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?
To truly understand somebody walk a mile in their shoes.
I have done this. I have thought about why guns are bad, they kill millions over the years, they cause wars, they enable the stupid to kill. But have you walked in my shoes? Go from having a gun your entire life then someone trying to take it away, don't say that's not what they are trying to do, because it inevitably ends that way. You end up with that gap of security with nothing to replace it with. Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one. There will always be the gap that something should be there but it isn't. Not to mention the upsides. It has revolutionalized the world, sure it's had some downsides, but it helped us in many ways as well. It went from only royal armies having power, to the simple farmer with a gun having some power. Before countries' leaders could do as they please, but now they must think twice before doing the stuff they do.
It's somewhat alarming that your first intent is to simply kill the person. Calling the police and then assessing whether or not the robber is armed would be my first two actions.
Unless you're a charming Victorian lady, the robber probably won't let you approach a phone.
Guns don't need to be free, and they don't need to be banned. The records that keep them and the technology that makes them owner-friendly are the only things needing change. We live in a modern world, is it that hard to install touch sensors and shot sensors on guns?
Go from having a gun your entire life then someone trying to take it away, don't say that's not what they are trying to do, because it inevitably ends that way.
Again, find evidence before blurting out outlandish assertions. Even the most anti Gun politician in America doesn't want to outright ban them.
Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one. There will always be the gap that something should be there but it isn't.
No one said we will have stricter gun laws without backup measures, such as strengthening the police. And yet again I will cite the example of Britain, which was de-gunned over half a century. Now the population is virulently anti-gun, and even safer than the States.
It went from only royal armies having power, to the simple farmer with a gun having some power. Before countries' leaders could do as they please, but now they must think twice before doing the stuff they do.
You think the government with the most powerful army in the world has actually considered your actions due to the guns you own? Ha, good one. All politicians care about public opinion, but only because of political image and gain, via pandering to the electorate, not your pistol.
He is saying that the law is outdated because guns have evolved...that is like saying the Right to Free Speech is outdated because the American-English language has evolved
If they make alcohol illegal and not weed then something is wrong
Um..they already did make alcohol illegal...it didn't end well... And I'm not sure if you are aware..but weed isn't legal in our US. And even still in Colorado and the other states that claim to have it legal there...Federal law trumps them
He is saying that the law is outdated because guns have evolved...that is like saying the Right to Free Speech is outdated because the American-English language has evolved
No it isn't, it's a wasteful comparison. The English language evolving is not central to the right of Free Speech, because the idea that is central to the right of free speech is not linguistic structure.
Unless you're a charming Victorian lady, the robber probably won't let you approach a phone.
Well sure, if you chance upon them without noticing or if they break in right next to you. Generally though, most robberies happen when the person isn't home. If you come home while one is in progress it's probably somewhat obvious, as you might be hearing them move things or see the lights on or the door open or a broken window...etc.
Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one.
-_- Has anybody looked at my idea of adding sensors to the guns? You quoted my answer, Kasic, yet not the gist of the post.
Take it this way, you like that lock on your front door, it makes you feel safe ans secure. Now imagine being told to give it up, or being told you will neve be able to get another one.
A gun is not like a lock. It is not passive, it has to be in the hand to do anything. And if you need a weapon, there are no shortages of fine knives, swords, etc on the market. You do not need a gun, guns are a liability. What happens if you're jumped and your gun is taken? Not so smart now. Knives are easier to conceal.
It isn't really irrational. And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns, does that mean that our right of speech is limited only to letters, newspapers, and what we say outlowd and our right to online speech isn't protected? If you say no to that then you shouldn't say that about guns. Think I'm on a different page than pag though if so then if not then . He still hurt my head on that oregon shooting.
And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns, does that mean that our right of speech is limited only to letters, newspapers, and what we say outlowd and our right to online speech isn't protected?
You missed my point. The central idea to the right to free speech is the freedom of expression, and that a man should be able to believe in what he wants to, so long as it does not breed hate and discrimination. This belief has not changed. The right to free speech was not enacted because a certain group of American forefathers spoke in a certain linguistic pattern.
On the other hand, the right to bear arms was grounded in the need to call up a citizen militia in times of war where the national army was not fully established. It was based on the technology of the time, where muskets were in use. Today, there is however no need of a citizen militia against foreign nations, nor are we using muskets, which are single shot, difficult to use guns. We instead have multiple round, rapid fire rifles, which has utterly changed the scale and dynamics of the situation.
Spelling it color instead of colour, however, has not affected the dynamics of free speech in any distinguishable way, other than the fun the Commonwealth world has at American laziness.
You quoted my answer, Kasic, yet not the gist of the post.
What you said is basically just a variation/instance of what I think should be done. I didn't have any reasons to pick at it or to really add to it.
Although while I'm at it, those types of things can be tampered with too and would really only prevent accidental shootings, which are the lesser of the problem.
And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns,
pang isn't too good with finding analogous comparisons. Language and weaponry are two entirely different things, treating them as the same beast is stupid.
There it is. So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns. But our right to speech isn't limited to only newspaper, voice, and mail. You can't say one thing that counterdicts the other. So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.
So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns. But our right to speech isn't limited to only newspaper, voice, and mail. You can't say one thing that counterdicts the other. So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.
What? You cannot compare two things that are so fundamentally different. The evolution of language does not pertain to the evolution of fire arms.
So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns
No I am not. I am saying that the right to bear arms was pertinent in the Civil War era, and the Revolution era, but not now.
So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.
In that case, the equality afforded to all races should be extended to homosexuals then? Because if you discount one, you're contradicting yourself? Right? Right?
Or are they two different issues? Go figure. You're not even addressing my main points rightly, or even understanding them.
