 years of research on the topic which, unlike you (and I), certainly put him in a position of 'true understanding'.
Take, for example, the second sentence of the article:
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued."
This (and the following sentence) carry the implication that the NRA had something to do with the lack of federal action. While this may be the case, the author needs to provide some sort of evidence for this claim. After all, there are many reasons why federal action might not have ensued that are completely independent of the NRA's agenda.
While that may be true, you have to wonder why then have there been no federal action when a majority (to avoid specific numbers) of the people want background checks? I propose a plausible cause, which is the lobbyism of the NRA among federal circles. Not only the 'proper' lobby, but also those politicians who are members themselves. Ideally, the people would vote on the issue and we'd be settled, but that is not how the US works.
You must be logged in to post a reply!