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?
Take the being robbed situation. Just give the guy what he wants, then call the proper authorities. Do your part as a citizen; take note of what he looks like, maybe get his vehicle licence plate...do your part, and in a few hours the police will kindly return your stuff to you. No matter the life, it's still precious, more precious than, say, a few hundred bucks.
What of the situation I mentioned earlier? 'I really want you dead so I can take what you have, including your kids' You can't record a plate and call the police when you're dead.
said "If someone is ever desperate enough to hold a knife to you and ask for your wallet, give him your wallet. Then when his back is turned, tackle him, disarm him, and take your wallet back."
Some are desperate enough to stab/slash first and then take what they want. example
Uhh. I've never heard of a homeless dude going on a shooting spree with a gun before. They might riot with some broken bear bottles taped to chunks of wood, but not guns.
That's not what I said. I said that North America doesn't care about people with mental issues and I used the homeless to further my point. In other words, people suffering from mental illness are everywhere. Add up the drug addicts to it and the easy access to gun and you get a dangerous mix. Again I didn't say the homeless use guns to kill people in case you misread me again.
And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun
Target shooting
Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells?
1) Riot shields are ****ing big
2) So..you want me to just stand there? As a guy blasts shells at me? Eventually..he is either going to start running in circles..and I, with this big *** shield, won't be able to keep up..causing him to eventually gain a vantage point to my back..or the **** thing will finally break
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.
What about people like me..who are merely completionists?
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!
Where in the 2nd amendment does it list the guns in use for it? The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms and the right to a public militia (if necessary..this being to the militia)
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun.
To protect my family against a burglar with a gun of his own.
And don't use the argument of taking all the guns away..because that simply won't happen. There are more guns in the U.S. than people..and many of these guns are owned by criminals. Now, pray tell, how many criminals do you think will just kindly hand over their guns? Those are, in their eyes, their tools of their trade.
Take the being robbed situation. Just give the guy what he wants,
Hi...I am a robber who has gone past my psychological breaking point..and I want to kill a few of you before fleeing the scene or possibly killing myself
Again, take a few self-defence classes. Taekwondo, karate, jujitsu, whatever. I know a way to get out of every hold. My late teacher (who died of whooping cough) said "If someone is ever desperate enough to hold a knife to you and ask for your wallet, give him your wallet. Then when his back is turned, tackle him, disarm him, and take your wallet back."
Now..what the **** are you going to do with those self-defense moves if a gunman holds you at gunpoint at approximately 10 feet away (where he not only is safe from you..but still has a perfect aiming distance)..demands your money..and as he runs off he occasionally glances back to make sure you are not trailing him in an attempt to disarm him while he runs?
Where in the 2nd amendment does it list the guns in use for it? The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms and the right to a public militia (if necessary..this being to the militia)
It is a valid question. Laws exist, but they should be changed when they are outdated. What's the point of having archaic laws? The Second Amendment was put in place primarily for the purpose of having a ready armed militia, at a time when America was a fledgling nation. Well, America isn't that place now, and the forefathers certainly would not have known the gun types we possess today, which are no doubt far more destructive.
And don't use the argument of taking all the guns away..because that simply won't happen. There are more guns in the U.S. than people..and many of these guns are owned by criminals. Now, pray tell, how many criminals do you think will just kindly hand over their guns? Those are, in their eyes, their tools of their trade.
Which is why it is high time they step up on cracking down on criminals, and turn off the spigots of gun manufacturers to a trickle, whilst introducing stricter requirements to own arms. This will then eventually create the conditions needed to finally reign in the number of guns floating about. It took more than half a century to work in Britain, it's not a one hit panacea.
It is a valid question. Laws exist, but they should be changed when they are outdated. What's the point of having archaic laws?
But the question he is presenting is that the law should change because the guns have changed...not because America has changed
Which is why it is high time they step up on cracking down on criminals, and turn off the spigots of gun manufacturers to a trickle, whilst introducing stricter requirements to own arms. This will then eventually create the conditions needed to finally reign in the number of guns floating about. It took more than half a century to work in Britain, it's not a one hit panacea.
Don't get me wrong...I agree with this. I just don't agree when people start shouting out how they need to take away guns...but then the way they propose to do so are immediate actions that would have an effect completely opposite of what they believe it would have.
People always use arguments of "well make them illegal!"..because, y'know, that worked so well with alcohol and is working swimmingly with drugs
"just offer money compensation for the guns!" - yeah, because criminals would love to hand over their evidence to the police
"Offer them money..but no questions asked! They take the guns, then immediately destroy them" - is your brain goofed? Not only did you just give a criminal a way to get rid of his evidence for a crime he committed..but you just made a whole new market for criminals (steal people's guns to sell to the government)
But the question he is presenting is that the law should change because the guns have changed...not because America has changed
How is that wrong?
Don't get me wrong...I agree with this. I just don't agree when people start shouting out how they need to take away guns...but then the way they propose to do so are immediate actions that would have an effect completely opposite of what they believe it would have.
People always use arguments of "well make them illegal!"..because, y'know, that worked so well with alcohol and is working swimmingly with drugs
"just offer money compensation for the guns!" - yeah, because criminals would love to hand over their evidence to the police
"Offer them money..but no questions asked! They take the guns, then immediately destroy them" - is your brain goofed? Not only did you just give a criminal a way to get rid of his evidence for a crime he committed..but you just made a whole new market for criminals (steal people's guns to sell to the government)
I can't believe you people. You want to try and take our rights away. UNALIENABLE RIGHT THAT ALL PEOPLE POSSES. Are you guys saying you don't care about our rights and make it so we can't pursue our goal of LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUET OF HAPPINES?! And why would I let the police try and catch him hours later when I can stop him now? I would rather keep my grandmom's broach or whatever he stole and not lose it to the blackmarket. And I don't quite trust the government to protect me, look at the fast and the furious scandle. They were CAUGHT giving the guns to drug cartells. You mean they don't want to sell citizens guns but they are willing to give them to mexican drug cartels?
You want to try and take our rights away. UNALIENABLE RIGHT THAT ALL PEOPLE POSSES. Are you guys saying you don't care about our rights and make it so we can't pursue our goal of LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUET OF HAPPINES?!
Rights are not inviolable. They are not unalienable in any way, with the exceptions of fundamental rights. They are privileges that have to be taken into serious consideration when they are outdated, or cause more harm than good. In any case, no one is talking about banning guns, but making it harder to own one.
I would rather keep my grandmom's broach or whatever he stole and not lose it to the blackmarket. And I don't quite trust the government to protect me, look at the fast and the furious scandle. They were CAUGHT giving the guns to drug cartells.
Who do you think foils all the terrorist attacks mentioned in the news? Who do you think fields the army that protects you from vengeful terrorists?
Also, I'm not sure if you're a plain muppet or not, but ATF was implemented to track the cartels (albeit it failed). It was not done with the intention of arming cartels.
You are to trusting in the government, that was their cover story. Do you know who the world's largest supplier of guns is? If I remember what my dad said it was the FBI. supplying guns to friends and foe alike for their money. You really are to trusting. Almost everything they do has a reason behind it, ussualy bad. I so you don't care about the ideals of my fourfathers to protect the people from the government incase it ever grew to powerful, these are rights that every citizen posses and shouldn't be taken away by any means. This country was founded on freedom, but your proposal is to take away some freedoms and not allow us to bear arms. How do you sleep at night?
You are to trusting in the government, that was their cover story. Do you know who the world's largest supplier of guns is? If I remember what my dad said it was the FBI
Sales from the 44 US-based companies featured accounted for over 60% of all arms sales by the top 100 producers in 2010, with Lockheed Martin topping the list at $35.7bn (£22.4bn) worth of arms sales in 2010. These are privately owned companies, which the government signs contracts with. The FBI is not the largest supplier of guns, and you have yet to field evidence supporting such an outlandish claim.
You really are to trusting. Almost everything they do has a reason behind it, ussualy bad.
And you are a cynical person who trusts no one. Here's a simple example of a terror plot foiled by federal enforcement. Or another one. The list goes on.
you don't care about the ideals of my fourfathers to protect the people from the government incase it ever grew to powerful, these are rights that every citizen posses and shouldn't be taken away by any means.
The Second Amendment was put in place so that a citizen militia could be fielded in times of war. Simple as that.
Or from another angle, you think your Magnum and pitiful small arms can actually go up against the national army? What a joke.
This country was founded on freedom, but your proposal is to take away some freedoms and not allow us to bear arms. How do you sleep at night?
I sleep at night because the national army of my country guards it, and I'm proud of it because I'm soon to be part of that national army.
This country was founded on freedom, but if your ''freedom'' to own guns causes others to lose their even more fundamental freedom to live, which have been proved by many studies as cited in this thread and in the mall thread, something is messed up.
Laws exist, but they should be changed when they are outdated.
surprise!!! it is out dated.
anyway. to bad the 1st page is about crossbows. crossbows are just as dangerous as a gun. and are illegal like guns in most countries that have gun control.
I trust people, just more than others, the government however is at the bottom of the list. Not just one pearson, but many combined can make a difference. And the government is going after small arms first, once that goes they will go for the bigger weapons. Such as Assault rifles, shotguns, all that stuff. You've been reading the news to much, you need to learn the behind the seens actions. The FBI does sell guns to foreghn countries, most our enemies, but do you think they are willing to openly admit that and put it on the news?
You've been reading the news to much, you need to learn the behind the seens actions. The FBI does sell guns to foreghn countries, most our enemies, but do you think they are willing to openly admit that and put it on the news?
My my. If you don't get it from news, books or political journals, where do you get your information from? Does your dad work in the FBI? Because such ''behind the scenes actions'' must have been very well covered up.
The FBI does sell guns to foreghn countries, most our enemies, but do you think they are willing to openly admit that and put it on the news?
A valid legal activity for a gun. Some masked dude runs into a department store with a shotgun, he is currently focused on the cashier telling him/her to shove the bag full of money, you see he is skiddish and if anybody does anything he might shoot and in turn kill that pearson, so you take precossions and take out the 44 Magnum from your pants and blow his head off, all uncertanty cleared and you just stopped a potential murderer and robber
This situation could be avoided if guns were illegal in the first place.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution. I think that Quakers would like everybody to reserve their arms for peaceful purposes. We have little chance of getting a Quaker president because we are a minority in favour of choosing other ways of dealing with conflict than using violent means to settle disputes. I decide to abstain from this debate and let those in favour of the use of firearms for conflice resolution come to whatever compromise they choose. I will follow you in silence. Respect.
Not the Amish Mobsters, if there even is an Amish Mob.
You shouldn't take away our rights to have a gun. After all, it is the second amendment. When people do attempt to ban/take away/restrict guns, people will keep breaking the new gun laws. It WILL happen. If they do end up taking the guns away, well **** me, I don't know what our country, Great America, has come to.
rayoflight3 said
You want us to carry a riot shield around?
Yeah, do you? Imagine going on an airplane with a riot shield. Wha...?
It is an amendment in the constitution, no one, NO ONE, can take it away.
And by the way, theEPICgameKnight, it already is in the WEPR forum.
