Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US
| 1089 | 401096 |
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?
- 1,089 Replies
if somebody is going to kill someone a silly little gun law isnt going to prevent them from accuirng a gun.
"Gun control wont work instantly, so lets not try it at all"
I would rather of not posted in here today since I'm trying to abide by my new rule of not going into the political section every other day. But I just figured something out and I really want to share it. So you guys are stating that the bill of rights is outdated and the right to bear arms law is outdated in it. So does that mean that the law of freedom of speech is also outdated? What about right to a jury of your peers? Maybe you would also like to discourage the ban on slavery since it was created roughly around that time. So, by stating that one law is outdated in that time period. You are stating all laws are outdated in that time period.
So you guys are stating that the bill of rights is outdated and the right to bear arms law is outdated in it. So does that mean that the law of freedom of speech is also outdated? What about right to a jury of your peers? Maybe you would also like to discourage the ban on slavery since it was created roughly around that time. So, by stating that one law is outdated in that time period. You are stating all laws are outdated in that time period.
No it doesn't. Just because a part is outdated, does not mean everything else is. Each law is separate in the Bill of Rights, and should be treated separately. Unless you mean to tell me that since one mentally deficient person has shot and killed a dozen others, all gun owners are crazy.
Now you are getting into how a think a bit. If not all gun owners are mentally unstable then why punish them all? That is how most people see it though, most gun owners are crazy preppers who think everything the government does is absoletly wrong and stuff like that. That may be a small number but that isn't all of us. So why is it that they want to punish us all for actions these few stupid people do? Sorry if I jump back and forth between things in my paragraph. I would make it nice and pretty but I have the tendancy to go for crude and effective, well, sometimes more effective than others.
If not all gun owners are mentally unstable then why punish them all?
For the sake of everyone. Statistically it has been shown that gun control has saved lives; by restricting the sale of guns (Note, not forcefully taking, which negates your ''unishment'' point), everyone except the mad men win.
So why is it that they want to punish us all for actions these few stupid people do? Sorry if I jump back and forth between things in my paragraph. I would make it nice and pretty but I have the tendancy to go for crude and effective, well, sometimes more effective than others.
1) No evidence.
2) Not even addressing most of our points.
Effective? I beg to differ.
What gun control lobbyists want is to restrict the sale of guns to undesirables, eg those with criminal records, and those who are mentally unfit, whilst at the same time proposing stronger intra border restrictions. No where is it punishing people who have a legitimate reason to own guns.
Now you are getting into how a think a bit.
A tad hypocritical.
Statistically it has been shown that gun control has saved lives; by restricting the sale of guns (Note, not forcefully taking, which negates your ''unishment'' point), everyone except the mad men win.
Kennesaw-1
Kennesaw-2
First, the ordinance passed in Kennesaw was purely symbolic; it's not as if police went door-to-door to ensure every head of household owned a gun. Second, when one actually performs a statistical analysis , one finds there was a slight, though statistically insignificant, increase in burglaries after the ordinance.
UK Gun control.
Second, when one actually performs a statistical analysis , one finds there was a slight, though statistically insignificant, increase in burglaries after the ordinance.
As one person commented on that page..that graph does not take into account the rise of the cities population
As one person commented on that page..that graph does not take into account the rise of the cities population
Fair point. But the introduction of the gun law is misleading in itself. It's not mandatory. And experts donât think the Kennesaw ordinance, which has never actually been enforced, did much to change gun ownership rates among Kennesaw residents.
Sorry if I jump back and forth between things in my paragraph. I would make it nice and pretty
lets start whit making your post nicer...
quote people and press enter sometimes will do wonders.
The one major thing i dont understand is:
A man want a pistol? I can agree to that. A carabine? Overly armed, but meh, lets say he want to hunt.
But why someone will want a M4 Or a M16 in his house? defend his house from what? the Huns? Why would someone want to buy a Uzi? Its a good gun indeed, but for clearing bunkers, not for "defending your house". What would you do, spray the street to kill the 'invader'? Isnt a simple pistol is enough?
In my opinion, a man will be able to buy a pistol and a small amount of ammo. That it. No one need massive amount of ammo is his garage for "defending his loved ones". A 9mm and 12 bullets its much more then enough.
I love guns my self. I wish for an MP5 {dont ask me why MP5, I just felt in love with this gun}. But i know its not Logical to have one. Its like wanting to have a tank for me {Which i do. I even founded a place}. My only wepone is a swiss army knife which i keep under my pillow.
In my opinion, a man will be able to buy a pistol and a small amount of ammo. That it. No one need massive amount of ammo is his garage for "defending his loved ones". A 9mm and 12 bullets its much more then enough.12 bullets, whats a man to do with 12 bullets, how is he supposed to practice shooting, if he doesn't, what if he misses and hits a bystander.
12 bullets indeed.
Its a good gun indeed, but for clearing bunkers, not for "defending your house". What would you do, spray the street to kill the 'invader'? Isnt a simple pistol is enough?Fully automatic weapons are illegal.
~~~Darth Caedus
Fully automatic weapons are illegal.
You don't need a fully automatic to spray. And you can buy automatic weapons that were manufactured before 1986.
A 9mm and 12 bullets its much more then enough.
Not when robbers are prepared. Pistols are useless against body armor. Criminals know this.
You must be logged in to post a reply!