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?
In what way does "a manufacturing company using modern technology legally" = "rednecks" ?
Texans and guns...
Though to be honest, this one isn't really problematic. I mean, the printer and "ink" needed for that are so expensive, and for what? The product is nearly the same as a conventional gun, as it is also made from metal. The real issue with printing guns is printing guns that cannot be detected.
Vehicles are nearly three-times as deadly as firearms. We should probably regulate those first.
I was going to mention something about it doesn't matter how much something is regulated due to people just being idiots/prone to unfortunate incidents.
The obvious sillyness of the first point is that we do regulate cars, quite heavily. I and others have stated on this thread many times that requiring a license to own a gun, pay fees, and having to register it would be no more onerous than the burdens we currently accept without question for driving a car. And to address the subsequent point about idiots, lets brainstorm the numbers. How many people currently have a car vs how many have a gun. The % of households that own guns is 32-25%. If only 32-35% of american households had a car, its not much of a stretch to imagine that the vehicle fatalities would be pretty drastically different. Furthermore, we know from experience that how much we regulate cars does translate directly into the accident and fatality numbers... exactly because it affects how many idiots (term used affectionately) will have the chance to have an accident. Teen driving regulations, the national drinking age, even seatbelts, are all examples of regulations that decreased crashes and fatalities. And I'd also like to point out that conservatives protested the seatbelt laws when they were introduced... but that particular assault on personal liberty seems to have fizzled. Long story short, regulations are possible and do help prevent "eople just being idiots/prone to unfortunate incidents."
There are no accidents with guns. In a car you can lose your grip, miss a turn, or not stoping in time.
With guns, you pull the trigger. Nice and easy. You do it meaning to take a life. Many stories about "brave mans" who fight a burgler describe them pulling the gun, shooting the first suprised burgler,and then the fleeing other burgler. Sometime even more then one fleeing person.
From the 1st page i know nobody will want to carry around a riot shield but what if you have a gun and the other guy too he shots first before you can press the trigger but with a riot shield that bullet will not get through it and you can rush the guy.
Apparently there was an error with my last post, and as such only a fragment of what I intended to post actually posted. I'm going to try and re-create what I intended to post: --------
There are no accidents with guns. In a car you can lose your grip, miss a turn, or not stoping in time.
With guns, you pull the trigger. Nice and easy. You do it meaning to take a life.
It's people like you that keep on out of this forum. You're trying to say that every time someone is killed by a firearm it is intentional, yet cars are totally inculpable of being used for intentional harm. Mistakes happen with everything regardless of how 'regulated' they are. Furthermore! You keep on mentioning this non-existant and fictional American "raised to try to be the hero all the time" who is apparently eager to kill anyone for any reason. Stop with the pathetic straw-man arguments. You're making an imaginary person and summarily taking potshots at him. It's easy to point out alleged weak-spots when you put them there in the first place. If you want to pursue such baseless and, frankly, stereotypical 'arguments' then make your own thread for it. It has nothing to do with gun regulation in the US.
The % of households that own guns is 32-25%. If only 32-35% of american households had a car, its not much of a stretch to imagine that the vehicle fatalities would be pretty drastically different.
I'm always amazed out how easily dry sarcasm is missed, whether it be spoken or in written word. Even more so when I just finished saying: "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."
From the 1st page i know nobody will want to carry around a riot shield but what if you have a gun and the other guy too he shots first before you can press the trigger but with a riot shield that bullet will not get through it and you can rush the guy.
A riot shield is made for deflecting relatively slow objects like thrown stones or beer bottles, not bullets. But sure, if you've got about $4k lying around for a good ballistic shield and feel like carrying an extra 30lbs everywhere and hope the criminal is acting alone and stands still while you run at him, go ahead. Toro! Toro! Ole! Bang.
You're trying to say that every time someone is killed by a firearm it is intentional, yet cars are totally inculpable of being used for intentional harm.
Oh my. He said that with cars you can have an accident. Not that they can't be used for intentional harm. He did say, however, that guns can only kill people. Though wrong, it's not actually a completely unreasonable claim, seeing as in Israel I think only soldiers can have guns.
Oh my. He said that with cars you can have an accident. Not that they can't be used for intentional harm.
If that's what he meant, he ought to have said that. As it stands, however, he said "There are no accidents with guns" and strongly infers that guns are only used to kill someone with intent. Furthermore, him completely ignoring the fact that vehicular homicide is a real thing doesn't lend any credence to his stance. Such is further stymied by the aforementioned view about firearms.
Regardless of the reasons why he holds such one-sided views about firearms, he still was making a straw-man argument with no basis in facts or statistics. It was based solely on opinions and (perhaps) cultural influence. i know I had to say the following once due to such a factor:
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.
You should read a few pages back to get the full breadth of that quote.
If that's what he meant, he ought to have said that. As it stands, however, he said "There are no accidents with guns" and strongly infers that guns are only used to kill someone with intent. Furthermore, him completely ignoring the fact that vehicular homicide is a real thing doesn't lend any credence to his stance. Such is further stymied by the aforementioned view about firearms.
To put things into clearer perspective..
Spare for guns designed for the military and distributed to the military for military purposes (how many times can one put military in a sentence.. )..guns, for civilian usage (saying this to exclude officers of the law), is for hunting, sport, and home protection (or bodily protection if one has a conceal/carry permit). Conversely, cars are for transportation or entertainment purposes (racing).
None of the options have any inclination for killing, yet both items have been used for such a feat, and still are being used so. For protection, having a gun doesn't outright mean go for the kill...if you feel threatened enough to need to do so, and it is within your right, you may, but this is for protective uses.
Nevertheless, restrictions are made for receiving a car, as do they need to be made for receiving a gun. It's odd to think that you need to take more tests and go through a larger process to get a car and license than to get a gun..
