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?
If a ban in guns lowered the murder rate, yet doubled the amount of violent crimes that take place, would a gun ban still be justified?
If I understand what you are saying, in this situation more people are being beaten up or assaulted but not killed because there was no gun in the situation. If I am interpreting this correctly it does not seem like a hard decision...
If I understand what you are saying, in this situation more people are being beaten up or assaulted but not killed because there was no gun in the situation. If I am interpreting this correctly it does not seem like a hard decision...
Not every bloody mugger owns a gun, but they have knives and they can choke anyway, and they will be inclined to do so if their victim sees their face, so no, it is not logical. The only murder that would go down is gun murder, nothing else.
If I understand what you are saying, in this situation more people are being beaten up or assaulted but not killed because there was no gun in the situation. If I am interpreting this correctly it does not seem like a hard decision...
Less robberies, less ****, less aggravated assault. If these reductions happen due to gun ownership, then maybe it's worth investigating why and where gun crimes are a problem. According to the video I linked, it seems like larger populated areas have more gun violence per x number of people. I wonder why.
I should also add that it's not as simple as swapping the number of violent crimes with the number of murders.
It's not like you're going from 100 violent crimes, 50 murders to 50 violent crimes, 100 murders. It's more like going from 100 violent crimes, 6 murders to 50 violent crimes, 3 murders.
I want to preface this with some personal information: My family has several guns (though most are antiques), I love shooting (though I don't do it often), and I am firmly in support of gun-control measures.
The argument that gun control laws are unconstitutional due to the second amendment is incredibly weak and flawed. For starters, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. The founding fathers could never have foreseen the massive advances in the lethality of weapons technology that we have witnessed. To consider writing public policy for any technology related field based on information that is more 20 years old seems ridiculous, much less from information based on colonial-era knowledge. Further proof of the 2nd amendments obsolescence is what it actually says.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It was meant to allow the states to protect themselves against the tyranny of the federal government. Anyone who is concerned about the federal government invading their state probably has such a poor grasp of the realities of the current political and economic structure of our country that they have no business holding, much less owning a gun. Also, The founding fathers could have never predicted that their sentence-long amendment would be interpreted as distinguishing the finer points between military equipment, police/security equipment, and civilian/recreation equipment. Consider the reality of the 'right to bear arms.' 'Arms' is not exactly an operation definition. What does 'arms' mean? Common agreement is handguns, shotguns, and rifles, but what about grenades, bazookas, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc.? Most people automatically assume that those things should be illegal, even though they are 'arms' that could help someone defend themselves. So we assume that the 'right to bear arms' comes with some inherent limitations. The question I see is, where is the line drawn? We have to move on from the shadows of colonial-era knowledge and think for ourselves, using information available to us. Even some pro-gun people on here have acknowledged that decreasing the quantity and availability of guns would reduce gun violence. That is obvious. I think the key is tightening restrictions, increasing enforcement of said restrictions, and most importantly, investing in prevention and education programs for youths. Responsible gun ownership is a hallmark of our society, but it is being drowned out and overshadowed by other kinds of gun ownership. The notion that (LaPierre [sp?] from the NRA) the best deterrent for bad guys is good guys with guns, is superficial at best. It is on par with the death penalty deterrent/more punishment/more incarceration approach to crime prevention. It is a short-term, near-sighted approach to solving the problem, like sweeping dirt under the rug. And I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but arming teachers is probably one of the fdumbest things I've ever heard. Even worse than AZ letting people carry weapons in bars. Thanks for reading.
Not every bloody mugger owns a gun, but they have knives and they can choke anyway, and they will be inclined to do so if their victim sees their face, so no, it is not logical. The only murder that would go down is gun murder, nothing else.
I'm not sure if you have a language difficulty, but I'm struggling to see how anything you said is in anyway a response to what I wrote.
@NoNameC68 very interesting video. I completely agree with what he said at the end... kind of fits in nicely with the end of my little rant about education and prevention.
In Afganistan The state is not strong enough to ensure that no one will take over your property. In al of these small mountains villages, who will take care for you? No one but yourself. the village have its own militia. They are not as Urban and Centralized government as USA, in which you can count on the government. Same in Mexico, but with smaller scales. The Villages and small town in 'difficult regions' cant count on the police to come. The police dont have power there. The locals have to take care for themselve. And these drug dealers? You think there guns are legal?
In africa, Its not like they say - "i want a gun". Its a fact, a tool, they need a gun. Because every village, every ethnic group fight for there existing. They need to hut in some places {villages mostly, and not for the so called "sport"} or fight against zealots and racist groups {or kill in ther name} in the streets. I dont say that the entire Afganistan, Black Africa and Mexico are anarchy, but the guns there are not like what they are in USA. They are not a hobby, not a collecting item. They are actualy needed for surviving.
The Guns in USA are for fun. that it. you may lie to yourself "but i want to protect my family!". But you have nothing to protect from! I live in a place wher there are region wher there is a threat. In Yehoda and shomron, or "the west bank" and the surronding area. In Itamar two Terrorist sneak into a house and butcher 7 family members, including a 6 mounth baby with a knife. These peopels need guns, and even so - only the few who have clean history, who go trough psycological tests and there close family was cheked, and showd they have a safe place to keep the gun, so none of there family/friends could just grab it. If everyone there Would get ride of there guns - it will be perfect. But when there are individuals who want war and are willing to die in the name of god, its cant be stoped.
So - Mexico afganistan and black africa keep guns to protect there life and property {as the police and state have no power to do so}. What USA excuse again? "The police take too long" "what if a mad murdurer will come in" "its my right".
And about the vests {wow guys you are moving fast}. If there are no Vests {not proffesional atleast} then hte peopels dont need to buy Machin guns to take down a armord burgler {as some suggested}. Its like buying an Armored vehicle for say. Sure most of the owners are sane and law ordering peoples, but the 0.001 who arent can do some damage, dont they?
Looking at the video, and how the violent crime rate is higher in dense cosmopolitan areas (SURPRISE) why not just try and make the living standards and the security better? I can tell you it wouldn't be overtly difficult (Then again, we're talking about politicians, people who couldn't unscrew a lightbulb without having exact specs on which way the bulb turns)
When you think about it, the US has been at war pretty much throughout it's history and despite the fact that they like to police the World, it's a self centered country. The 50's was a golden age but I bet they were still in paranoid mode . I don't know much about the US history because I never gave a **** about it but since WWII, they've been at war or in a conflict pretty much every decades. Add this to the twisted view on the right to bear arms amendment. Then came 9-11 when war came to the heart of the US. This probably pushed the paranoia to the max. Looking at their TV shows during prime time, all you see (90%) are shows about violence, CSI, Law and Order, NCIS, Criminal Minds, etc. Something horrible happens, you can be sure there will be a movie about it. It seems that Americans are constantly living in fear, therefore they justify owning guns.
But then the question arise, why isn't everybody owning a gun then?
Fine then, staff the streets with police. You're all that faster to the scene if the call is a vocal one and not via radio waves.
Something horrible happens, you can be sure there will be a movie about it. It seems that Americans are constantly living in fear, therefore they justify owning guns.
But then the question arise, why isn't everybody owning a gun then?
People are always in fear, the US' fear is just less justified compared to warring nations or countries where your fear is if the well is dry in the morning. But what is better, a nation where some of the scared folk decide to buy a gun to help them sleep at night, or a country that's on edge and armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons?
