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?
In reference to why China wouldn't have a gun culture, the answer is strikingly obvious. Any leader/dictator who knows how revolutions work would know that as long as you keep the power out of the peoples' hands you can continue to rule as you see fit (or at least your regime will have a longer life-span depending on how ruthless it is). If you put power back in the hands of the people (especially in a place as large and populous as China), you'd have to cater to the majority to keep your empire stable.
Chinese history and culture vary so greatly from America it would be pointless for me to begin to educate you on the numerous reasons why what you have said here is wrong.
There are a number of historical reasons why China did not develop a gun culture, and Mao doesn't rate high up there, or at all, depending who you ask. The core reason is the culture's Confucian values.
I don't know why they're more liberal though. Could it be because they're of France?
Quebec is French, however most of Canada holds roots in British Imperialism. Side Note: American should educate themselves on Canada,
Nicho:
Canada's lack of gun culture stems from...well I suppose not needing one. Canada has never been a country in need of revolution, rebellion, or insurection. We gained independence through diplomacy and patience. At the heart Canada is very much like its mother country, England. Many of the same ideals are upheld here as they are there. I would not say we are an extremely liberal country though. Far more liberal than America, yes, but we do have a strong conservative element.
Not to offend, but have you ever actually shot a gun? It is pretty exciting. I've gone out with my uncle on occasion and blasted pumpkins with his AK-47. It is pretty fun.
i agree whit sstg. (havn't readed his latests posts because i'm busy whit other things the last few days. but i always have agreed on this topic) and yes i had to shoot at people during my military duty. and i can assure you. it might be exciting shooting pumpkins, but there is no fun in firefights. or any other situation where death can be a outcome.
and gun lovers want to create these situations. they want people to shoot at robbers. they want to turn a simply robbery into a firefight. this is just crazy in my books.
Like I said before, it must be exhausting to live like this.
my thought exactly.
At the heart Canada is very much like its mother country, England.
i'm rather in canada then the uk tho. canada is so calm and friendly. the uk is hectic and uptight.
Canada isn't perfect but it's a true free country and when you live there, you're not oppressed by crooked companies like the Insurance scammers and the overpriced medications (drug companies thieves) here in the US. Of course if you're really sick, you have a better chance to die because of the people who abuse the system and make it very slow when you're in need of a surgery but at least you won't lose your home. The government actually cares about it's people and there's no terrorist organization like the NRA there.
Sure there are some gun lovers but they're mostly hunters and they're not obsessed about their guns and they don't see enemies everywhere.
Let's not get off-topic here. Or general. Or downright mean.
i agree whit sstg. (havn't readed his latests posts because i'm busy whit other things the last few days. but i always have agreed on this topic) and yes i had to shoot at people during my military duty. and i can assure you. it might be exciting shooting pumpkins, but there is no fun in firefights. or any other situation where death can be a outcome.
Well, sure, but I would have thought this was a given. I was directing the "shooting casually is fun" post at this:
Because half of it's populace is a barbaric savage who likes to feel powerful and collect deadly weapon and shoot them to fuel his power trip.
SSTG was implying that people who like using guns casually are idiots, which isn't true in the slightest. Unless of course, you think I'm an idiot.
and gun lovers want to create these situations. they want people to shoot at robbers. they want to turn a simply robbery into a firefight. this is just crazy in my books.
I don't. You're making a pretty severe generalization.
Side Note: American should educate themselves on Canada,
a. there are always exceptions of the general. b. ic no reason why you would need to shoot at random things. put the guns away and find yourself a real hobby.
I don't. You're making a pretty severe generalization.
a. there are always exceptions of the general. (it's a rule that works on everything) yes i know i generalize. yes i know there are exceptions b. a reason that is VERY often used by gun lovers to keep their guns is that they need it to defend themself. that this or that would not have happened if someone whit a gun would have been there. that more guns on the street would lower the crime rate.
all these reasons imply that random people should take their gun everywhere they go and shoot at small criminals. aka, firefights.
b. ic no reason why you would need to shoot at random things. put the guns away and find yourself a real hobby.
Because I find it fun and exciting, and while they're still legal I intend on continuing doing so. Besides, guns aren't a huge deal in my life. I wouldn't call myself a "gun lover" at all, but I do know the thrills they can provide if used appropriately.
b. a reason that is VERY often used by gun lovers to keep their guns is that they need it to defend themself. that this or that would not have happened if someone whit a gun would have been there. that more guns on the street would lower the crime rate.
I can agree this is a very popular argument used for conservative side, but have you ever considered it true? Maybe there have been instances where guns could have saved people's lives.
I know you said you generalize, but this might be a bit too much. Are you sure you're not saying that a few, gun-hungry nuts are roaming the cities ready to shoot? I mean, when I see fights, I stay away. I think it's human nature to stay away. How often have you seen someone jump into a fight to stop it? A fight that's more dangerous than a little screaming fit? I really don't think people wander the streets with their guns ablaze to live in a golden moment, but that's just from my perspective.
I can agree this is a very popular argument used for conservative side, but have you ever considered it true? Maybe there have been instances where guns could have saved people's lives.
This has not been proven true. Numbers range from 50,000 to 2.5 m (A single study in 1993, that was heavily skewed, as DGUs in the study do not refer solely to deaths prevented by guns).
How often have you seen someone jump into a fight to stop it? A fight that's more dangerous than a little screaming fit? I really don't think people wander the streets with their guns ablaze to live in a golden moment, but that's just from my perspective.
Not often.
Because I find it fun and exciting, and while they're still legal I intend on continuing doing so. Besides, guns aren't a huge deal in my life. I wouldn't call myself a "gun lover" at all, but I do know the thrills they can provide if used appropriately.
When it comes to crunch time, I don't think the fun millions get, can outweigh the loss of life each year.
Because I find it fun and exciting, and while they're still legal I intend on continuing doing so.
do whatever you want. it's not like i'm going to try to stop it. i just dont see the sens of it. it doesn't make you fit. you dont get to know smart people. and you can't win prizes whit shooting a ak against a pumpkin.
if you really want fun and excitement. jump out of a plane, bungee jump, kite-board, drive in a destruction derby, fly whit a wing-suite... there are so much actually exciting things to do. if you have done those. shooting a gun is for woozies.
but have you ever considered it true? Maybe there have been instances where guns could have saved people's lives.
i'm sure there are some cases it is true. but it doesn't weight up to the the sort of violence that is promoted. these reasons only build up the level of violence. because random people have guns now. do the criminals buy body armor. so the random people buy heavier guns. and the next step would be criminals starting to shoot befor their victim can grab their gun. out of protection to not get shot by the victim. even if they dont know if the victim has a gun to start whit. it's just safer for them to instandly shoot.
what is after that? a pizza delivery guy gets a gun on his face befor the door opens? just to defend yourself? the level of violence is only building up.
mean, when I see fights, I stay away. I think it's human nature to stay away. How often have you seen someone jump into a fight to stop it? A fight that's more dangerous than a little screaming fit? I really don't think people wander the streets with their guns ablaze to live in a golden moment, but that's just from my perspective.
if you need the gun to defend yourself and they promote to bring it along whit you everywhere. (so this or that didn't happen) then the guns are simply everywhere. a robbery happens pretty often (is it a store or a house doesn't matter lets go whit a store, a public area fore this example). if people would start to shoot all these small criminals robbing a store then these robberies would turn into a firefight. the people have to defend themself right? that is what you say. they should not co-op and let the police to their job. no they should play the hero and try to kill the robber.
(i'm not good whit doing entire blocks i forget what the point was. let me try again in smaller steps)
How often have you seen someone jump into a fight to stop it?
so they dont need it to stop this or that from happening. they rather (as it should be) hide.
when I see fights, I stay away.
you can't stay away if it happens where you are.
I really don't think people wander the streets with their guns ablaze to live in a golden moment
it is what they promote.
Are you sure you're not saying that a few, gun-hungry nuts are roaming the cities ready to shoot?
no. i'm talking about the millions saying that they need it for defense. that is bullocks, there are many non lethal ways to defend yourself.
SSTG was implying that people who like using guns casually are idiots, which isn't true in the slightest. Unless of course, you think I'm an idiot.
Well you seem smart for a Republican. You don't use the usual BS arguments about the Constitution and you don't twist it like the other ones so I guess you're not a retard. xD You wouldn't be talking to me if you were and you'd want to shoot me anyway. I'm still torn about that gun shooting for fun business though, I guess it's a cultural thing so I'll give you a free pass on this one.
I haven't been reading this thread, and I don't intend to start now, but here is my opinion on guns and this whole thing in general.
1: People should get mental checkups every year, like a physical. 2: People should be allowed to have guns, simply because they should be allowed to have guns. Taking them away doesn't do much, and it really pisses off the people who legally obtain guns. 3: There are already tons of hoops that people have to jump through in order to get "assault weapons" (which, btw, is a fancy way of saying that it has variable firing speeds, and looks more military. In fact, Ar-5's have such small bullets and are so ineffective at killing things that it's illegal to hunt with them in Georgia, simply because of the inhumanity of it all.) but once they have the weapons, they can sell them to whomever they want and there is no way to keep track of them after that. That needs to change.
This has not been proven true. Numbers range from 50,000 to 2.5 m (A single study in 1993, that was heavily skewed, as DGUs in the study do not refer solely to deaths prevented by guns).
I really didn't know that. When I was asking the question, I was literally asking a question.
When it comes to crunch time, I don't think the fun millions get, can outweigh the loss of life each year.
Sure, but I'm still not going to give up a fun afternoon because some guy I don't know died.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist saying that, haha.
Anyway, it's just another way to die, isn't it? Besides, legal guns aren't used to kill that often. Legal guns shouldn't be taken away for something illegal guns did. In reality, they're completely unrelated.
if you really want fun and excitement. jump out of a plane, bungee jump, kite-board, drive in a destruction derby, fly whit a wing-suite... there are so much actually exciting things to do. if you have done those. shooting a gun is for woozies.
Now, partydevil, convince me this: Why should I? I worked hard to obtain my guns. Why should I just give them up and do something I didn't want to do as a substitute? That's how most conservative American mindsets work, y'know.
i'm sure there are some cases it is true. but it doesn't weight up to the the sort of violence that is promoted. these reasons only build up the level of violence. because random people have guns now. do the criminals buy body armor. so the random people buy heavier guns. and the next step would be criminals starting to shoot befor their victim can grab their gun. out of protection to not get shot by the victim. even if they dont know if the victim has a gun to start whit. it's just safer for them to instandly shoot.
That sounds a lot like how WWI started. Countries built up their arsenals, and then the enemy countries built up their arsenals even more, and when Serbia was attacked by AH all hell broke lose.
I'm not going to deny this is a bad thing and I'm not going to deny this isn't true, but it's something I believe happens naturally. Caveman gets club. Enemy caveman gets bigger club. How can you say this doesn't happen without guns?
so they dont need it to stop this or that from happening. they rather (as it should be) hide.
My point EXACTLY. People aren't going to simply march into a fight and blast everyone with their guns.
you can't stay away if it happens where you are.
I was talking about witnessing fights. If it happens to you you can't escape, but if it ends up happening to you it's your fault... technically.
it is what they promote.
Yeah, a couple pages back I said Americans glorify this, but I don't think it actually happens. Maybe to a little extent (man catches thief after thief robs his house), but to a point to where a man uses his guns to harm someone unnecessarily.
no. i'm talking about the millions saying that they need it for defense. that is bullocks, there are many non lethal ways to defend yourself.
But people don't want to use the non-lethal ways.
By the way... guns can be used non-lethally...
Well you seem smart for a Republican. You don't use the usual BS arguments about the Constitution and you don't twist it like the other ones so I guess you're not a retard. xD You wouldn't be talking to me if you were and you'd want to shoot me anyway. I'm still torn about that gun shooting for fun business though, I guess it's a cultural thing so I'll give you a free pass on this one.
Haha, well I'm not very conservative. I like the money, but I like the government too. I'm kind of split down the middle. But thanks for the half-compliment anyway.
2: People should be allowed to have guns, simply because they should be allowed to have guns. Taking them away doesn't do much, and it really pisses off the people who legally obtain guns.
People should have nukes, simply because they should. NK should too. Taking them away, or attempts to, doesn't do much, and it really pisses off the North Koreans.
People should have nukes, simply because they should. NK should too. Taking them away, or attempts to, doesn't do much, and it really pisses off the North Koreans.
What you are doing is taking a water pistol and comparing it to a bazooka. Saying that someone should have a revolver is an entirely different thing than saying that people should have Nuclear missiles. Are you saying that all guns should be banned, simply because they are guns and can hurt people?
What you are doing is taking a water pistol and comparing it to a bazooka. Saying that someone should have a revolver is an entirely different thing than saying that people should have Nuclear missiles. Are you saying that all guns should be banned, simply because they are guns and can hurt people?
No, not that all guns have to be banned, but casting a little derision on your arguments, that guns should be owned, simply because guns should be owned. Logically, if this is the precedent, then we can apply it to other items.
There are plenty of good reasons to own a gun, but not the above. Also, no where have I said guns should be banned simply because they are guns. Maybe you're mistaking me for someone else.
No, not that all guns have to be banned, but casting a little derision on your arguments, that guns should be owned, simply because guns should be owned. Logically, if this is the precedent, then we can apply it to other items.
In reality, it is applied to other items. The USA figured out how to make nukes first, and then set a criteria that must be met before we gave designs to other countries. If other countries got the tech, we tried our best to shut them down. It's the same way with guns. People can purchase them legally, but they have to reach a certain requirement. If they don't, we don't let them get guns, and if somehow they manage to acquire firearms, we take them away from them.
