ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1089 400585
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
807 posts
Farmer

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?

  • 1,089 Replies
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,678 posts
Jester

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.


Well, that's one thing we agree about. I believe I might have mentioned all of that somewhere else in this thread...maybe not the part about obtaining illegal firearms. Yet it is true. It's easier for Carl Criminal to obtain firearms (especially handguns and automatic weapons) through illegal venues than Law-abiding Larry. Even if we banned the sale of guns to civilians totally, it would be easy to find a gun. Our gov't 'loses' entire shipments of firearms in Mexican drug-war stings gone awry. Guess where a good deal of those show back up? In American gang and drug shootings.
JohnWrot
offline
JohnWrot
1 posts
Peasant

Love the new ad about the Bill of Rights!

A+ Armor Games!

IceClaw247
offline
IceClaw247
843 posts
Jester

The problem with people acquiring fire arms for self-defence in the USA is that it builds up like the USA vs Russia arms race, until one lunatic ends up with one and goes on a mass killing spree; which unfortunately happens fairly regularly. Guns should be only allowed to those who actually need it. People with lots of land who need it to shoot pests, or say a Hunter who gets paid to shoot game. Not people with metal illnesses or normal town people for "self defence" as they say.

Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
Peasant

Dumb hippies, weapons are necessary for anyone and if someone wants a gun it's there decision. Ridiculous thread.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

weapons are necessary for anyone

I've lived without one until now and I'm doing just fine. Tell me how they're necessary? Because even for self-defense there are always better alternatives.
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
Peasant

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,980 posts
Scribe

I disagree with HahiHa for these reasons.
There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.
-Tasers are ineffective on people with thick clothing since the barbs on a taser are quite small. They are also ineffective on people under the influence of drugs such as meth. If there is more than one attacker, multiple tasers would be needed.
-Chemical deterents and pepper sprays don't work if the attacker is wearing face protection and they are weak and have a short range.
-Martial Arts are not suitable for the elderly, physically challenged, and obviously, not everyone has the time to become skilled in martial arts. Also martial arts don't help much if the attackers are armed with firearms.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

What were guns made for? You're clearly trying to ignite an argument so i'll let you figure it out for yourself.

Did you do that on purpose? That's not what I asked. You stated guns where necessary for anyone, and I asked why necessary.

There are not many better alternatives to firearms for SD.

Ok, so let's look at guns for SD. If there are multiple attackers, they could overwhelm you as well. Guns in the hands of elderly and physically challenged is not a good idea. And if the others have guns too, you lost. So ok, the alternatives are not great, but so are guns.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,980 posts
Scribe

Well, that's a pretty thorough post, and I agree with all the way.
By the way, I'm just listing possible reasons why guns are useful. I don't need everybody who disagrees with me to try to nit pick my rational opinions.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

You have them because you wanted to own them, and now you do.


The issue isn't that people want to own them. The issue is that they're dangerous if used incorrectly and that there a lot of people that shouldn't have them.

I believe a citizen should be allowed to buy an assault rifle for reasons stated above.


I believe they should be able to as well, provided it's not kept in their house and is instead stored at a gun club of some sort. Why do you need to keep le dangerous machine made to kill crap in your home where there's nothing you could possibly shoot, instead of at a place with targets in a safe area?

The biggest and easiest claim for gun ownership is self-defense.


Those who are carrying a gun are far more likely to be shot than those who are not. Obviously, this is because anyone else armed is going to shoot you first and ask questions later. In the event of a home robbery, you're probably asleep or not already holding your gun.

The robber is. Going for the gun is a great way to get shot at.

You draw your Glock 19 from a side holster and shoot him 13 times, saving your life and defending everyone else.


You shouldn't have a gun if you think shooting someone 13 times with intent to kill is legitimate self defense when there's only one guy and he has a crowbar.

As soon as I was old enough to pick up a gun, my Dad went over gun safety. He took me out to our backyard (we live in the woods) and showed me how to hold one, how to shoot it and how to reload. Before all of that, he explained to me that guns are dangerous and do not EVER play with them. Guns are not toys. NEVER aim one at anything you don't want to shoot, especially a person. Always check a firearm to see if it is loaded before picking it up.


I agree that this is something that needs to be done. Kids should be taught how to safely handle things they may encounter, from matches to power tools to guns to chemicals. Not doing so is negligent on the parent's part.

Here's the thing. If parents and schools went over gun safety when kids were actually kids, gun violence would drop


Gun violence would also drop if we didn't give crazy people with a vendetta firearms and kept better control on the market. Less guns = less gun violence.

Gun bans to reduce crime:


Gun control /= Gun ban. This is such false dichotomy made so often it feels like everyone who isn't against everyone being able to own an RPG if they so wish thinks that instituting background checks, requiring training, and limiting the more military grade weaponry is the exact same as outright denying firearms to the public when that just isn't the case.

Not many rational people are arguing for the ban of guns. They're arguing for better gun control. That's extremely different. I'm for stronger gun control. I'm also for people being able to own guns and CC. What I'm not for is any random bozo walking into a gun shop and walking out with a pistol no questions asked.

Mine took less than an hour and all I had to do was sign the bottom line


See, that's not a very thorough background check. They probably just looked you up to see if you had a criminal record and where you went to school. That's barely better than nothing at all.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

The exact same description could be applied to motor vehicles.


Exactly. And note that we have strict laws on driving, how to drive, require that people learn how to drive, and obey rules. We test them before allowing them a driver's license and punish them for not obeying rules that are minor, such as speeding or failing to fix a brake light.

And they aren't even designed to kill people!

And I live on 14 acres of private property. There are plenty of things to shoot (usually 1-Liter bottles of soda and cardboard boxes).


Not everyone lives on land. Most people live in urban centers where a bullet could travel through a house and into someone, as you noted.

A majority of home invasions wake the homeowner.


The vast majority of home invasions happen when the homeowner isn't home. Your point of having a gun to stop the burglary is moot.

If you wake up, you are infinitely safer with your firearm than without one for one simple reason: YOU know what you do with a gun. You have no way of knowing what the "bad guy" will do. You will use your gun to stop the home invasion.


You are not safer. By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk. Even if the other party doesn't have a gun, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms. All you're doing is placing yourself into a potential fight. That is not, in any way shape or form, safer.

There is literally no guarantee that the burglar will have mercy on you because you are unarmed


And there's no guarantee being armed will mean you win. I'm not arguing against self defense. I'm trying to get the notion into your head that the situation you're presenting isn't likely or realistic.

Actually, I was being overly dramatic. I hear a lot of gun-happy people talk like that.


Yes, and those gun happy people are the types of people who shouldn't have the guns at all. It's insanity to think that blasting multiple holes in an assailant's body far beyond the point they're able to run away or even live is self defense. Shooting to kill is intent to murder, even in self defense. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet.

He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes without a father,


That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."

Even parents who hate firearms should explain gun safety to their children.


Yes, they should. That's part of being a responsible parent.

Criminals very rarely purchase a firearm legally for several hundred dollars. Gangs have fully automatic weapons that cannot be purchased legally.


Any real gun control legislation will involve cracking down on the illegal guns too. America is gun proliferate. It's easy to acquire guns, because we have such poor controls on them.

I was talking about literally banning guns entirely


And no one is arguing that. You're debating a strawman.

but people ARE arguing it,


Some. Not many. The vast majority just want stronger controls. Then the Republicans just outright shoot down (figuratively) any legislation intended to do that based on a slippery slope fallacy and this strawman.

What other records do I have?


Psychological evaluations, relatives who have committed crimes, citations of anger problems from school or in your job immediately come to mind.

wait until they're old enough, spend a serious amount of money and go through a background check


They don't. They just swipe it from an irresponsible gun owner whom is a relative. We see it time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Background checks are just one part of it. Plugging a leak in the boat does no good if water is getting in elsewhere. Likewise, bailing is an effort in futility until the leaks have been plugged. America is a boat full of shotgun holes with people closing their eyes plugging their ears and screaming that they aren't sinking and it's the decay of morals to blame.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,170 posts
Farmer

If you're going to use probability terms such as "rarely" or "usually", you need to back them up with stats.

And to think, I was actually going to give my two cents. ._.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

Almost all of those are already in place for gun owners.


It is far, far harder to obtain a driver's license than purchase a handgun.

However, people don't buy guns (I am speaking of the average citizen that purchases a gun at a show or from a retailer legally) to kill people.


People don't buy cars to get into accidents with them either. We still require regulation over who drives them, and take away that when they cause other trouble.

Also, a majority of PEOPLE live in urban centers, where all firearms are banned. Apartments, condos and some neighborhoods have a zero-tolerance policy on firearms.


Your point? There is no reason why one would need to keep an assault rifle in their house in an urban area. Sure if you own land and can shoot on it safely. But not everyone does.

I was speaking of invasions when the homeowner was present. Sorry for not clarifying, I thought it was assumed


When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise. I know there's a source Nichodemus brought up a while back. Though I pulled this out of Nerdsoft's post a few pages ago.

Gun homicide rates vs gun ownership rates

When your home has been invaded by an armed man, you are in a confrontation as soon as he sees you.


I do wonder about that. How many burglars would just turn tail and run? They're there because they want your stuff - they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

How would you go about stopping an intruder, assuming both of you were armed and you knew he was indoors?


I would call the police and wait, avoiding a confrontation. If it became likely, I would shout out before they knew where I was that I had called the police and they had better get moving.

In every situation, a disrespectful or rebellious student has come from a broken home.


Exaggeration/hyperbole. I'm aware of the statistics on fatherless homes btw. Children from them are 70% more likely to have behavioral problems. That does not translate to every child who misbehaves coming from a broken home. Nor does that even say 70% of them are from fatherless homes. It's just that they're 70% more likely than, if all other factors are held constant, than a home with a father.

Even if your assertion was true, your logic is that of ice cream sales cause shark attacks, because obviously the ice cream is making the beach goers, who are hot and only go in the summer, that much more appetizing to the sharkies.

Um...that was basically a rant. I never claimed any of those things.


I know you didn't. I was referring to those who do claim those things. You know, the gun nuts who can and do get guns and think like that. Then we wonder why the hell we have these shootings.

I've heard of the suggestion that all firearms in home should be unloaded, locked in a secure location and incapacitated, i.e. slightly disassembled. That defeats all purpose of having a handgun for self-defense, which is why people buy them.


The problem with these kinds of blanket statements is they don't address individual cases. If you live alone, I see no problem with keeping a loaded gun in your bedside drawer. If you live with children, that's a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE idea.

Where do you draw the line to where guns are impossible to steal but also able to serve their purpose?


At the ownership level, teaching people to own them responsibly. Not just saying, "Welp! You haven't ever tried to murder someone or been cited for drug abuse! Here's your lethal weapon! Have fun!"

I have never had and never needed an evaluation (and I'm not going to take one), crimes from family members cannot prove anything about my character or actions, and legal citations would either appear on police records (if severe enough).


A psychological evaluation should be mandatory. There's a heavy stigma about going to a psychologist/psychiatrist when there should be.

The reason for family members is because if you live with one who has committed a crime, that's a risk because they then have access to YOUR gun. Likewise they can visit your home. Things like that should be inquired into and the people buying the gun should be made aware of that risk and taught how to reduce it.

Further, citations you receive from your place of employment for unruly behavior don't always go to the police. There could be signs allllll over that someone idiot who's irresponsible and prone to anger should have a gun that goes overlooked because they've never been cited by the police.

You can't prosecute a gun owner for property that was stolen from them and misused or used for illegal activity.


They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence. Parents who have their guns stolen by kids that use them to go on shooting sprees are entirely responsible, both for not noticing their kid was having trouble and for leaving a lethal weapon within their reach.

My dad has a handgun because he's an airline pilot. It is kept hidden in his room, unloaded inside a locked bag, apart from the ammo. That's a safe gun. Inside a glass cabinet stored with the ammo is NOT.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.


Then why do we have laws? Hmm? If criminals are just going to break them anyways? Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

It's asinine, to say the least.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk.

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more." Trying to avoid further escalation when they've already violated your rights doesn't mean they won't violate more.

Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms.

"on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.

That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."

"All Apple products I've owned are broken" =/= "Every Apple product is broken"
You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.

relatives who have committed crimes

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president (more specifically Commander in Chief, in charge of our nation's entire military arsenal)?
Familial restrictions would apply to other tools. "Your uncle was arrested for drunk driving. You can't buy a car."
When someone is arrested, why isn't their extended family also locked up?
Individuals rise and fall independent of relation.

When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise.

Which is why he said better training.

They're there because they want your stuff

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them. You don't know. Once you're under their thumb, they can do anything they want.

- they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.

They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."
My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?

Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more."


No, it's like saying you know there's a rapist around the corner that doesn't know you're there, and instead of calling for help you go confront them. By all means, defend yourself, but don't seek the conflict.

on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.


Except it's not in this case. Those with a gun are far more likely to be shot, because the robber will see them as a threat. They almost certainly are not there to hurt you. It's not their desire to hurt you. Even if they encounter you, if you do not attack them, they'll probably run or threaten you, but not attack.

What we're balancing here is the value of your possessions vs your life. Is the risk to your life worth the money? I won't put a price on it, but that's the real question here. If the robber outright attacks you, of course you defend yourself. You don't let them hurt you if you're able.

You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.


MattEmAngel, do you believe that all problem children come from families with broken homes? Or at the very least, the vast majority of them?

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president


That's not what I meant. Allow me to clarify.

A relative who has commit a crime should be seen as something to investigate. What was the crime? Who was involved? What contact do they have with the person seeking ownership of the gun?

If it's found, for example, that many of their relatives have been involved in these actions and that they are closely placed to them, this should be considered a risk factor. Not a decisive factor, but something to be thought about.

Would you keep a gun in the same house as a schizophrenic who has violent episodes? Well, if the gun was stored safely then it probably wouldn't be an issue. But it would be prudent to, before issuing the gun to the person living with the schizophrenic, ensure they have a way to safely store it. Ie, require a certain standard of safety.

Which is why he said better training.


Of which none is required at all currently to purchase a gun. Do you see the problems yet?

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them.


Extraordinarily unlikely and paranoid. I'd imagine someone coming to do that would have made a plan of attack in advance and come at a time when it's extremely unlikely you'll be able to defend yourself or have a weapon on hand. That's a premeditated intent to harm. Unless you never go to sleep and are always holding the gun at the entrance, I seriously doubt you could do much to protect yourself if you were unaware of this person's intent before the incident began.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.


Are you serious? Killing someone invokes a manhunt. Robberies of electronics and jewelry starts an investigation and watch. The police won't stop until they find the killer, but a robber isn't nearly as high priority.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."


Unless that car was unlocked with the keys in the transmission and in front of a prison, I wouldn't consider the car owner to be blamed. This is a completely inapplicable analogy. A gun is made to kill people - one steals a gun to harm or threaten others. A car is a method of transport - one steals a car to profit. Cars are also LOCKED and DENIED ACCESS OF USE (bullets) by requiring a key. Yes, you can break in and hotwire, but that's going beyond the analogy.

My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?


Yeah, because that happens. We can invent as many hypothetical situations where someone takes an item not intended to be a weapon and causes harm with it. That's just completely ignoring the issue.

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?


Because those "everything else" aren't used often enough or are deadly enough to justify instituting a control on who has them.
Showing 946-960 of 1089