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?
For anyone else, the event is confined to strangers in a television screen.
What about Sandy Hook? What about Columbine? Doesn't that affect all of us? Before, parents didn't have to worry about sending their children to school. Now, whenever we say goodbye to our parents, will it be our last? Sandy Hook made all parents afraid for their children. It does not just impact those immediately affected by such a tragedy. It impacts all of us.
What's the difference between this shooting and any others in your mind?
What about Sandy Hook? What about Columbine?
All else equal, things that happen to you, or to someone in your microsystem, will be felt much more intensely than something that happens to someone you don't know, and in a place you don't know. It is just how humans work. Knowing someone who the event "happened to" makes it feel much more real for most people.
All else equal, things that happen to you, or to someone in your microsystem, will be felt much more intensely than something that happens to someone you don't know, and in a place you don't know.
I agree with that statement, but however, a horrific event, like Sandy Hook, changed everyone's daily lives. We had to protect our children more vigorously than ever. Our leaders had to ensure that something like that would never happen again. Just because an event did not happen to affect someone you love doesn't make it anymore real than it already is. Sandy Hook happened at a elementary school. Another Sandy Hook could strike at an elementary school near you. Actually, it can happen to anyone!
I agree with that statement, but however, a horrific event, like Sandy Hook, changed everyone's daily lives. We had to protect our children more vigorously than ever. Our leaders had to ensure that something like that would never happen again. Just because an event did not happen to affect someone you love doesn't make it anymore real than it already is. Sandy Hook happened at a elementary school. Another Sandy Hook could strike at an elementary school near you. Actually, it can happen to anyone!
All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a gun shooting to make more, and more people fearful of guns. Along with that the indoctrination of the belied that putting more restrictions will lower gun related deaths, while of course forgetting about all the other types of murders.
All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a gun shooting to make more, and more people fearful of guns.
All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a terrorist bombing/nuclear plant meltdown/asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth to make more, and more people fearful of terrorists/industrial scale nuclear reactors/Ceres-class asteroids hurtling towards Earth.
Along with that the indoctrination of the belied that putting more restrictions will lower gun related deaths, while of course forgetting about all the other types of murders.
You've combined two talking points into one here, but they don't logically fit together. The first is a self-refuting idea, and one which ignores both the degree and the means of restriction by simply assuming that the outcome is the same in all cases. The second is a diversionary tactic with no bearing upon the subject of this discussion.
Along with that the indoctrination of the belied [sic] that putting more restrictions will lower gun related deaths, while of course forgetting about all the other types of murders.
This statement is pointless when it is considered that knife crime could be reduced by letting people have more guns.
All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a terrorist bombing/nuclear plant meltdown/asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth to make more, and more people fearful of terrorists/industrial scale nuclear reactors/Ceres-class asteroids hurtling towards Earth.
It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.
I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."
No. A lethal weapon is exactly what you stated above. Proliferating them, whether they be guns, knives, bows and arrows, bombs, or anything else, will never reduce the amount of violence caused by them. It can only increase the potential for injury.
I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."
I was referring to the people who are constantly ranting about how they'll shoot anyone who tries to take their guns and that everyone should be armed so we can all just engage in a firefight whenever anyone tries to do something and that they'll rise up in revolution and etc.
In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument,
Wasn't particularly making an argument.
you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Although casualties does not have to refer specifically to a war or accident, only some kind of event.
I am introducing a new argument to this topic, also bumping this thread.
There is nothing wrong with having guns. It is a beneficial tool, and has numerous uses. However, if you love guns, and when I mean 'love', I mean that you have a rigid, one-sided opinion about guns. You feel that any attempts at gun control is an 'infringement on your rights.' People like this are blind. They do not realize that owning a firearm is like driving a car: When an experienced driver is behind the wheel, the car is very beneficial to the driver. But when an inexperienced person is driving, he poses a risk to people and can unintentionally hurt or kill.
Gun-loving people feel that they will not be able to survive the real world without owning guns. They feel that the world is too dangerous, and must own guns. Their fear is not unfounded. Crime in the world is increasing steadily. But gun-lovers let their fear get the best of them. They become paranoid, perceiving anything as a threat that must be handled with a firearm. Take, for example, these innocent people who have been killed as a result of guns: Chad Oulson. Trayvon Martin. These people were murdered by men who were inconsiderate. These men simply shot without asking questions, without stopping and thinking. They value their lives over other people's lives.
When will they wake up? Only when such a tragedy happens in their own family. Then, these people will realize how foolish they have been in thinking that guns are a solutions to everything. Then they will stop loving guns.
Define assault. Olson threw a bag of popcorn at the guy who shot him over an argument about texting at the theater (during the previews), and not a single witness ever corroborated Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him. Considering the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck and chased down Martin, legally Zimmerman initiated the conflict with that very act.
Pretty sure you can't say that about the latter, as Zimmerman was acquitted.
The law isn't perfect, just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean they can't be considered a murderer. OJ was acquitted but most people still consider him a murderer.
If anyone in my family is stupid enough to assault (initiate force against) a legally armed man without cause, then too bad for them.
Yeah, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if your family member was shot after being chased down a dark street in the rain by a stranger and that stranger just happened to have a legal firearm that they used when verbally confronted. Or if they get shot for tossing a bag of popcorn at some grumpy old man that's complaining because they're texting in a theater before a movie starts. You'd have to be insane to consider either of those situations assault or anything even remotely severe enough to warrant lethal force.
Not really taking a stance on the subject, just pointing out some inaccuracies in your post. To try to justify the actions of George Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves as a response to assault is an outright lie. These men entered into a situation, antagonized another person, and then shot that person for the crimes of throwing popcorn and not being recognized by a neighborhood watch member on a dark and rainy night.
"Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states." here
Olson threw a bag of popcorn at the guy
The type of object is irrelevant.
and not a single witness ever corroborated Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him.
The objective evidence was far better than any witness: "In a police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.[...] A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor, taken a day after the February 26 shooting, shows Zimmerman was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of his head." here "The Volusia County medical examiner found that Martin was killed by an injury resulting from a single gunshot to the chest, fired at "intermediate range", between 1 and 18 inches according to a forensic expert.[15][Note 7] An FDLE analysis of Martin's body and clothes described the distance as "a contact shot".[107] The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death." here
Considering the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck and chased down Martin, legally Zimmerman initiated the conflict with that very act.
Legally approaching someone is not initiating a conflict and does not justify a use of physical force.
that they used when verbally confronted
*that they used after being punched in the face repeatedly while being slammed against the pavement, and only after (reportedly) an attempt to seize the weapon was made
To try to justify the actions of George Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves as a response to assault is an outright lie.
I did not say that either was justified, only that the victims were at least somewhat culpable.
