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?
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.
Just because it would prove difficult to round up or collect illegal guns, does not make a sound argument that certain guns should be legalised forever. The British did so, in 1903, and today, even it's policemen don't carry guns. This works because, guns fall into disrepair, and bullets will run out.
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.
The root problem here is the robbery, and not whether one has the gun. In a country with low crime rates, the need for guns will lessen.
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.
Statistically, robbers have been shown to shoot at people with guns, and spare those without guns. I have a business suggesting that, because allowing everyone to have guns is a major con which far outweighs the benefits. This can be seen by the exceedingly low number of proven cases whereby a firearm helped, compared to the lives taken, the monetary damage induced, and the social costs, of letting millions of guns exist in the pipeline.
The entire United States also has an average gun-fuelled homicide rate of 2.97% per 100,000 citizens, with most countries above it also having extremely soft gun restrictions, some with almost none, such as Latin American, and African states. It is most definitely worth noting that countries with extremely strict gun laws are â" not surprisingly â" at the bottom of the list, with England and Wales again having a small 0.07% gun-based homicide rate per 100,000 citizens. Perhaps there is some possible correlation here, but I leave that for gun owners to think about.
...and then we come round circle to what I've been saying this entire time.
More strict gun control laws, not an outright ban. We keep them out of the hands of people unable to responsibly or safely use them via means of testing and background checks, and we regulate the types of guns available to civilians to lessen abuse.
Currently, after having read into the topic, handguns are the main problems. They're concealable, easily hidden, in-cumbersome, and small. They're used in most crimes.
Modified assault weapons so they cannot fire automatically would be fine, as would other types of rifles. If people want to shoot for sport, there could be separate licenses for various types of guns.
People need to realize that guns are dangerous weapons. Even if you use them in non-lethal ways, others use them in lethal ways. Keeping them available for anyone to get their hands on leads to pain and suffering.
Even if it's broken, it still works for 'armed' robbery, as the threat is still perceived. If everyone followed partydevil's plan, it wouldn't even have to be loaded.
This can be seen by the exceedingly low number of proven cases whereby a firearm helped
What about the number of cases where being unarmed meant you were completely screwed? Aurora? The numerous school shootings?
If people want to shoot for sport, there could be separate licenses for various types of guns.
This doesn't work all the time, like with the guy in Norway. He got all the stuff, other than the police uniform, legally.
I'm not saying 'do nothing', but regulations alone will never erradicate the problem entirely.
More strict gun control laws, not an outright ban.
How strict? A slow 'ban' seems to be what's coming. If the regulations and tests steadily get to a point where no one can pass, no one will have legal ownership.
Even if it's broken, it still works for 'armed' robbery, as the threat is still perceived. If everyone followed partydevil's plan, it wouldn't even have to be loaded.
hey hey, can you tell what my plan was? ive been posting in this topic for a while on all different kinds of subjects. but havn't followed it anymore since the other guy said it really was to hard for him to acknowledges it all can be printed in the not so far future.
however, of course does it still work in a robbery when it is a black painted water pistol. it is the thread such object applies that is enough. (also the reason why real looking toy guns are banned here. (and no we do not have a outright ban on guns, it's just very hard to get one legally))
I didn't mean "lan" as in "x, y, and z should be done for gun control", but your procedure for complying with robbers. Sorry for not being clearer.
I'm not saying 'do nothing', but regulations alone will never erradicate the problem entirely.
Of course not. As nicho said above, measures all around need to be taken. Just putting a law into effect does nothing if it's not enforced and if other areas aren't likewise addressed.
How strict?
At the very least, some sort of firearms/safety training, along with a background check. As for what said check would look for, any sort of criminal record, history of anger issues or serious mental illnesses, which could then be investigated further if present.
Not any and everyone should have a gun. Responsibility is a key part, and unfortunately a great many people are irresponsible, immature, impulsive, and irrational.
If someone wants to own a potentially lethal weapon for any given reason, they should first have to prove they know what's what about it, how to keep it away from children/safe storage, when to use it and what to use it for. A handgun in the side-drawer which you keep loaded is -not- okay, unless perhaps you live alone. There are other methods for self defense which are non-lethal which work perfectly well.
Can you give me any good reason why we should let any and everyone have firearms in their houses? Without any checks over who? The freedom argument is bull**** when thousands are dying every year from morons misusing guns or their vast prevalence making it easy for criminals to attain them.
Can you give me any good reason why we should let any and everyone have firearms in their houses? Without any checks over who?
Locally it may work as a deterrant. Knowing that breaking into any house in the town could easily mean a hole in your head is a bit of a downer. Knowing that you're 100% able to waltz in and get what you want without resistance is attractive.
Just thought I'd blow your whale crap out of the water
Time to blow your own crap out of the water.
Stats from WHO2012 and UNODC 2012 Total UK deaths by firearms per 100,000, 0.04
In the US? 3.20
The often quoted statistic of 2k violent crimes per 100,000 in the UK, versus that of 466 in the US is one of unbelievable facade and lying. Why? What most people don't know is that, is that the definitions for âviolent crimeâ are very different in the US and Britain. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports defines a "violent crime" as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes."
When you look at how this changes the meaning of violent crime, it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You're simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.
But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, 'ossession of an article with a blade or point,' and causing 'ublic fear, alarm, or distress.' And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.
The lower rates of crime and violent gun homicide in France, Germany, Italy and Spain coincide somehow, for perhaps god knows what reason, with stricter and more restraining gun laws than America.
Perhaps if statistics were looked at with more critical analysis, one would find a deeper meaning underneath a thin veneer of poor lies.
All these gun regulations are stupid. You think that taking away the right to won firearms is going to help the people? DO YOU really think that will stop psycopaths from getting hands on guns? If we can't own guns how are we going to protect ourselves if lets say pscyopath McGee broke into your house with an assault weapon. How would you protect yourself? It even says in the constitution's 2nd amendment, and I quote,
Yes it will. Dozens of nations have proven that for the last century or so. Gun control does not only entail stricter gun background checks, banning of certain guns, or stricter inter-state control that will affect legal buyers, sufficient steps have to be undertaken to stamp out illegal sources of guns. Otherwise, that'll be a self-harming policy.
How would I protect myself? In such a case, the number of assault weapons would be drastically reduced and prevented from falling into the hands of psychopaths.
Also, you know what tyrannical dictators and Tyrannical states take away first? Firearms.
I'm very sure that your small arms would be effective against the world's most powerful military. And no, I disagree. Look at Iraq, where guns were legal under Saddam.
So the government cannot interfer with our ability to own firearms.
The Constitution is not a magical slab of stone with a list of Commandments. It is a list of laws that was considered prevalent, necessary, just for it's time. Fast forward 200 years, times have changed wildly. Guns have evolved, society has metamorphosed. If the whole Constitution is merely taken as infallible, you live in an archaic society with archaic rules. It is bound up in a romantic mythology, which though well deserved for time immortal, should not grant it the status of ''worship'' and regarded as untouchable. If a constitution no longer meets the exigencies of a society's "evolving standard of decency", and the people wish to amend or replace the document, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the manner which was envisioned by the drafters: through the amendment process.
i would say that no1 needs a gun unless they can give a good reason why they need a gun. (beside the background checks and training befor actually getting one.) and also allot of bureaucracy to stop people from trying to get one when they do not need one. + these checks and trainings should be repeated once in the 2 year or so.
For the laws of a country the constitution is supposed to be such a thing. A country couldn't be the same it just throws out it's constitution. So your saying if I was the prime minister of Great Britain I could just be like "Out with the old laws, its my way now"? New laws cannot be in violations of a country's constitution.
a constitution is not holy scripture. as the world changes, ethics and morals changes. and so should a constitution be open for changes. if the constitution isn't open for changes then your laws are walking behind on reality after some time. and indeed new laws can't be made when they violate the constitution. thats why the constitution has to be updated from time to time.
Syria used chemical weapons agaisnt their own people.
proof it... if they are being used, they can just aswell have been used by the "rebels".
North Korea broke all the restrictions to what the UN said they couldn't do.
ever thought of the option that NK just doesn't care about the UN?
