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?
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.
if you that you atleast know for sure that the rescue is trained. and not a amateur redneck believing he's part of the military.
anyway.. the police is advanced enough that they do not have to be in every street. your argument is right in 1850. but we are kinda past that.
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?
whoopy, i like these extreme rides. where are we going this time? plz. explain to me how your mind comes up whit this stuff.
The 50's was a golden age but I bet they were still in paranoid mode .
Of course, in addition to the fear of communism and anyone or anything out of the ordinary, the USSR had successfully created nukes. Back in the 50s, they could still only be dropped by plane and the defense over the Pacific was strong, so a successful attack was highly unlikely, but the public still needed reassurance, so the government made public service videos and promoted backyard bomb shelters to make people feel prepared, but in reality, they were pretty useless. However, by the 60s when ICBMs came out, there was no defense in place against them, but a warning would still be likely prior to its fall, so the public felt good. Then nukes were received in Cuba, less than 90mi from the US coastline. At that distance, there would be no warning, no time to prepare, so there was panic. At that time, the threat was very real. "It's not paranoia if they're really after you."
Then nukes were received in Cuba, less than 90mi from the US coastline. At that distance, there would be no warning, no time to prepare, so there was panic. At that time, the threat was very real. "It's not paranoia if they're really after you."
Well yeah, this one was real and it came close. Thanks to the president, it was avoided but 9-11 really happened and I know it because I was in the bathroom doing my business (sorry for the details) when I heard on TV that a plane crashed in one of the tower so I cut it short to go see what was going on then another plane... All hell broke loose. I remember this day very well and it still make me sad. I was already living in the US at the time.
I understand the gun obsession but It doesn't mean that I agree with it.
anyway.. the police is advanced enough that they do not have to be in every street. your argument is right in 1850. but we are kinda past that.
The police cannot be called effective if they arrive and you're dead, or your day's pay is running around the boozing kens. The police are fast, but running distance still outwits organizing a despatch. But, SURPRISE, off-topic.
No. But they certainly need to increase the number of police deployed.
Interesting, and it makes sense. The higher the crime rate, the more police your should hire and deploy. If you do this, you can easily strengthen gun laws so that you get a gun if you need a gun.
I understand the gun obsession but It doesn't mean that I agree with it.
A rational man who understands the irrational. You'll go far, you will.
A rational man who understands the irrational. You'll go far, you will.
Didn't you read what I wrote before. I understand the idea of guns because of their paranoia but I don't agree with it. Are you trying to pick a fight or something? Meet me in the alley then. xD
Didn't you read what I wrote before. I understand the idea of guns because of their paranoia but I don't agree with it. Are you trying to pick a fight or something? Meet me in the alley then. xD
I wasn't being sarcastic. Curse this text, with its inability to portray much!
In my opinion, owning a gun isn't a good or bad thing. A gun is a tool. If you use a tool for it's intended purpose, there is no substantial cause for concern. Misuse it, and don't expect sympathy from me for using something you aren't prepared to use. We can't completely take away guns from people because if we do that, the only people other than law enforcement and military that will have guns will be the people who are breaking the law, leaving the rest of us law-abiding citizens in a corner. However, we need some gun control so that guns don't so easily end up in the hands of some inept teenager or burnt-out junkie who has a great risk of hurting themselves or other people because they got a gun without little to no training. Hence why having some control is good. Giving that training along with background checks and what-not makes it that less-likely of someone getting hurt. I don't think there is a perfect answer to the whole gun control debate because of one key factor nobody can control - the Human Condition. Anyone can kill anyone with a weapon, not only guns, given motivation or desire. And we can't control what someone truly decides to do.
See, I would argue that we need guns because A. The criminals are going to have guns whether they are banned or not. B. The founding fathers (Jefferson especially) made it clear that the individual right to own a gun was needed. C. I don't know about you guys but I don't trust the US government as far as I can throw them, taking away guns is a good way to make sure the people don't have the upper hand on the government, and therefore making sure the government controls the people completely. Dictatorship anyone? Now, have any of you noticed that one of the cities in the USA with the strictest gun control , Chicago, is also one of the US's most dangerous cities? Go figure? So if any of you don't agree with guns, you don't have to buy them. Maybe it will lure away the criminals from my house if there is a un-armed household next door.
A. small criminals (thats most) wont. B. we live in the year 2013 not 1713. C. usa government is not gonna turn into a dictatorship instantly. if you really think so, then why didn't that happen to other countries where they are illegal? you gotta be paranoid to think this will happen.
Now, have any of you noticed that one of the cities in the USA with the strictest gun control , Chicago, is also one of the US's most dangerous cities? Go figure?
1) That isn't a result of gun control, but an effort to reduce crime. 2) Strict gun control in a state isn't too effective when someone can just waltz over to a neighboring state and get a gun.
The founding fathers (Jefferson especially) made it clear that the individual right to own a gun was needed.
1) This was 300 years ago. 2) They were at war with a world superpower and were a bunch of colonists. 3) Bears showed up in your backyard. 4) Native Americans weren't too happy with the colonists. 5) Guns didn't shoot hundreds of meters with high accuracy or over 20 rounds a second. 6) A proclamation is only as good as the reasoning which it stands on. Simply because something is law does not mean it is good or necessary.
I don't know about you guys but I don't trust the US government as far as I can throw them, taking away guns is a good way to make sure the people don't have the upper hand on the government, and therefore making sure the government controls the people completely. Dictatorship anyone?
I don't "trust" them either, but I don't think their goal is to become a dictator, nor do I think other politicians under them would allow it or that the military would play along. In the event that a real dictator appeared, a bunch of civilians with hunting rifles and pistols wouldn't do a thing to the military.
I don't know about you guys but I don't trust the US government as far as I can throw them, taking away guns is a good way to make sure the people don't have the upper hand on the government, and therefore making sure the government controls the people completely. Dictatorship anyone?
I support gun ownership, but not because I am worried about the government taking full control. You Americans seem to really despise your government, at least some of you anyway. Grow up, if someone ever took full control the US would be politically skewered by other nations, and then roasted by the powerful ones.
Why won't the small criminals have guns? I live near a city with a big gang problem and I suppose they would be "small criminals" but I know most of them are too young to own a gun, and those that aren't too young are probably not registered. Why do they still have guns if they are breaking the law by having them? I think they should go turn them in right away.
B. we live in the year 2013 not 1713.
I suppose The founders would have changed there mind about guns just because the year was different. I know they didn't have as high-powered guns back then, but they could still kill a person.
C. usa government is not gonna turn into a dictatorship instantly. u really think so, then why didn't that happen to other countries where they are illegal? you gotta be paranoid to think this will happen.
No it won't happen instantly, and "dictatorship" may have not been the exact word I was looking for "Communistic state" would be better. Look at what is happening to those countries that haven given up their right to bear arms. Most of them have started allowing the government to take over their lives as well. Even here in America, there are so many people dependent on government programs that the government practically owns them. All that has to be done to keep the people in check is too threaten to stop giving them welfare and other programs. Now back to guns, When we start giving up one right, it becomes easier to take other rights away. So even if the military wouldn't come knocking on our door we will still be a practical servant of the government.
Now my last point. I hear people screaming "Oh no a gun killed a person," or (and this is a biggie) " If he hadn't had a gun then none of this would have happened." Now let me stress this A gun has never purposely killed anyone without someone loading it and pulling the trigger. I know there are lots of petty reasons people shoot each other, and I'm not saying that some might not have happened if a gun was not available. But those who are using guns to shoot people for any reason but to defend themselves are breaking the law.And why should the rights of those responsible gun owners be taken a way because some idiot goes crazy and shoots his wife over an affair or over money? There are over 300 million guns in America, most of those have never been used to hurt someone. Now the thing about "if he hadn't had a gun it wouldn't have happened." There are thousands of ways to kill a huge amount of people and a lot of ways are widely available. Lets take the recent school shooting. I could go into my garage and make a bomb, or at least find enough material to kill a group of people. Or the killer in this case could have just waited till recess and ran over the kids in his truck. He obviously didn't care whether he lived or died and he wanted to kill as many people as he could . A man like that will find a way to kill no matter what. So instead of taking guns away, why not focus on mental health for people like the mass shooters or making sure people know how to handle a gun?
if the police and/or government doesn't give them security that they wont be arrest when the turn them in and instead even give them some money for the guns. then they will turn them in. allot of them do not actually want to swing around a gun. but that is their way of making money. and they need that gun because normal people have guns.if they can get a easy buck for that gun. so they can buy that drug or whatever they need, and go home. they wont be really needing that gun because normal people dont have them either.
but they could still kill a person.
1 shot per min, not 20 shots in a sec.
"Communistic state" would be better.
nothing wrong whit communism. would be ironic tho. always fighting against communism and then turn into 1. it's like the same irony as whit the patriots and nationalists thing. xD
Look at what is happening to those countries that haven given up their right to bear arms. Most of them have started allowing the government to take over their lives as well.
