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?
So here is my question: If you start to restrict guns for the law-abiding citizens, they will be defenseless! A criminal who is already breaking the law will now have the advantage in any type of crime situation with the law-abiding citizen(s). Now, you may be thinking: "Well they aren't completely defenseless, they could have a baseball bat or golf club." Ok. Think about it. How good will a baseball bat do against a criminal with a gun? And will you really have the guts to charge the criminal? I was researching a bit, and I found a nice little fact. "If you are within 7 feet of a person holding a gun on you, you have a chance to rush the person and take the gun from them." How many courageous people would rush the criminal in order to possibly save your life and other people's life? I know I would, because thats how I've been raised and taught. But heres another thing: Fear. If you not only allow, but encourage law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms to protect themselves, how do you think criminals will react to this? I think that they would be more careful, which would mean we would get less crimes because of the fact these criminals are scared of being shot with a 12 gauge.
but death is NOT the penalty for burglary.
OK, I am going to agree somewhat with you here. But if you actually think about it, if the possibility of death hangs over their heads, they would second-guess themselves. They would weigh the outcomes and possibilities. On the left hand, we have death. On the right hand, we have a few nights of eating which could be earned easier in less life-threatening ways. Sure they shouldn't need to die, but if they choose to break into a home, thats a definent possibility.
If you start to restrict guns for the law-abiding citizens, they will be defenseless! A criminal who is already breaking the law will now have the advantage in any type of crime situation with the law-abiding citizen(s).
But according to the rest of the world, it is the duty of the victim to surrender at all times.
But according to the rest of the world, it is the duty of the victim to surrender at all times.
Spot extrapolating and misunderstanding our arguments. I'm just saying it is safer for you not to try and fight back an armed burglar, plus it's juristically less problematic.
One factor that I'd like to discuss is American architecture. Many houses are like cardboard houses, easy to break in. This might strengthen the necessity of a gun to feel safe. What if your home was sufficiently securized?
Yo listen up, I 'll tell you a tale. Few years ago, in pakistan, robberies got way out of hand, like too many robberies. People were understandibaly pissed. One day, few robbers went about their business in a town, their bad luck was calling them for the people gathered up with their guns and pitch forks ( mainly guns). When they finished soiling their pants, the robbers promptly surrendered ( reaper had an easy day thanks to them). Now people of the town who were now evolved into an angry mob beat the robbers up pretty good. So good that those poor *******s died. News went viral, police could not do anything for whole town was involvedand who were they gonna arrest, based on what? Another town copied the methd, then another then another town flamed things up a bit(literaly, as in they burned them alive) robberies reduced for the time being, but a few months later, robbers after having enjoyed their break started robbing more than ever, with a little twist, they shoot to kill on first sign of struggle. PS:- In Pakistan, 11% population has legal fire arms, illegal fire arms are easily twice or thrice that number. For all practical purposes, every second person owns a gun.
But according to the rest of the world, it is the duty of the victim to surrender at all times.
are your possessions more important then your life? you rather escalate a burglary into a gunfight instead of losing some material possessions? what good will those items be to you when your dead?
i know americans are raised to try to be the hero all the time. from the lowest beggar to mr.president himself. but it is not needed. it is provoking more bad then it does good. just look at a random superhero, there is always a nemesis that just wants to kill that hero. being a hero for 1 often means your a enemy for the other. and now take a look at the us government. =P
If you not only allow, but encourage law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms to protect themselves, how do you think criminals will react to this? I think that they would be more careful, which would mean we would get less crimes because of the fact these criminals are scared of being shot with a 12 gauge.
i think they will prepare better for their "work". and become more aggressive. shooting the law-abiding citizen befor they get the chance of shooting the criminal. after all, who is the 1 expecting a gunfight that evening? not the law-abiding citizen. he is watching football on tv. more fear = more violence.
How many courageous people would rush the criminal in order to possibly save your life and other people's life? I know I would, because thats how I've been raised and taught.
most people are unable to shoot in the heat of the moment anyway. what good does it do that they have a gun in the house if they can't use it when the situation is just right as too often is used by pro-gun people?
But if you actually think about it, if the possibility of death hangs over their heads, they would second-guess themselves. They would weigh the outcomes and possibilities. On the left hand, we have death. On the right hand, we have a few nights of eating which could be earned easier in less life-threatening ways
hereis one for you: the possibility you get into a gunfight and die increases greatly by owning a gun and using it against criminals. on your left had. you co-operate with the criminal and he will get away as soon possible. you stay alive but are missing some money and/or items. on your right hand. you point a gun at the criminal who in reflex shoots you. now your dead (or crippled for a while if your lucky) and the money and/or items you had are for no use anymore anyway.
you rather escalate a burglary into a gunfight instead of losing some material possessions?
Again, how do you know they only want stuff? Are you in their head? When someone breaks into someone else's home, it could be for any nefarious reason. When you're readily submissive, they can do anything they want. Most are happy with a cookie, but some want a glass of milk too. It's not about the stuff. It's about control.
And as I said before, in the cases people break into your house specifically for cookie and milk, I doubt a gun somewhere in your drawers will be of much use.
Well, I'm done trying to prove a point to ignorant people. Sure, guns can be bad in places. But you don't need to take the side of the criminal. If they get shot trying to steal something, I am not going to be the one tomourn. They deserved it.
i know americans are raised to try to be the hero all the time. from the lowest beggar to mr.president himself. but it is not needed.
Huh, funny. I've lived in the US for roughly a quarter of a century and never once felt like I was being raised to be a hero or some other sophistry. Now that I think about it, neither has anyone in my family or the families of my friends. Guess all of our parents screwed up and never got the memo back in the day.
hereis one for you: the possibility you get into a gunfight and die increases greatly by owning a gun and using it against criminals. on your left had. you co-operate with the criminal and he will get away as soon possible. you stay alive but are missing some money and/or items. on your right hand. you point a gun at the criminal who in reflex shoots you. now your dead (or crippled for a while if your lucky) and the money and/or items you had are for no use anymore anyway.
- The simple act of owning a firearm has no increase on the chance of fatality in a home-invasion scenario. Also, using one in the aforementioned scenario would only increase your chances of injury on-par with those using a baseball bat or just wandering downstairs unarmed to investigate a strange noise. - People in general are materialistic and protective of their property. This isn't anything new. If you could somehow travel back in time a thousand years and break into the residence of someone from that time period, they wouldn't just sit in the corner and simper timidly while you plunder all their worldly possessions. - What kind of scenario is that? What, did you just walk in-front of the invader with gun pointed at them? Or did you politely ask them to turn around and carefully put their hands in the air? Or maybe the invader is a super skilled firearms expert and can, on reflex as you say, squeeze off a shot that manages to mortally wound you? Good to know robbers are now on the same level as highly-trained professionals and superheroes.
Without delving through pages of discussion, is seems safe to surmise that you've never fired a firearm (handgun or otherwise). Or, if you have, you obviously have not had any formal lessons. As the saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If the person with a firearm is untrained, then they are their own biggest threat.
The issue at hand should not be whether or not people ought to own firearms, yet instead should be making ****ed sure that those who own firearms are properly trained in the use of such. For some reason, firearms are not held up to the same strictures as other (arguably) lethal possessions. If you own a vehicle and intended to use it, you are required to take courses which educate you about the proper procedures and what-have-you. At the end of those courses you need to take and pass a hands-on exam in the company of an authorized teacher. Your performance directly impacts your chances to either pass or fail. Yet for most firearms (the kind and amount varies state-by-state), you can just waltz into a Wal-Mart or your local gun store and walk-out with a firearm. No prior training or license required for that shotgun or hunting rifle (or semi-automatic civilian assault weapon). Not only ought training courses be mandatory for the purchase of a firearm, but these courses ought to require a refresher course every so often (be it every one or five years).
I have no issue with people owning firearms. What I have an issue with is idiots owning firearms. I'd much rather face down a trained assailant armed with a knife than have an untrained moron with a firearm on my 'side'.
Well, I'm done trying to prove a point to ignorant people. Sure, guns can be bad in places. But you don't need to take the side of the criminal. If they get shot trying to steal something, I am not going to be the one tomourn. They deserved it.
I'm not taking the side of the criminals, nor am I saying they are nice people and should be left alone. Anyone committing a crime should be sentenced for exactly that crime. You're just ignoring the fact that they're still human.
The issue at hand should not be whether or not people ought to own firearms, yet instead should be making ****ed sure that those who own firearms are properly trained in the use of such. For some reason, firearms are not held up to the same strictures as other (arguably) lethal possessions. If you own a vehicle and intended to use it, you are required to take courses which educate you about the proper procedures and what-have-you. At the end of those courses you need to take and pass a hands-on exam in the company of an authorized teacher. Your performance directly impacts your chances to either pass or fail. Yet for most firearms (the kind and amount varies state-by-state), you can just waltz into a Wal-Mart or your local gun store and walk-out with a firearm. No prior training or license required for that shotgun or hunting rifle (or semi-automatic civilian assault weapon).
So in USA there are gangs of crazy barbarians who assault house killing rapimg turtoring bikers? And you will defend your beloved ones and property by yourself.
If they realy want to Hunt you, they will. If they dont, you dont need a gun. Yelling is more then enough.
They are coward. They know very well that an angry house owner mean troubles. They are not GTA or something. They just try to get money.
Your idea of what is a criminal and what he want are twisted. By your definitions. You take the guns and suddenly armed militia of Cannibals take over the good peoples of USA.
And a question - do you realy belive so many Americans have guns, that a bannwill make a diffrunce?
In Israel almost no one own a gun and we are just fine. There are no armed robberies of houses or Huns riding villages. How is that?
And yea, i side these criminals - last time i checked, the punishment for theft wasnt an execution. Nor to "invading". Who do you think you are?
Not to sound brusque, but Israelis have more to worry about than house invasions by armed intruders. The dichotomy between the current situation in the US and Israel makes any valid comparison fall short. Besides, it's been shown throughout history that guns aren't necessary to bring about death and strife.
Furthermore! Despite you claiming to not be taking the side of criminals, you still are giving them quite a large berth when it comes to benefit of a doubt. If someone invades private property (be it a residence, business, etc.) and is armed, then they obviously have some intent to use the weapon. It may not be their main or desired plan. Yet the fact still remains that they broke into a private residence armed.
Also, before you try to argue that they may not be armed, take this into consideration. Someone breaking to a private residence obviously is not in the best financial situation. It's extremely likely that doing such is a last ditch effort to gain a source of revenue. The other possibility is that they are a career criminal who only knows one way to survive, and that one way is breaking the law. Both scenarios do not make for a very level-headed or complacent individual. They are already teetering on the brink and need to make score in order to keep on going. So they bring a weapon in case anything goes awry because there is nothing left to lose.
Yet I don't want to make this into a discussion about the mental state and quality of life of criminals. I just simply wanted to set things straight so that the current discussion about US gun control doesn't turn too far down the path of the worth of human life. That's a totally separate subject. Feel free to make another thread about that if you desire so.
