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?
@valkery Your logic fell short. You said guns should be owned because they should. There's no real argument there. It's like saying I should go to naked because I should. It's like defining a word while using the word in the definition.
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.
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.
there are better things to do whit life.
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?
you can brake the cycle. not allowing it to grow bigger and bigger. enough examples in the western world to follow.
My point EXACTLY. People aren't going to simply march into a fight and blast everyone with their guns.
then why do you need a gun if your not going to use it as it is promoted for? and after you use the reason "for fun" i'll ask: then why use the other reason as point in the illegal guns debate? (that is if you did promote it, like the other gun lovers do. your reason "for fun" is different from that. i also doubt you take the guns whit you all the time. so from your point, my point irrelevant.)
I was talking about witnessing fights.
if your in a store or bar and it gets robbed while you are there. you are a witness that can't flee or stay away. it are these situations that the gun lovers aim for when they bring up the argument. "this or that could be stopped if someone whit a gun was there"
meaning that you as witness of the robbery started to shoot. a. death in exchange of a robbery = sensless b. being a witness of someone killed by a gun causes more trauma then a robbery c. you missed and the robber turns on you. ending in eiher your life or a firefight whit any ending as outcome. d. you missed and someone els gets possibly lethally hit.
plz. pick the right answer. the NRA is promoting this.
or: stay still, co-op whit the robber. get out alive. and let the police do their work.
But people don't want to use the non-lethal ways.
crazy maniacs want to kill. thats what i read here.
By the way... guns can be used non-lethally...
right, thats why you learn to shoot at body and head and not on legs and arms. i used that reason befor. it got past over because it isn't efficient enough. causing danger for the victim/witness/cop to get shot back. nice try, but one of your fellow gun lover debunked it already =)
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.
No. The USSR and China discovered the technology by themselves, or spy networks. France and Britain too. India, Pakistan and Israel too.
Regardless, that in itself (Owning because we should own) is not a reason to own guns.
you can brake the cycle. not allowing it to grow bigger and bigger. enough examples in the western world to follow.
Then how would you break the criminal vs. cop cycle you mentioned earlier? Take away illegal guns? Not gonna work.
then why do you need a gun if your not going to use it as it is promoted for?
(that is if you did promote it, like the other gun lovers do. your reason "for fun" is different from that. i also doubt you take the guns whit you all the time. so from your point, my point irrelevant.)
I'm going to answer for myself on this. We don't take our guns everywhere because we think guns do lead to more problems when taken out of a secure environment - or at least, a relatively secure environment.
if your in a store or bar and it gets robbed while you are there. you are a witness that can't flee or stay away. it are these situations that the gun lovers aim for when they bring up the argument. "this or that could be stopped if someone whit a gun was there"
meaning that you as witness of the robbery started to shoot. a. death in exchange of a robbery = sensless b. being a witness of someone killed by a gun causes more trauma then a robbery c. you missed and the robber turns on you. ending in eiher your life or a firefight whit any ending as outcome. d. you missed and someone els gets possibly lethally hit.
plz. pick the right answer. the NRA is promoting this.
or: stay still, co-op whit the robber. get out alive. and let the police do their work.
Let's use the Ex-Marine scenario for a minute.
An Ex-Marine heads to his local bank after returning from service to enjoy a quite 6 month break from duty. While getting his funds out, the bank is robbed. The Ex-Marine, a man trained in disarming, decides he needs to act quickly. As he's just getting back, he still has a pistol in his holster, which he quickly hides before they're ordered to get on the floor. He then uses his training to disarm the robbers and hold them off until help arrives.
Obviously this is a rare occurrence, but if the need ever arises (lives potentially in danger), there needs to be at least one trained person with a fireman in the are in case something gets ugly. Maybe gun rights should be revoked from those untrained instead.
crazy maniacs want to kill. thats what i read here.
That was sarcasm. ;D
right, thats why you learn to shoot at body and head and not on legs and arms. i used that reason befor. it got past over because it isn't efficient enough. causing danger for the victim/witness/cop to get shot back. nice try, but one of your fellow gun lover debunked it already =)
Unless it's done successfully. Sure, it's a risk, but if there's ever a last-minute thing where a person's life is undoubtedly on the line, people in the military and in the police force that are trained to constrain threats.
PartyDevil, really dude? Really? You're acting as if most everyone who owns a gun goes out and shoots someone, if that was the case than there'd be no one alive in Texas who's currently there.
You can do other things with a gun during a robbery than shoot them, you could give them a warning shot, you could sneek up and put it to their head and force cooperation.
I heard about a guy in China who stabbed 20 people around the time of the school shooing, what should China do? Ban knives? People don't need guns to kill, they can make bombs, improvised weaponry or even be effective with a garden tool.
@HaHiHa or whoever said people have been shot over less than an insult: If you're worried about this happening of you if more people had guns then clearly you need different friends and a good sense of who would and wouldn't be a good friend. And really? That arguement that what good would it do if he was dead but so are you? Clearly the friend of yours whom you are worried about killing you has a sense of immortality or a death wish if he's goig to kill you in a room full of people with guns. Sure he could always do it some other time without people to shoot him, but then he could just as easily use a knife and pretend everything's good. And let's pretend you both get shot and killed, would you be happier if he lived and got maybe 40 hears in prison depending on your country and thAt was all? Or would you rather him get his dies with as much notice as you had? And even then, one of the many other gun owners in his sutuation is bound to have taken notice and have a hand on his gun just in case.
Need I quote the general again? "You cannot invade America, there would be a gun behind every bush".
I heard about a guy in China who stabbed 20 people around the time of the school shooing, what should China do? Ban knives? People don't need guns to kill, they can make bombs, improvised weaponry or even be effective with a garden tool.
And guess what? All survived. In that case, we need to ban almost everything, because everything can be used as a murder weapon.
Guns make it far more easier to kill people. Knife attack victims have been proven to statistically have a higher chance to survive.
You can do other things with a gun during a robbery than shoot them, you could give them a warning shot, you could sneek up and put it to their head and force cooperation.
I like all this gung ho, macho talk. It takes military training and years of discipline to instill a spirit into soldiers not to break and run, let alone civilians.
@Manly You know most pistols can leave an inch deep cut in your hand if not held properly. That's a day one lesson. Would you like to explain how to hold a pistol properly? I'm curious as to what you might say.
i'm gonna keep it short, it's 7am time for some sleep.
Then how would you break the criminal vs. cop cycle you mentioned earlier?
point me at what i said plz.
Maybe gun rights should be revoked from those untrained instead.
the switzerland way. a good choice to follow. =) also note how he did it in a non-lethal way. 1 from the books, and indeed very rare.
Unless it's done successfully. Sure, it's a risk, but if there's ever a last-minute thing where a person's life is undoubtedly on the line, people in the military and in the police force that are trained to constrain threats.
i'm totally for training on non lethal ways. (it isn't done or atleast not on a big scale. leave alone the random people) it's just that i made your point in a different setting befor and someone had a sensful argument on it. so i had to let it fall.
PartyDevil, really dude? Really?
i can say the same thing whit your crazy redneck lifestyle. ive readed your posts befor and honestly i dont want to argue whit that. and not because your right. but because nothing can be done about dumbness. sorry i can't help you.
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.
I suppose it wasn't criminal vs. cop. It was random people vs. criminal, but it doesn't change anything.
the switzerland way. a good choice to follow. =) also note how he did it in a non-lethal way. 1 from the books, and indeed very rare.
Yeah, that's exactly what I support. But non-lethal disarmament is pretty hard, as I'm aware, so that's why it's rare.
i'm totally for training on non lethal ways. (it isn't done or atleast not on a big scale. leave alone the random people)
I thought it was trained already. I have an uncle and a cousin who have served with the national guard that are specialized in non-lethal disarmament, so I assumed it was taught everywhere. My other uncle was trained 25 years ago as a cop and he's still certified in non-lethal disarmament. He gets called to domestic stuff to control the situation.
it's just that i made your point in a different setting befor and someone had a sensful argument on it. so i had to let it fall.
What was the argument? I think this would be pretty useful information for me.
it doesn't make you fit. you dont get to know smart people. and you can't win prizes
(I'm assuming for "you dont get to know smart people. and you can't win prizes" you're excluding competition shooting) How does driving in a demolition derby on your own property gain those things?
a. death in exchange of a robbery = sensless
If death as the immediate penalty for robbery (or any crime, for that matter) was entirely guaranteed, crime would virtually stand still. What robber would decide "imma threaten the lives of innocents, take what I can, and die in the process."?
b. being a witness of someone killed by a gun causes more trauma then a robbery
If an armed robber is pointing theirs at someone's head and it goes off, you're stuck with the trauma anyway. Guns are a privilage, not a requirement. If you can't handle the emotional stress, don't use it.
c. you missed and the robber turns on you. ending in eiher your life or a firefight whit any ending as outcome. d. you missed and someone els gets possibly lethally hit.
Thus military level safety training should be required to limit those things. The robber's weapon could just as easily go off (even accidentally) at any moment, killing any number of innocents.
stay still, co-op whit the robber. get out alive.
Doesn't always work. Sometimes they stab/shoot first, then make demands. Other times, they **** their hostages.
crazy maniacs want to kill. thats what i read here.
What ranged non-lethal ways, even if they are operated and work correctly every time, are 100% guaranteed to stop someone? Non-lethal ways don't always end the situation. Even police tazers sometimes aren't enough to stop someone. If you hit someone with, say, rubber bullets and they aren't incapacitated, you've just made the only person in the room with a lethal weapon very mad.
if random people have no guns then criminals wont need body armor. they wont be needing guns even because their victims have no guns either. instead of buying a fancy gun they buy drugs or whatever they can't pay but need money for anyway. instead they use a knife and rope for house robberies. and those that do have a gun wont shoot that fast because they do not expect anyone to be able to stop them anyway. just having the gun is enough.
also are gun owners easyer to find by the police. allowing them to arrest a criminal whit a gun befor he can do what he wants to do whit it.
i'm pretty tierd now so i dunno if i used the right words. i'll hope you understand it tho. the rest has to wait for a other time. my lappy is going down now.
if random people have no guns then criminals wont need body armor.
Why would they not use Kevlar to prevent themselves from being stabbed by their victims?
they wont be needing guns even because their victims have no guns either...instead they use a knife and rope for house robberies.
Why the heck would a robber willingly limit his range and lethality? Why would they ever want to fight on a level field when they could easily have a huge advantage?
instead of buying a fancy gun they buy drugs or whatever they can't pay but need money for anyway.
The gun is an investment so they can easily get more money later with less risk to themselves.
and those that do have a gun wont shoot that fast because they do not expect anyone to be able to stop them anyway. just having the gun is enough.
How is that different from the majority of robberies now? Very few go in expecting another gun. They're usually nervous no matter what.
also are gun owners easyer to find by the police.
Legally registered guns are easier to find. The smuggled arms from Mexico with all identification shaved off are not.
Why would they not use Kevlar to prevent themselves from being stabbed by their victims?
The United States government has established legislation that prohibits convicted felons from purchasing, owning, or utilizing body armor in any form or fashion. If you are a convicted felon and are caught wearing body armor, you will be subject to many legal ramifications. Sure, when someone purchases body armor, the dealers do not run background checks on their customers. However, if you knowingly buy body armor as a convicted felon, you could end up in jail for your actions. Moreover, ceteris paribus, persons associated with any criminal group, in any way, cannot buy body armor. Plus, there are numerous state restrictions.
Furthermore, your average criminal is simply not brightest spark in the box. For example, do you think, a drug addict is going to think of wearing Kevlar? Probably not. What type of criminal wears body armor? Mainly, hitmen, heavyweight gangsters and mass shooters. You seem to be under the impression that all criminals are some sort of supervillain, which luckily is not the case. By the way, body armor is relatively expensive. A robber or mugger generally does not have the money needed to buy it.
Body armor is regulated, that's why you don't see a lot of criminals running around wearing it. The vast majority of armor is owned by law-abiding citizens, hence you have that advantage over lawbreakers. You are afraid of felons? Buy a ton of armory, nobody is going to stop you.
