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?
Criminals have guns because other rival criminals have guns. Criminals have a whole lot more to fear from other criminals than any law abiding citizen.
so civilians do not have to protect themself from these guns. these guns shoot other criminals. who cares about that?
Still easier to shoot someone than physically swing a blunt object. 1 finger pull vs full body motion, not to mention you can be quite far away.
this is what i mend whit "other weapons need more motivation to be deadly then a gun" a while back
So if an unnecessary death occurs due to a rare misuse of a firearm, that outweighs those that die due to an increase in the homicide rate, even if the homicide rate overcasts the amount of unnecessary deaths that occur?
you dont see homicides as a unnecessary death?
Pro Tip: The Second Amendment does not count because it may be interpreted in a variety of ways.
not to mention old and out-dated.
"What counts as a history of violence?" How many and what types of incidents/reports over what amount of time would disqualify someone?
for me: if youve been a night in jail. you lose your right to have a gun.
"What is mentally instable?" comes into play, which could include anything from sleep or eating disorders to phobias to full-blown phychosis/schizophrenia.
depends per case. from these few you listed i say.: sleep disorder = no gun. eat disorder - yes gun. phobias depends per phobia. phychosis/schizophrenia = no gun.
as things like jaywalking, minor traffic violations, or waving your 'hand guns' in school are crimes.
jaywalking = illegal? traffic violations = yes guns. waving (showing) a gun anywhere = no more gun.
all whit all, it really depends per case and person. we shouldn't make exact strict detailed laws about this. if they will be made they sure are going to be exploited in some way.
Although there is a statistic in Australija where the homicide rate click here Just food for thought its a google link but all the links say the same thing.
Gun bans, yes. I came to accept that banning guns is not the way to go, and I've been advocating more reasonable legislations about guns. In the case of the US, yes, it does mean stricter laws, but I think if it's done in a sensible manner, there won't be negative repercussions.
And see it this way, as I already mentioned once: shouldn't gun licences be at least as hard to obtain as driving licences, seeing the high death toll both are connected with?
Your views are just as bad as people who want guns completely illegal. Extremes are very often a poor response.
Please quote where he said that, because I'm pretty sure he has expressly said multiple times that he does not advocate making guns illegal to have, just much more strict control on them.
Also, for the who knows how many times, the rational people are advocating increased regulation and restriction, not complete illegalization.
More than a basic background check should be necessary when purchasing something that can potentially be used as a weapon of murder.
All you've shown is that you and people with similar anger issues can't be trusted to own a gun. That doesn't mean that no one should be able to own a gun.
I'll state it clearly so you don't lump me in with the extremist people. There are different stances than simply "no guns" or "everyone should have a gun."
My view is that people should be allowed to own guns (not anything like a rocket launcher or automatic machine gun) if they are qualified to do so. I'm not saying that everyone should have a gun, or that people need guns, or that you should use a gun if you have one. I do not think making guns illegal will prevent crime or lessen it. I do think we need stricter gun laws so that there are not as many out there for criminals or crazy people to get a hold of.
Same goes for anyone with any weapon, even things that you wouldn't normally consider a weapon.
Guns make it easier to kill. They don't make it easy. There's the entire psychological component you're forgetting about. Anyone who could use any weapon, gun or no, to kill multiple people without reason is already messed up to begin with.
Again, all that proves is that you shouldn't have a gun if you can't control yourself. Not everyone is like that.
You all seem to be scared that if you had a gun you would end up killing/seriously harming someone. To that, all I have to say is...don't get a gun? Is it really that hard? If you know you can't handle something, don't get it? That also doesn't mean that just because you can't handle it means no one else can either.
Of course everyone feels angry, frustrated, or insulted at some point. That doesn't mean we'd kill those who made us feel that way if we had a gun.
There's also simply target shooting or whatever sports wise for why people might want to own a gun.
Yes, guns are more dangerous than knives. Yes, restricting who has a gun needs to be done. However, there is no reason why someone who is responsible should not be allowed to own a gun for sporting/home defense purposes if they want to. Further, there are good reasons to allow qualified individuals to carry firearms on the off chance that someone does get a hold of some illegal automatic gun so they at least stand a chance at defending themselves if it comes down to it.
Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're going to go on a murder rampage. Just because someone shoots a gun doesn't mean that they're aiming for a kill shot either.
Anyways, long story short, the real issue is guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Our ideas of what methods are better may be different but I'm sure that we all agree people shouldn't be using guns to harm others.
Wholly banning doesn't even fully eliminate murders done with guns anyways, it just reduces them. The reason they're reduced is because there are simply less out there. The same effect can be achieved without making guns illegal as long as there is strict gun control.
The reason "gun lovers" bring that up is that they're trying to show that crime and murder are still there in the pseudo absence of guns because people who argue that guns should be illegal often act like guns are the source of all violence and crime.
Yes, I know that. The point of the statement is to highlight that even if something is illegal, it is not gone.
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.
I don't agree with the reasoning that if we allow the government to take away our rights to have guns that they'll start taking away all our other rights too. Such is an actual slippery slope fallacy. However, I do not think that people should not be allowed to have guns.
There's also no need that everyone should have a gun, but if someone wants to have one and they can demonstrate that they know how to use it/own it safely and go through thorough background checks, then fine.
Less guns overall won't hurt anybody either.
We want more gun restrictions. We agree that the current state of affairs in the US in regards to gun policy is lacking.
However, we do not see why people who can prove themselves responsible and who wish to own a gun should not be able to do so.
In the case of a random shooting, yes, someone on scene with a means to defend oneself is better than waiting the few minutes it takes for the police to arrive. However, just having a gun doesn't guarantee that the civilian will win the shoot out. They're just going to get shot at first.
Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun. I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well. What we need is better control over the illegal guns out there, for the most part.
Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).
Either extreme is bad. Arguing that one side wants something one way doesn't take into account that the people who are that extreme are not the majority by any means.
Sure they can. That doesn't mean irresponsible gun owners still aren't a problem. More strict gun control means there's less guns out there for criminals to get a hold of, and still doesn't take away people's rights to own a weapon.
Small measures, you mean making sure idiots who can't safely handle a potentially lethal weapon aren't stockpiling them in their garage, where anyone can simply access them? You mean having more in-depth background checks, to make sure people who want to own guns aren't going to go on a rampage, even if it's a very small amount that actually do so? You mean making it so that weapons, which were made for war, are not so common it's extremely easy to get a hold of one?
Guns are not toys. Anyone who thinks they should be able to walk down the street and buy a gun does not have the right mindset. They are potentially lethal weapons. They should not be laying around the house, in reach of anyone. They shouldn't be stored with the ammo, and they shouldn't be played around with. If you don't take care of it properly, it can even malfunction.
I've said as much many times in this thread, banning guns does not make them disappear. I do not advocate a ban, I advocate more strict procedures to help limit the amount of guns available, and more measures taken to secure illegal firearms.
Quote me where I've said I think people shouldn't have guns. I have said exactly the opposite many times. Trained people carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, help prevent things like that. I have said this before. I've long thought it stupid that security guards at schools are armed with at most a taser.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING NO ONE BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.
Multiple people have expressed over the course of this thread that they wish an increase in gun control. Not complete revocation. Only a small number have said no civilian firearms at all.
And....we stop there. If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it unless stopped first. Doesn't matter if it's a gun or arson or a knife or a car or whatever else.
This is how many times I ALONE have specifically said what it is we're talking about. NOT a complete ban.
At first. In the future I bet gun control will be very strict... But things like this do NOT happen over night. I wouldn't be suprised if, in about, 50 years guns will be pretty much banned. Its not the guns, but the people . there will always be idiots around, guns or not.
It reduces murder. There's honestly no realistic situation I can think of, as the burglar (unless you're a veteran) is likely a better shot than you. So I'd say that if neither side has a firearm, the long-term outcome will prove to be far better. Anyway, guns are becoming outdated as armies turn to electronic warfare. Soon a gun will be recognised as the tool of a murderer.
Sorry, very unclear. What I mean is that there are very few situations in which having a gun is likely to help you (the victim) when being robbed or assaulted. Perhaps you're being held hostage? You might kill someone, but chances are you'll injure someone and then be killed as "too much trouble". So you've prevented nothing and got yourself killed.
