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?
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."
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.
Yes, I'm going to walk/bike/commute/drive to work with KEVLAR, riot shield and a master blaster.
is it really that hard to acknowledges this all can be printed? just give it some more time. the technology has just started to grow.
Yes, it means we need to put plans in place to control it when it happens, and maybe some ways to control it now. But the current printable guns are less of a threat than the normal guns criminals already use.
Legality doesn't stop the kind of people that buy guns for the purpose of going out and hurting others.
Yes, I'm going to walk/bike/commute/drive to work with KEVLAR, riot shield and a master blaster.
To address the whole idea of gun control laws....
Seems like it has done pretty well in other nations.
Stay in your own myths that stamping out sources of guns and gun ownership will only harm legal owners and not criminals. This logic that criminals don't follow laws makes no sense whatsoever, because if that is true, then what is the purpose of a law? People who have the intention of committing a crime will already do so, and people who don't, will somehow, mysteriously, miraculously, enigmatically, not want to do so, due to some natural, intrinsic reason. Laws then, in your logic and context, have no meaning, because they stop no one.
Stay in your own myths that stamping out sources of guns and gun ownership will only harm legal owners and not criminals. This logic that criminals don't follow laws makes no sense whatsoever, because if that is true, then what is the purpose of a law? People who have the intention of committing a crime will already do so, and people who don't, will somehow, mysteriously, miraculously, enigmatically, not want to do so, due to some natural, intrinsic reason. Laws then, in your logic and context, have no meaning, because they stop no one.
I don't get why I was quoted for this response, since I've never argued that guns laws are useless.
This logic that criminals don't follow laws makes no sense whatsoever, because if that is true, then what is the purpose of a law?
I'm sorry, what? If you are a criminal you broke the law. You can't be a criminal by obeying laws, and if you broke the law you aren't following laws.
People who have the intention of committing a crime will already do so, and people who don't, will somehow, mysteriously, miraculously, enigmatically, not want to do so, due to some natural, intrinsic reason.
So the only thing keeping you from killing, or stealing, or harming, or whatever law you might break, is the law itself?
Laws then, in your logic and context, have no meaning, because they stop no one.
They stop the people who are on the fence, or don't want to face the consequences. They don't stop people who have no desire to do what the law prevents, because they wouldn't be doing it anyways. They also don't stop the people who really want to do whatever the laws says not to, or who don't care about the consequences. None of this means we shouldn't have laws, but it means we have to realize people will break them, which is why we have predefined consequences for such people.
I don't get why I was quoted for this response, since I've never argued that guns laws are useless.
It wasn't directed to you. It was for crazyape.
I'm sorry, what? If you are a criminal you broke the law. You can't be a criminal by obeying laws, and if you broke the law you aren't following laws.
Crazy states that criminals don't follow laws, so enacting laws are useless. This is a devious, yet unsettling, and worthless argument. Why? Because then it implies that the proponent indicates that all laws are useless at stopping criminals (the main purpose of law) since they're going to break them anyway. Hence, why laws in the first place? To prevent potential criminals? Yet if they are potential criminals, they're going to commit the crime, regardless of the law.
So the only thing keeping you from killing, or stealing, or harming, or whatever law you might break, is the law itself?
Not for me. But in many cases yes.
They stop the people who are on the fence, or don't want to face the consequences. They don't stop people who have no desire to do what the law prevents, because they wouldn't be doing it anyways. They also don't stop the people who really want to do whatever the laws says not to, or who don't care about the consequences. None of this means we shouldn't have laws, but it means we have to realize people will break them, which is why we have predefined consequences for such people.
Yes, yet Crazyape's ill-thought out post indicates that criminals, are not to be held back by the law. This is clearly not true. Laws will always have people breaking them, yet they will stop people on the fence, who are potential criminals, and who, without such laws, will proceed to carry out the crime. Hence, gun laws are useful.
In going to just sum the whole argument up with a statement and supporting evidence. Taking weapons away from law-abiding citizens is ridiculous, because "They passed a law, so I'm going to turn in my weapons" said no criminal list. I once watched a movie where only the military an police had guns. It was called Schindler's List.
And another point; you may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That's your right. You may not believe in God, that is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first things you are going to do are: 1) Call someone who has a gun, and 2) pray to God they get there in time.
Now, I refuse to be defenceless. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my loved ones, I reserve the right to waste that mother****er. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. You can choose not to own a weapon, but don't take away my right to protect my family. You have no business even suggesting that.
