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?
We have a gun control sort thread in the WERP already. Or we can create one there, but not here. I like the Tavern like a nursery, innocent and filled with nasty kids.
I like the story though. Now brace yourself for backlash....
Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells?
You want us to carry a riot shield around?
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.
A crossbow is pretty **** dangerous, too.
Why have something you dont need?
You should throw away your computer. It's not a necessity either.
well that thread is based on world events and stuff. I think people should be allowed ot carry guns, it is stated in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms, which means any kind of weapon we so desire. People say they are dangerous and kill people, but my rebutle is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, look at midieval times, they had bows, arrows, and swords, that didn't stop them from killing each other. Before then they had sticks and stones and caved each other's skulls in. And if you were to do gun control then how would people be able to defend themselves? Some gangbanger or robber runs into my house with an illegal gun, what do I do? Throw a loaf of bread at them and hope they die of laughter? No, I shoot their dumb *** and put out a sign on the front lawn saying,"robbers shot to date, 1. would you like to be 2?" The funny thing is, it's not people who get guns legally who cause the problems, it's the illegal gun owners, or those people who are on god knows how many different types of medication who finnaly end up nutting up and going on a murder spree then eventually comite suicide. I don't condone suicide but if you think you are gunna kill a lot of people then do suicide first and save everyone the heartbreak. Sorry, I get fired up about this. expect me to come back.
Actually a computer these days is quite the necessity for most. They're two different things.
Your life may change without one, but it's not a necessity to live. You can do everything you need on a public computer anyway. If there are homeless students going to Harvard (e.g. Dawn Loggins), I think it's safe to say that a personal computer is not a necessity.
Not that that was my point anyway. Almost all of the things we have aren't needed, so it's a daft point to make.
Your life may change without one, but it's not a necessity to live. You can do everything you need on a public computer anyway. If there are homeless students going to Harvard (e.g. Dawn Loggins), I think it's safe to say that a personal computer is not a necessity.
It's still a computer.
Not that that was my point anyway. Almost all of the things we have aren't needed, so it's a daft point to make.
Needs change over time.
People say they are dangerous and kill people, but my rebutle is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, look at midieval times, they had bows, arrows, and swords, that didn't stop them from killing each other.
I call bull**** on this. Guns make it exponentially easier to kill people. If nuclear weapons don't kill people, why are we trying to reduce our nuclear stockpiles? Or our biological weapons? Or our chemical weapons? Surely it's not the little bacteria's fault? The fact is the way you control misuse of guns is to limit peopleâs access to them and control by legislation, as has been showed by the rest of the world, which the US comes up looking abysmally bad against.
Before then they had sticks and stones and caved each other's skulls in. And if you were to do gun control then how would people be able to defend themselves? Some gangbanger or robber runs into my house with an illegal gun, what do I do?
Like what the rest of the world does. Call the cops, give in your possessions. By having the most number of guns floating around in the world, 270 million at the last count, you're allowing such criminals to be able to procure such guns. Crack down on the lax legislation, throw in red tape, and make sure people have proper reasons to purchase such weapons, such as the UK.
No, I shoot their dumb *** and put out a sign on the front lawn saying,"robbers shot to date, 1. would you like to be 2?"
Guns harm far more than they save. In a 1986 study called "Protection or Peril?," Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a University of Tennessee professor of medicine, and Dr. Donald Reay, chief medical examiner of King County in Washington, concluded that for each defensive, justifiable homicide there were 43 murders, suicides or accidental deaths. Out of 398 gunshot fatalities in homes in King County between 1978 and 1983, only nine were motivated by self- defense.
The funny thing is, it's not people who get guns legally who cause the problems, it's the illegal gun owners, or those people who are on god knows how many different types of medication who finnaly end up nutting up and going on a murder spree then eventually comite suicide.
And look at the nations that have the highest gun homicide rates. All are in Africa, Latin America, the ME, and America. What do they have in common? Rather easy access to guns, due to the high number of them in the region.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution. I think that Quakers would like everybody to reserve their arms for peaceful purposes. We have little chance of getting a Quaker president because we are a minority in favour of choosing other ways of dealing with conflict than using violent means to settle disputes. I decide to abstain from this debate and let those in favour of the use of firearms for conflice resolution come to whatever compromise they choose. I will follow you in silence. Respect.
In what way? That they're addicted? That they use it often? How did people live for thousands of years before it?
When you start working, you will understand. There is no way a person can finish the number of reports he is expected to without a computer. There is no way a banker can now manage the vast number of transactions via hand.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
In case someone brings up the Constitution point and that it's inviolable, well, your gun rights come from an amendment.
Sorry forgot this. I'll disprove your statement first pearson. A valid legal activity for a gun. Some masked dude runs into a department store with a shotgun, he is currently focused on the cashier telling him/her to shove the bag full of money, you see he is skiddish and if anybody does anything he might shoot and in turn kill that pearson, so you take precossions and take out the 44 Magnum from your pants and blow his head off, all uncertanty cleared and you just stopped a potential murderer and robber. You notice, you rarely ever heard about murder in the old west? That was because everyone had a gun and everyone knew it, so people were alot less likely to do the stupid **** they do today. If they would allow people to do open carry or conseal carry then there would probably be alot less crimes commited because there would be less people to commit those crimes after a while. It's an interesting fact, when have you heard of some poor old lady being mugged? I've heard of attempts and then she pulls out a handgun and shoots him. So obviously it is better for defence than some riot shield or crossbow, do you see an old women carrying around one of the 2?
I would use quotes but I kinda suck at it and mess my words up. It isn't just a simple ammendment, it's a part of the Bill of RIghts, unallalienable rights that all citizens posses. Are you saying you want to take away rights that everyone should be able to posses? Oh and calling the cops won't really help in certain cities, look at Stockton, California, the police there basically told everyone they are on their own. And what if that certain possesion is a family heirloom that is hundreds of years old? Would you want somebody taking your grandmom's diamond broach? I think it's sentimental value is greater than it's money value. Also, look at switzerland, have you EVER heard of a crime happen their? No, that is because everyone is require to serve in the military for a few years and everyone has a gun. If everyone has a gun then that place is a major deterant for people to commit a crime in.
so you take precossions and take out the 44 Magnum from your pants and blow his head off, all uncertanty cleared and you just stopped a potential murderer and robber.
You think he can't shoot you first when you pull out your gun?
If they would allow people to do open carry or conseal carry then there would probably be alot less crimes commited because there would be less people to commit those crimes after a while.
Covering your eyes to what the rest of the world has done and moved on is also interesting. Britain currently has 0.22 gun murders per 100,000 people, compared to America. Coincidence that they impose strict rules on carrying guns? No. Relying on guns for protection instead of relying on the police ensures a society that is constantly mired in suspicion, required to be on your guard at all times in case you get caught napping. The very need of having to carry a gun at most times is proof in itself.
You shouldn't us Britain for an example, this is a country with a camera on every corner, which means the government knows EVERYTHING you do. Forget about farting in public they know when you are going to arrive somewhere before you do. Also if they were to be invaded how would they defend themselves? Say russian wanted to take them over, they would simply take out the capital and the entire country is theirs for the picking, no resistance, no worries. And yes I think I can shoot that guy because he is looking at the shop clerk and I am in his blind spot. Nic, I bet your a democrat aren't you.
I would use quotes but I kinda suck at it and mess my words up. It isn't just a simple ammendment, it's a part of the Bill of RIghts, unallalienable rights that all citizens posses.
An amendment is a change made to a basic law or constitution. When the drafters wrote the Bill in 1789, it was only in later that there were proposed amendments regarding gun laws. It wasn't inside initially.
And yes. Britain and the rest of Europe has ''taken'' away the rights of people to carry guns. What's the result? Go and look for yourself.
Also, look at switzerland, have you EVER heard of a crime happen their? No, that is because everyone is require to serve in the military for a few years and everyone has a gun.
That's also because much of the Swiss guns floating around are Swiss Army weapons kept by the army personnel. Meaning the army knows exactly where the gun is, and they can track you. Knowing that, will you then willingly utilise it for murder?
Furthermore, the situation is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated. It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility due to the national service required. From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country. The US doesn't o this, there is no mental link of gun ownership to national security. It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.
Say russian wanted to take them over, they would simply take out the capital and the entire country is theirs for the picking, no resistance, no worries. And yes I think I can shoot that guy because he is looking at the shop clerk and I am in his blind spot. Nic, I bet your a democrat aren't you.
Do you know something called nuclear retaliation and game theory? Or having a national army? Or an anti missile defense system?
What do you think your magnum is going to do when a tank barrels down to you? Defend yourself? Are your tiny arms going to work against military grade weapons, or are you kidding yourself?
. Forget about farting in public they know when you are going to arrive somewhere before you do.
Let's wait for the British to come down hard on you. If not, I shall. According to 2009 Freedom of Information Act requests, the total number of local authority operated CCTV cameras was around 60,000 over the entirety of the UK. Very nice of you, trying to falsify a situation.
Nic, I bet your a democrat aren't you.
Most democrat politicians don't want gun control, or won't move towards it, so how does this have bearing in the thread? Or are you going to insinuate that I'm another internet foot soldier of the tyrannical liberal elite conspiracy?
