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?
No, like poisons, and the guns that they didn't give to the government, because I really don't think a murderer is going to care about some petty gun law.
An experienced gun-wielding psychopath walks into a house and is confronted by a confused, sleepy, inexperienced gun-wielding wannabe hero. Who wins? I think you'll find it's meant to target future gun-wielding psychopaths.
Oh America, what will you do next? Brief summary, a person who wanted to sell "safe" guns was threatened by gun owners, and he responded by explaining his rationale and then telling them (the ones who threatened him) to go gun down politicians in the streets instead for making gun control laws. In the end he decided not to sell any of the guns due to the threats he received. Yes, the guy was drunk while making the video, as he admits at the start.
What I wanted to talk about was the whole safe gun thing. Apparently they put an electronic chip in the gun which is controlled by a separate watch. Without both the watch and the gun being in close proximity to each other, the gun cannot be fired. This was intended to make it so children wouldn't accidentally shoot themselves/others, and that if the gun was stolen it would not work.
Why would anyone be upset about this? I'm skeptical about whether someone couldn't just remove the chip if they wanted to, but in principle I don't see a problem with it.
From the non-gun weapon control thread. [quote=MRWalker82]They are involved in smuggling assault weapons into the US. And I wasn't trying to say guns aren't dangerous with the hammer factoid. I'm simply trying to illustrate that if someone wants to hurt someone that there are lethal weapons everywhere. I'm very much against a ban on firearms and own numerous weapons myself.[/quote] First, we are not debating a ban on weapons anymore. It is about regulating the access, not outright banning.
And about the hammer thing, sure you will always find a way to hurt someone with or without various objects. But this still doesn't change the fact that guns are specifically made to kill someone. Also a gun, as far as I can judge as someone who never used one, is, next to being a dangerous item, something you have to learn to use and tend for first, so it only makes sense that you need some regulation about it. I always like to compare it to cars; they're not made to kill, but still you need to pass a test.
A test is a good thing for gun owners. A test that covered competency in handling, about the laws that control guns, and whether you are likely to decide to murder someone with the gun.
A test is a good thing for gun owners. A test that covered competency in handling, about the laws that control guns, and whether you are likely to decide to murder someone with the gun.
And yet our position is always strawmanned to gun control = gun ban. It's seemingly impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation about the topic, because in the minds of anyone pro-gun, either you accept guns or want them banned entirely and it's just one regulation after another until you reach the point they're banned.
Unfortunately kasic, that is the trend we've seen from law makers. I'm all for regulation to a small degree, but when regulating something makes it near impossible to acquire then we've lied about the motivation behind regulation. As for education, when I was growing up hunter safety was a required course prior to high school. Every single person in my school had completed a firearms safety course that took longer than our current concealed carry classes. If this were still taking place, and if our society made an effort to view firearms as tools (which they are) then I honestly think we would see less of the firearm related violence that we have today. Obviously, we aren't going to eradicate violence, no matter if we have full acceptance of weapons, or even if we have outright bans. However, an armed and well educated population will have the means to defend themselves from any aggressor.
Unfortunately kasic, that is the trend we've seen from law makers. I'm all for regulation to a small degree, but when regulating something makes it near impossible to acquire then we've lied about the motivation behind regulation.
As for education, when I was growing up hunter safety was a required course prior to high school. Every single person in my school had completed a firearms safety course that took longer than our current concealed carry classes.
If this were still taking place, and if our society made an effort to view firearms as tools (which they are) then I honestly think we would see less of the firearm related violence that we have today.
Obviously, we aren't going to eradicate violence, no matter if we have full acceptance of weapons, or even if we have outright bans. However, an armed and well educated population will have the means to defend themselves from any aggressor.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I'll also acknowledge that there are people for banning guns all together and work towards that in whatever small victories they can claim.
The problem is, when fighting against gun control measures like requiring more in depth background checks and education and training, they end up being a danger to everyone in the vicinity. The measures that need to be taken should, and the people who think guns need to be banned entirely from civilian hands are just as delusional as the ones who think everyone should be carrying at all times.
I agree to a point. My issue is that we have an amendment that states our right to keep (own) and bear (carry with us) arms shall not be infringed. Every US citizen has these rights granted them, and our government has placed such restrictions and regulations on this right that its nearly impossible to exercise.
As a member of the military I swore to defend the constitution, and as such all people whom it legally affects. Regulating this right to the point of denying it to people is a clear violation of their rights, no matter what seemingly good precedent there is for doing so. Our second amendment is the only one under attack, and along with voting, the only right denied people who have been convicted of felony crimes.
My issue is that we have an amendment that states our right to keep (own) and bear (carry with us) arms shall not be infringed.
I think this is where I differ. Guns are not a right in my view - they're a privilege. If you aren't competent enough to use them, you shouldn't be allowed to. That includes not only knowing how to use the gun, but when to use it and what to do with it when you aren't using it. They are not toys, they are not sports equipment - they're tools made to kill. Allowing any and everyone to own and use them without checks is ludicrous. So I suppose you could say that I'm attacking your "Constitutional Rights" but I don't place sanctity into an old, outdated law without merit in today's world.
To be absolutely clear (because I know someone will probably end up trying to say it) I'm still not advocating a ban. Guns are a good like any other product. They can be used in certain ways and have their own purposes. Not believing you're entitled to a lethal weapon on the absurd reason of a precaution in order to overthrow the government in case they decide to oppress you, is not the same as thinking that you should not be allowed to own a gun if you can demonstrate the necessary responsibility.
I do agree completely with education, competency evaluation, and restriction for selected reasons (e.g. mental illness or weapons related offenses) however if someone gets a dui I don't think they should lose their right to hunt or defend their families, which is commonplace now. I also don't think that people should be restricted as to the capacity of their magazines, or the model of rifle they may own, and I'm absolutely against charging a fee for registry of arms. Its nobody's business what guns I own or how many.
however if someone gets a dui I don't think they should lose their right to hunt or defend their families
That's not directly related to firearms, but it is tied to responsibility. In my opinion whether the dui affects anything else should be entirely related to the circumstances of the incident and how many times you've been caught drunk driving. Once? Questionable. Three times? You're either a moron or a drunk and shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
I also don't think that people should be restricted as to the capacity of their magazines, or the model of rifle they may own, and I'm absolutely against charging a fee for registry of arms.
Magazine size is attacking guns where they aren't even an issue. Handguns account for the vast majority of gun related crime, while assault rifles are only ever used after having been obtained illegally for use in professional crime afaik. Models are also not an issue for previously stated reasons.
There shouldn't be a fee for registering a firearm, but there definitely should be a registry and a way to track guns. That goes for all kinds.
I disagree there. Registry has proven itself time and again as a precursor to confiscation. No to mention the criminals don't register their weapons, why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?
No to mention the criminals don't register their weapons, why should I, a military veteran and law abiding citizen, have to submit to government oversight?
Simple: Because obtaining unregistered weapons doesn't need to be any easier for them.
