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?
plz. go start a civil war whit your crazy buddies. plz. try to fight your government. i wanna see you try. rednecks like yourself aint as smart as the taliban is.
I might just be speaking from personal experience but in Texas anyway there'd be few people with them, more likely there'd be snipers. In fact the owner of a gun range near where I live can hit a man sized target from 900 meters away with a pistol. Don't underestimate Texas' love of guns and freedom.
1000 people with limited training using firearms, poor quality equipment and "assion to liberate themselves" will not stand a chance against 100 men with state-of-the-art equipment, plenty of training, and maybe even a tank or two. Yet alone the entire military power of any country, be it Uganda or the US of A.
You just don't take away a gun from a Texan.
I understand that you've been brought up to believe that the Government is weak and frail, and that it has no chance in doing anything to you Texans because you're "******", but it doesn't work that way. If the government so chooses to take everything away from you, they will. Might take a while because they can't exactly straight out kill anyone that opposes them, but they will, eventually, do it. Texans may be armed well, but the government is armed better.
Again (somehow this wasn't addressed when I mentioned it earlier), even police pistols are USELESS against body armor.
[from link] Phillips and Matasareanu began to engage the officers, firing rounds into the patrol cars that had been positioned on Laurel Canyon in front of the bank.[17] Officers immediately opened fire. The patrol officers were armed with standard Beretta 92F and Beretta 92FS 9mm pistols and Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38 caliber revolvers, Officer James Zaboravan also carried a 12-gauge Ithaca Model 37 pump-action shotgun, but the body armor worn by Phillips and Matasareanu was strong enough to resist their penetration.
and limit the amount of ammo they can have.
I doubt you realize how relatively easy it is to make slugs. If people want 'em, they'll get 'em.
1000 people with limited training using firearms, poor quality equipment and "assion to liberate themselves" will not stand a chance against 100 men with state-of-the-art equipment, plenty of training, and maybe even a tank or two.
Then why limit their defenses, especially in a border region?
Then why limit their defenses, especially in a border region?
Because tasks are best left to trained personnel, who are already at the border regions.
Again (somehow this wasn't addressed when I mentioned it earlier), even police pistols are USELESS against body armor.
That just gives reason for police to be better armed, but doesn't justify people being armed. Studies have shown far too varying statistics in number of lives saved via guns to prove anything conclusive.
I understand that you've been brought up to believe that the Government is weak and frail, and that it has no chance in doing anything to you Texans because you're "******", but it doesn't work that way. If the government so chooses to take everything away from you, they will. Might take a while because they can't exactly straight out kill anyone that opposes them, but they will, eventually, do it. Texans may be armed well, but the government is armed better.
Hell if they stop caring about loss of life, a rebellion can easily be squashed.
If he wants to limit home defense to 'istols only', how is that any different than no guns at all?
Because most crimes are committed via pistol. If you're going to pull out the argument that we should arm citizens as well as just the tiniest minority of criminals, there will be a never ending arms race, and a vastly overarmed populace.
Just to mention this, Japan regulates guns very well and only had 2 homicides by guns last year (2011). Go ahead and triple that due to population when comparing it to the US. 6 deaths.
Right, because if another Hitler came out of Germany then they'd still have no way of taking them down themselves!
Gun laws were far less strict back in the 1930's, though guns were also far more expensive. However, this argument is stupid. Hitler came into power under very specific economic and political circumstances, the likes of which Germany has worked tirelessly to prevent from ever occuring again. Furthermore, do not default to Hitler. I, as someone who studies history, particularly loathe the way people automatically assume that Hitler can and will win any form of argument. Your government is not Hitler, Barrack Obama is not Hitler, America is not the Wiemar Republic on the eve of the creation of the Third Reich! Do not pose arguments you lack the historical understanding of.
If he wants to limit home defense to 'istols only', how is that any different than no guns at all?
Well, for one pistols are still guns. If you had no guns then you wouldn't even have pistols. Pistols are effective enough. But, I have always wondered why America chose to idolize the gun, it isn't the first country in history to propose armed militias in the constitution.
The potent combination of a history fixated upon the glorious old West, an innate, unrealistic fear that the government (Ironically, taken as a beacon of hope and democracy throughout the rest of the world) wants to enslave everyone, and an unhealthy obsession with the idea that America is unique in that it was founded on the basis of liberty at a time where no country did?
Hell if they stop caring about loss of life, a rebellion can easily be squashed.
Our age is one where death is avoided by the powerful countries, unlike historical moments where the man with the weapon (or massive army, private or not) held the power, and if you annoyed them too much, you'd die. Fret not, such a style of living will return. Of course, the idea of a "fair and equal government" will be replaced with a monarchy or the like.
Because most crimes are committed via pistol. If you're going to pull out the argument that we should arm citizens as well as just the tiniest minority of criminals, there will be a never ending arms race, and a vastly overarmed populace.
It'd be interesting to see what would happen in a country where everyone is armed.
The potent combination of a history fixated upon the glorious old West, an innate, unrealistic fear that the government (Ironically, taken as a beacon of hope and democracy throughout the rest of the world) wants to enslave everyone, and an unhealthy obsession with the idea that America is unique in that it was founded on the basis of liberty at a time where no country did?
For most, it is impossible to look back on all of history and not like a bit of it. I look fondly on the Age of Sail and Fighting Sail, despite the squalid conditions and unfairness for the man belowdecks (is our world really so different, besides some key parts?)
Regarding the fact that some Americans think the government is oppressive, remember the experiment with the mice in paradise who went psychotic? I think it has been aforementioned here.
I think in a country with the history of America, especially with the Revolution, it is easy possible to feel a wee bit of pride, and a want to own something that declares independence and the ability to protect oneself. Even if the former men owned single-shot pistols/rifles and still largely used swords.
Regarding the fact that some Americans think the government is oppressive, remember the experiment with the mice in paradise who went psychotic? I think it has been aforementioned here.
I don't think it's ultimately relevant. America's government by world standards is not repressive.
I think in a country with the history of America, especially with the Revolution, it is easy possible to feel a wee bit of pride, and a want to own something that declares independence and the ability to protect oneself. Even if the former men owned single-shot pistols/rifles and still largely used swords.
Then why don't most nations have such a gun culture? Why wouldn't, say, China have one, when the gun was what liberated them?
