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?
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?
As far as I am aware, armed raving madmen don't break into houses; they go where you find crowds. But letting the improbability of such an event aside, do you really think you'd stand a chance? Even if you had a gun safely stored somehwere in the house, psychopath McGee would get you without trouble.
I've been reasoned to let go of the idea of banning guns, because you don't need a ban on guns if you have reasonable restrictions. There is no ban on car licences, yet you still have to pass exams and take lessons and pay a lot of money. In my opinion, it makes sense that guns are at least as hard to get as car licences. That way, your beloved holy comm.. er, amendments are not even infringed.
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.
Perhaps you didn't read what I typed, or even processed it thoroughly. The Constitution has to be changed when it needs to, to fit society's changes and needs. Do we still believe and need the right of equality for all men regardless of race, religion and ethnicity? Yes. Do we believe guns are needed and are a right? That is debatable. Do we guarantee and define marriage solely as between man and woman? Debatable. Times are changing.
So yes! We can go, ''Out with the old laws'', because the Constitution is fundamentally a set of laws that all laws proceeding take a lead from. If times change, and it doesn't fit our needs, we change.
Did you ever consider that the video of Saddam allowing guns to be purchased wasn't staged? Also in North Korea you can't exactly own guns,and if you do your in the military. Also what was something Hitler and Stalin did? They took away guns. Also if the U.S. was invaded by ground forces they would have a hell of a time trying to conquer. There are ~88 people who own guns out of every 100 people. All things aside a hunting rifle is essentially a sniper rifle that is legal.
Oh no, I didn't watch the video. Guns were ubiquitous during Saddam's time, and well documented. In fact, after the Iraqis won a football match against Iran in the 1980s, the happy gunfire all around Baghdad and other cities that night was so intense that the government had to warn Iraqis to stay indoors because of the bullets raining down.
In almost all the First World nations, gun ownership is strict, yet are we a dictatorship? Do they riot against the government, and bring down governments? (Greece, Spain, amongst others). Yes! Can people own guns in many dictatorships? Yes, look at Africa or Latin America. Are they free? Certainly not.
I'm a trained soldier. And I can tell you that it takes more than just owning a gun, but months of training to stand your ground, learn proper tactics, and actually conduct a ground operation. We don't even need to send in troops, all respectable militaries today practice the doctrine of artillery/aerial bombardment, with tanks, and then followed by infantry to mop up any resistance left.
If you didn't realize this, bad people don't play by the rules. Syria used chemical weapons agaisnt their own people. North Korea broke all the restrictions to what the UN said they couldn't do. So what makes you think it is 100% possible that someone could not find an illegal means to obtain one of these weapons.
If you didn't realise, tough government crackdowns over time work. What's the difference between Syria/NK and illegal gun dealers? Two are countries, the other is a person. A country can do whatever it wishes to, within its national boundaries and within its own resources, provided it doesn't infringe on international law or another's territory. On the opposite end, we have an entire country and its judicial system against groups of people. Is it easy? No. Is it easier? Yes.
only if the country in question has signed the international law.
Yes yes, provided it doesn't infringe international law sufficiently for the outside community to take action to a certain degree. Making illegal nukes is one thing, firing them or being linked to terror with WMDs is another.
Peoples with guns are much more dangeruos then not armed persons, right? So its enough for one guy with these guns to kill someone. And bunch to make some damage.
Peoples with guns are much more dangeruos then not armed persons, right? So its enough for one guy with these guns to kill someone. And bunch to make some damage.
Agreed. It's scary, the way a rifle blows up a watermelon or concrete block.
I believe that people should be allowed to own firearms if they pass a background check and also attend mandatory gun safety classes. Most of the accidents caused by guns misfiring or kids getting into them or any other gun-related news is caused by human stupidity. There's a thing on firearms called the "Safety" that prevents the gun from firing. Also, keeping the gun unloaded would stop a lot of these accidental shootings. As for the mass murderers and gang members, removing all guns from the public won't stop anything; they will buy off the black market. Also, removing firearms from the general public would endanger them more because of my previously mentioned fact. Criminals are not going to stop using guns if they are revoked.
As for the mass murderers and gang members, removing all guns from the public won't stop anything; they will buy off the black market.Also, removing firearms from the general public would endanger them more because of my previously mentioned fact. Criminals are not going to stop using guns if they are revoked.
Gun Control isn't just about making it harder to acquire guns, it's also about stamping out illegal sources of guns. Something many other nations have successfully done so.
I believe that people should be allowed to own firearms if they pass a background check and also attend mandatory gun safety classes. Most of the accidents caused by guns misfiring or kids getting into them or any other gun-related news is caused by human stupidity. There's a thing on firearms called the "Safety" that prevents the gun from firin
Many people circumvent current checks by letting their relatives buy the gun itself, and then just taking the firearm. People who aren't supposed to own guns can easily procure one in this fashion.
ok what if they did take all the guns away and you got mugged? just let them take what they want? what if its your wife or girlfriend? with a concealed gun you could wait tell he is going to leave and shot him in the back.
ok what if they did take all the guns away and you got mugged? just let them take what they want?
hmmm yes.... you value your possessions more then your life? well i dont. they may have anything i got on me. i see no need to play a hero.
what if its your wife or girlfriend? with a concealed gun you could wait tell he is going to leave and shot him in the back.
call the cops for home aggression...
i dunno why you wanna shoot your wife or gf in the back. but i think that relationship has come to a end anyway. and there is no need for violence. just break up and never see each other again...
ok what if they did take all the guns away and you got mugged? just let them take what they want? what if its your wife or girlfriend? with a concealed gun you could wait tell he is going to leave and shot him in the back.
Statistics show that you're more likely to be shot if you pull out your own gun. In the limited likelihood that I'm robbed with a gun if gun control works, I'll just give my wallet away? The heck? It's my life. I can live with a few fivers gone.
If you didn't realise, tough government crackdowns over time work.
Like that famous success, the war on drugs. And please stop going "but what about muggers?". In the UK, you know what a mugging is? Four teenage boys and a knife, taking a wallet and maybe a ring. In the US? A grown person and his/her gun, shooting another person after taking everything they're carrying. In China, I can't even imagine a mugging. My hunting knife got confiscated at Kunming airport. I am twelve.
You will if it's a situation in which a loved one is being threatened, or at least I hope so.
never been in the situation so i can't tell. thus-far ive only responded with violence when they threatened me and my group to be lynched. but that was because they were out to kill and not out for our possessions. and i think the same will count for your example. i dont see a reason to play the hero when a loved one of mine is threatened for his/her possessions. if they however thread her life, then i'll use what ive learned to defend myself. (i dont need a gun for that.) but the same would count if they thread my life instead of just mugging me.
Do the statistics account for when the gun is pulled? Do they also account for the scenario?
Part of owning a gun is knowing when to use one, and just as importantly, when not to use one.
I would suppose that they pulled data for recorded crimes.
And please stop going "but what about muggers?". In the UK, you know what a mugging is? Four teenage boys and a knife, taking a wallet and maybe a ring. In the US? A grown person and his/her gun, shooting another person after taking everything they're carrying. In China, I can't even imagine a mugging. My hunting knife got confiscated at Kunming airport. I am twelve.
In China, a mugging doesn't involve a gun. Why? Because guns are tightly regulated. Same for the UK. Why does it for the US? Because the supply and culture of guns have been entrenched over the years, that any effort to control both are far from easy. That doesn't mean that it should be attempted to stop.
