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?
I'm just saying. he mentioned him so I decided to say how I'm related. Or would you like to take my freedom of speach away as well?
Oh no, but it sounded almost like it was a premise. Almost.
here people can live miles away from towns and where nobody but that gun can stop that charging Bear. What is your other option? Shoot him with a crossbow? maybe that will wound him and slow him down but even with that huge sword that bear is gun tear you apart stilll. Only difference is both of you die this way.
Which part of
Is this the Old West now? Nope. As we have already made quite clear, we don't support the banning of guns, but for good reasons. Self defense in the wild from game is a legitimate reason that most countries accept.
The idea of gun control is to make it harder to get guns no matter what they are needed for. They won't simply ban them in California and then let the fly around in alaska or Washington state. No they are planning on taking guns away from EVERYBODY. That is their ultimate end goal. and here are some examples of how gun control has harmed a few nations: [quote]Gun Control: A Look at Anti-Gun Laws & Anti Gun Nations In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- In 1911,Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. â"- â"â"â"â"- â"â"â"â"- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â" Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"- You wonât see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens, because while the law abiding citizens turn in their guns, the criminals do not, they still possess their guns. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUNâ¦SWITZERLANDâS GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
The idea of gun control is to make it harder to get guns no matter what they are needed for. They won't simply ban them in California and then let the fly around in alaska or Washington state. No they are planning on taking guns away from EVERYBODY. That is their ultimate end goal. and here are some examples of how gun control has harmed a few nations:
No one has stated this. You're simply stating an unfounded hypothetical scenario.
Here's another. We continue piling on guns, and one day the States implode. Does that sound fair? No, because it is not backed, and is farfetched.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
A man with a pistol is going to go up against the greatest and most bloody purges of all times? A pistol going against the most powerful Communist government?
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
By Idi Amin, the world's top fruitcake, and the Ugandan army.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
None of the Jews knew where they were going, and most were bluffed into thinking they were going to work camps, right till the showers. Also, going against the almighty German army and Nazi government?
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
You want to fight the Khmer Rogue? Be my guest.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Chinese civil war. Good luck going up against both of the huge and heavily armed armies.
Notice the trend here? These are all scenarios where the people are up against the national army, during wartime or political revolutions. Simply stating that a gun is the cure is absurd, because such guns are pitiful compared to the military might possessed by real armies.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUNâ¦SWITZERLANDâS GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
You never read what we have all posted. Switzerland TRAINS its people from young to be CIVIC MINDED and care for the COMMUNITY. They're weapons are issued because of Switzerland's unique defense system of a militia, each person is taught that the gun is used to defend the COMMUNITY. That's why they have such a low crime rate with guns (apart from being immensely rich and welfare state driven).
By contrast, the US doesn't instil national training and such spirit in everyone.
You really are missing the point. Right after they implament these gun controls a few years later, sometimes that very year, Mass Murder is commited. You know what a government fears? Armed citizens because they aren't able to do as they please. And no, not one pearson can stop an army, but 20 million chinese? I'm pretty sure their army doesn't have that many,same with the soviet unnion. Can you hold off 20 million soldiers? You don't have a tank for every single soldier to stand behind, soon the military's body count goes up and it doesn't help them them any. And come on, look at the body count after they did all this. Millions died because they thought that the government was supposedly protecting them from themselves when they took away their only means of defence.
404011xz: Regarding the above table listing corrupted governments exterminating their minoritiy people. You fail to see that GUNS did not do this, it was the corrupted government that did that. If guns did not exist, then Hitler may have resorted to other weapons like poison gas. Guns are the tool of death. Still, people should be allowed to defend themselves! Of course, when you're facing the Wehrmacht and Gestapo, you can either defend yourself with a gun and probably die, or dont defend yourself and die. Here is the ONLY situation in where I would approve of guns, and that is to level the power field. OF COURSE, IF WE HAD NO GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED GUNS. Switzerland: You should know that almost every Swiss has military training and knows full well how to use that gun. They know how powerful a gun is, and have the responsibility and common sense to know not to use it unless absolutely necessary. You make two statements that, while true, dont lead to one another. Switzerland does not have the lowest gun crime BECAUSE everyone has a gun, switzerland has the lowest gun crime rate BECAUSE everyone's smart and responsible enough to NOT use their gun, unless of course absolutely necessary.
My posistion as of now Guns are tools of crazy-high power compared to other weapons. With great power comes great responsibility. Therefore, only people with great responsibility (Those that absolutely WILL NOT under any circumstances either directly or indirectly cause gun-related crime) should be allowed to have guns. If you're a trigger-happy "atriot", I dont trust you with a gun.
Wow, I can't believe how many people support gun control, but still. I repeat this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You cannot blame the gun for the stupidity of the pearson weilding it. Throught the centuries people have found ways to kill each others, even without guns. You risk the chance of your very own government killing you. Guns aren't the best invention, sure they have their downsides, but they also have their upsides. They are the double edged sword. Same thing with cars, they give us fast transportation, but they also pollute our air and make many of us fat, I'm not one of them. Also the Nuclear Bomb, devastating weapon, but people respect mutual destruction and don't go to war with on another.
Right after they implament these gun controls a few years later, sometimes that very year, Mass Murder is commited.
The Gun Act of 1938 in Germany applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. Furthermore, it did not ban guns, but merely required people to get a permit.
It banned Jews from owning guns, but because the Nazi were racist pigs. The problem was the Nazi, NOT gun control.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977,
One fact slipped through. A really obvious one. In 1956, the nation was ruled by King Sihanouk. In 1975 to 1977, it was ruled by the Kampuchean government. Different government altogether, different set of rules.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The USSR rightfully did so. Coming out of a decade of Civil War and war with Poland, having murderous bands of thugs roaming the country was a frightening danger.
Again, you ignore the fact that the GOVERNMENT itself implemented the Terror of the 1930s. The government, with it's vicious NKVD and gulags.
In 1911,Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
I'll like to see people resist the Armenian Genocide by turning their pathetic small arms against a Great Power. The Turkish government massacred the Armenians in war time, it was not preplanned from the start.
Let's also give an example of where gun control worked.
Oh wait, it's the rest of the civilised world!
Armed citizens because they aren't able to do as they please. And no, not one pearson can stop an army, but 20 million chinese? I'm pretty sure their army doesn't have that many,same with the soviet unnion. Can you hold off 20 million soldiers? You don't have a tank for every single soldier to stand behind, soon the military's body count goes up and it doesn't help them them any. And come on, look at the body count after they did all this. Millions died because they thought that the government was supposedly protecting them from themselves when they took away their only means of defence.
Is a civilian an armed soldier? Are all civilians fit men, or are children and women included? Are civilians armed with comparable weapons to military grade weapons? No.
Millions died because they thought that the government was supposedly protecting them from themselves when they took away their only means of defence.
The body count was already spectacularly high during 1916 to 1928 Warlord era. Did guns help them? Nope.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You cannot blame the gun for the stupidity of the pearson weilding it.
Guns make it exponentially easier to wipe out people. It's the same reason why we try to control nuclear arms, but continue producing conventional arms on a disgusting scale.
Throught the centuries people have found ways to kill each others, even without guns. You risk the chance of your very own government killing you.
Ha, government is bad, it's evil, it's horrific. Well, I'm here to tell you the rest of the world doesn't fear the government as you do. They hate it for it's inefficiencies, they hate it for its corruption, but no nation other than the US is so paranoid as to require a small arm just to feel safe.
Guns aren't the best invention, sure they have their downsides, but they also have their upsides. They are the double edged sword. Same thing with cars, they give us fast transportation, but they also pollute our air and make many of us fat, I'm not one of them.
Guns have constantly been proven to do more harm than good when owned on such a large scale. Continue enjoying the 70,000 odd people killed each year.
Also the Nuclear Bomb, devastating weapon, but people respect mutual destruction and don't go to war with on another.
I can give you a list of hundreds of wars that occurred after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Prevent war? Between conventional Great powers yes. Between the more guerrilla type enemies we have today? No.
I don't hate the Government, I'm just dissapointed how it's being ran of late, And no small arms don't make me feel safe, they allow me to know if a robber comes inside I don't have to worry about how to defend myself, what I do is just ****, point, and pull. 70k? I found it said 30k? Considering that I'm more likely to get in a care crash than I am to get shot I think my odds are pretty nice. Maybe I'll leave set my house on fire by accident and add myself to that number. The point is that of all the ways to die gun shot isn't really up there.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
Oh good I can lecture you.
This event has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gun control. This event has a great deal to do with Western imperialism of the late 19th Century, the Boxer Uprising, the rise of nationalism in China during the early 20th Century, the defeats suffered at the hands of Imperial Japan, enroachment by Russia, political factions, the removal of an imperial government and the successive failures of governments which rose to take its place. However, it has nothing to do with gun control. That act was put in place to avoid a civil uprising because of China precarious position in terms of a weak government. It was designed to protect everyone from civil wars brought about by the people, not the government falling into two militaristic factions.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Then I guess bombs, or any other weapon of war kills people either. Want to know why the gun was designed? To kill people more efficiently during times of war. Amazing it's as if guns are MEANT to kill.
You cannot blame the gun for the stupidity of the pearson weilding it.
Yes I can. A stupid person with a knife has far less potential to kill me.
You risk the chance of your very own government killing you.
You do not live in Soviet Russia. You do not live in a third world country run by a warlord. I am pretty sure you're an American. It's okay, Obama is not going to turn the military on you. Regulations by the government are necessary, there needs to be a balance. We're not saying ban guns completely, (at least I'm not) we're saying put regulations on them so that we can balance things out to lessen the likelihood of future tragedy.
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
And no small arms don't make me feel safe, they allow me to know if a robber comes inside I don't have to worry about how to defend myself, what I do is just ****, point, and pull.
I wonder why I feel safe at night without any guns. Oh wait, it's because the robber almost certainly has no access to guns, and the national police are immensely capable.
Considering that I'm more likely to get in a care crash than I am to get shot I think my odds are pretty nice. Maybe I'll leave set my house on fire by accident and add myself to that number.
Not taking out a veritable source of harm and blood just because it does not cause as much harm as something else is an immensely moronic argument.
I personally think you have all missed the points I have maid the last 2 days. But according to you I'm not allowed to get guns because a few idiots ruined it for me. It's ok though, continue to step on the bill of rights passed so many years ago to make sure the people come before the government. Go ahead, I don't want my freedoms, I want to end up like China and be totally dependant on the government to do all my thinking fo me. It's all fine, I hope you enjoy your laughs in your countries because this subject actually stikes me here at home. I hope you had a nice laugh. I'll stay out of this forum because all it manages to do is get my blood presure up. Have fun talking amongst yourselves. If you want me back for laughs message me on my profile. And no I'm not stopping because you think your wining, it's because when I get in a political mood I tend to go on stuff like this and waste a few hours of my life I'll never get back, could of probably spent this time trying to clean the garage or something. Anything other than trying to talk to this brick wall in front of me.
I personally think you have all missed the points I have maid the last 2 days.
I have answered to each and everyone of your points. Point out those you think I haven't and I will.
I want to end up like China and be totally dependant on the government to do all my thinking fo me.
Before you lambast China, read up some Chinese books. Like Martin Jacques. He explains perfectly, the Sino mindset, and how we constantly view them erroneously through our democracy loving freedom, Euroscentric glasses.
Considering that I'm more likely to get in a care crash than I am to get shot I think my odds are pretty nice.
Which only goes to show that the requirements and testing procedures to acquire a driver's license are incredibly pathetic and need to be hiked up.
And no small arms don't make me feel safe, they allow me to know if a robber comes inside I don't have to worry about how to defend myself, what I do is just ****, point, and pull.
It's somewhat alarming that your first intent is to simply kill the person. Calling the police and then assessing whether or not the robber is armed would be my first two actions.
I personally think you have all missed the points I have maid the last 2 days.
No, he's addressed them. Your views are just as bad as people who want guns completely illegal. Extremes are very often a poor response.
But according to you I'm not allowed to get guns because a few idiots ruined it for me.
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.
I want to end up like China and be totally dependant on the government to do all my thinking fo me.
I'm kind of disturbed you associate a gun with your brain.
