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?
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..
I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another. Which truly baffles me. I thought it was a solid point deserving of further discussion. Sadly the discussion 'segued' right back to "But da guns kills lots of da people", and that wasn't even a fact I was trying to dispute or touch upon. Granted! I could easily pull up a bazillion different gov't statistic and such to counter that. Yet what would be the point? Debates and discussions can not be won with only statistics and flowcharts.
I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another. Which truly baffles me. I thought it was a solid point deserving of further discussion.
Not completely ignored..my point was based off of what you said there.
It is an interesting topic of discussion..might have to bring it up to some hardcore anti-gun people may know..
I said that a few pages back, and it was totally ignored for some reason or another.
I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"
Not completely ignored..my point was based off of what you said there.
Fair enough. I meant to say that before you mentioned it, it was totally ignored.
I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"
Yeah, that seems to be the general reaction. I knew that the gov't was amazingly polarized on an issue such as that, but thought that actual people might behave differently.
It is an interesting topic of discussion..might have to bring it up to some hardcore anti-gun people may know..
Do it. It's one of my favourite points to bring up when someone is rabidly anti-gun. They just don't see it coming or seemingly ever boarded that train of thought.
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.
You need to learn to read posts. You also need to learn that you can't flame your opponent for using straw men with a straw man. I actually said that that was what he meant and as he's a soldier he's always around people who, like him, either don't have guns or know how to use and maintain them, so it's not unreasonable. Now, for this...
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.
Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?
I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"
If you're referring to me, I will elaborate... Guns kill the wrong people - you.
Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?
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.
It seems he read it correctly..unless I'm missing something.
As for the part with the car..from what dani is saying, he is essentially giving death by vehicle a pass because of accounts of accidents, but ignoring the fact that a) accidental gun death is a major thing, which means people need to be more properly trained in gun care b) there are cases of murder in which the car was the choice of weapon, per se.
Also, as a general society, we very very rarely ever give cars fault for the murders committed with them, yet guns are on the backlash of their bit.
Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?
As already pointed out, I have no issue when it comes to reading what others post. I am also baffled where my alleged straw-man argument came from, seeing as everything I mentioned was directly in response to something he's said. Perhaps you misunderstand what a straw-man argument is, so you just toss it out there.
If you have nothing to contribute to this debate other than your nonconstructive posts, maybe it would be best to take a breather elsewhere in the forums.
The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, being no longer necessary to a secure state is hereby nullified.
Will never pass, and is going overboard. People should be able to pursue ownership of a firearm if they wish and are responsible enough to handle it.
The production and sale of new firearms, being defined as a rifle, pistol, or other gun, will be disallowed until a time in which the number of firearms in circulation is equal to 50% of the population as determined by the Census.
Way too specific. Where's the reasoning that having an amount of guns equal to 50% of the population in legal circulation will do anything?
No gun may reside in the same building as anyone who has failed a mental health evaluation, as performed by a medical professional, as approved by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
Too invasive, unable to be enforced, and unspecific. What does "failed a mental health evaluation" mean? Are we all going to be forced to have them? Will the person/people who failed them be identified? It's unworkable.
A mental health examination, as performed by a medical professional approved by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) must be passed in order to receive a firearms license.
I agree with there needing to be more measures in place, but what does "a mental health examination" mean? Also, mental illnesses come and go. Half of all Americans will have a mental illness at some point in their lifetime.
An income tax equal to 4% of an individualâs income will be assessed by all gun owners. In states which were at any point in time a part of the Confederate States of America, this tax shall be equal to 10% of an individualâs income. Taxes levied under this amendment shall be appropriated in equal portions to programs to expand Affirmative Action programs and begin to pay reparations to the descendants of African slaves.
Uh, no. The past is the past, and inflaming old issues is begging for trouble. 4% income tax is also ridiculous, 10% even more so.
Any person making the choice to own a firearm must carry $250,000 worth of liability insurance for each weapon owned. This insurance must be provided by a publicly owned insurance company to be established.
All this does is seek to exclude the poor, from what I can see...
All firearms must be retrofitted with both a global positioning transmitter as well as a fingerprint activated locking mechanism. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a fine, prison time, and forfeiture of the privilege of firearm ownership.
This is actually a pretty good idea I think, especially the fingerprint scanner. Though what to do with all the guns in circulation would be an issue.
The National Rifle Association, Michigan Militia, and other âgun rightsâ groups shall be considered terrorist operations.
SGT, did you write this petition? I'll just say this: free speech.
United States Marshals will be randomly placed at various âsporting venues,â where a firearm could be otherwise legally discharged. This could include publicly or privately owned venues where the following (but not limited to) take place: hunting areas, shooting ranges.
Er, who's going to be paying all these newly hired marshals?
In a calendar year, no person may buy more than 100 rounds of ammunition
Completely and totally eliminates any sporting use of a gun.
Assault rifles, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons, as well as those not fitted with GPS and trigger locking devices will be immediately seized by the government. The owner will be compensated fair market value of the weapon, minus the cost of the seizure operation.
"Minus the cost of the seizure operation." Great. So people will pay the government to take their guns. I shall see you two weeks from now when we're in a civil war.
President Obama will establish a Secretary of Firearm management. This office will have final say over future gun regulation to prevent against rampant innovation that was not forseen by the second amendment.
Would need more detail, but okay.
Overall, 1/10. A few of the suggestions are good, but the rest are like throwing dynamite into a stockpile of gunpowder while in a personal submarine two kilometers underwater.
@Car vs gun debate: cars are a necessity and serve a purpose other than grievous bodily harm.
No, cars are a luxury. I always balk at people that say otherwise.
Also, real quick: Guns serve their purpose as both a weapon and tool. Same for crossbows, longbows, slings, atlatls, etc. Simply because people focus on the most negative aspect of these tools does not mean they are solely for such purposes.
No accidents with guns? Not quite. I've seen an idiot shoot his buddy at a range when he twisted his weapon to the side after a hangfire. It wasn't intentional, just careless.
And since this is about the US, I'd like to just put something about the second amendment right quick.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
See, there's a comma there. The one in bold. It's not about people being allowed to have weapons to form a militia. It's the people, in contrast with the militia. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people to do so for defense against the militia. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights had just gotten out of a war with a tyrannical state militia. After all, the Bill of Rights as a whole is concerned mainly about protecting people from the government.
So basically, we have it because our government was founded out of mistrust of government.
Let me set a scene- It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.
Let me set a scene- It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.
Or may be you can control this drug habit of your society, and all this unnecessary freedom. Yoou guys, you make me laugh, you make a problem yourselves and then complain about it.i have a blood feud or something. Also, even in that case, a revolver is enough, I don't need big guns unless i have a blood feud or something.
I didn't mean you need ak-47 to defend yourself, and I'm not a criminal, I just chose the username "thematsaplaya" for the cool effect. I've never been arrested and I'm a law abiding citizen. I certainly agree that not everyone should be allowed to own a gun or have military weapons. Also, complete gun control, wouldn't solve the problem, it would only hurt people who don't get their guns legally since illegal weapons are easy to obtain.
