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?
what i dont understand is just how you can compare usa whit a country where a war is going on.
It's not war of nation against nation. It's the country fighting internal terrorism with external assistance, similar to the war on illegal drugs/arms at the US/Mexico border.
It's not war of nation against nation. It's the country fighting internal terrorism with external assistance, similar to the war on illegal drugs/arms at the US/Mexico border.
Comparing a war which has engulfed an entire nation, devastated and killed millions since 1978, to a drug war (while major, is nowhere as close) is not very astute.
I meant the War on Terror in Afghanistan (Oct 2001-present), not the continuous slew from the Soviet era. My bad.
Even then, it's not comparable. You don't have drones raining death on you, militants planting bombs every few days, or suicide bombers by the truckload. You don't have dozens of military groups slugging it out, with possible backing by other nations.
Not yet. Wasn't that passed as part of the recent defense bill?
You don't have dozens of military groups slugging it out, with possible backing by other nations.
It depends how inclusive the modern War on Drugs is, as it extends through South America and spans over 4 decades.
militants planting bombs every few days, or suicide bombers by the truckload.
There's no need. Well, sometimes to make a statement, like in Colombia. But usually other weapons and tactics work well enough. If we're limiting the scope to the Mexican Drug War since the end of 2006, "Total estimate of deaths (varies): 60,000â"100,000", which is far greater than the amount in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has been at war forever. They were at war with India way back when, then Alexander the Great fought Darius (not sure which one), The Mongols (Genghis Khan) were at war with some Persian caliphate, and later it was the Soviet Union but I don't know much about modern history so I'd have to read about the subject. I don't even know why the Russians were there. Anyway their most stable period was under the Mongols during which the Silk Road connecting the region to China, India, Persia, Turkey, thrived with merchant caravans. Read about Marco Polo if you're interested in details about the period following Genghis Khan.
America (as a nation) has been at war since before it was a nation (French-Indian War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, a few wars against Mexico, Civil War, more wars against Mexico, battles against natives up till around this time, WWI, WWII, many proxy wars, modern conflicts). What's your point? According to Wiki, "The political history of the modern state of Afghanistan begins in 1709, when the Hotaki dynasty was established in Kandahar followed by Ahmad Shah Durrani's rise to power in 1747." So I'll ignore the ancient conflicts, since the nation wasn't under its own power until that time.
You mean an invasion in order to steal their land, followed by a massacre.
Essentially, yes, but militarily, the armed engagements are considered battles. What does that have to do with the topic, other than supporting the violent history of the US?
Essentially, yes, but militarily, the armed engagements are considered battles. What does that have to do with the topic, other than supporting the violent history of the US?
You just gave me the answer I was looking for, now I understand why guns are so important. Violence will never cease to exist in the US. That's sad really, it could be such an amazing country without all of this nonsense.
You just gave me the answer I was looking for, now I understand why guns are so important. Violence will never cease to exist in the US. That's sad really, it could be such an amazing country without all of this nonsense.
You have been a great home to the adventurous and the daring. You can hardly claim it's harmful when you had the Wright Brothers, and women who could fly across the Atlantic. Granted, this wan't with automatic weapons, but neither was it a clean world devoid of killing mechanisms.
Almost every country has been forged in the flames of war, and unless the country is made up of rational people, you are probably going to have guns floating around, be it the underworld or the upper circles.
