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?
The problem that is allowing massacres such as what happened at VA Tech, Aurora, Colorado, the school in Newtown, and so many others is the presence of gun regulations.
That's the premise of this post. Before I explain why this is the case, let me provide a little clarification.
The presence of the gun regulations is not what causes the problem, but rather what enables it. Numerous valid factors have been identified as being responsible in their own manner for these atrocities, including mental imbalance, drug abuse and/or side effects, perverted religious zealotry, sheer malicious intent, the promotion of unnecessary violence in media, etc. The presence of gun regulations gives the person affected by these factors an avenue to facilitate their intent.
Now, on to the main premise. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is written as an absolute. It does not at any point in its text state any form of regulation, exception, or limitation on the Right To Bear Arms. Read it for yourself:
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.
This in itself renders unconstitutional and therefore irrelevant any and all subsequent gun regulations.
But I digress. People are far less likely to attack someone who is armed than someone who is unarmed. This is a product of the basic survival instinct: excluding extreme circumstances, such as a Fireman entering a burning building to rescue someone, the probability of someone engaging in a specific activity is inversely proportional to the risk of injury or death to that person involved in the given activity. If you know that you will be shot and potentially killed if you attempt a crime, you are less inclined to commit the act, at least against the intended target. Firearms provide a simple and exceptionally effective means for self-defense and the defense of others. Therefore, simple logic dictates that when there are MORE GUNS in the hands of the citizenry, crime will decline accordingly. Similarly, greater gun restriction and fewer guns will lead to an increase in crime, including gun crime. But don't take my word, or even logic's word for it. Here's undeniable proof: 25 Years Murder-Free in a Town Full of GUNS.
Psychopaths intent on bloodshed will get their weapons any way they can regardless of the law. Gun restrictions shackle the honest, law-abiding citizens who would otherwise deal swift and deadly justice to those who would massacre children and turn schools and malls into killing fields. If the Principle and teachers in Newtown had been carrying weapons, the body count would likely be only one: the madman himself. If the students at VA Tech had been armed, Cho Seung-Hui would have been stopped cold. I could go on, but you should get it by now. Acknowledge the right to defend oneself from the scum of the Earth. MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED.
guns make is easier to kill people, along with many other things. Bombs, Cars, Gasses, Anything is a potential weapon. Would you like to make stricter laws against owning cars? Maybe make it illegal to buy bats because you can kill somebody with that. Items that were never meant to kil people can easily be turned into a weapon.
Did you read any of Kasic's earlier points? Guns are made to kill and harm. If you're not using that for such purposes, you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, no one makes cars just to ram people down.
Now, on to the main premise. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is written as an absolute. It does not at any point in its text state any form of regulation, exception, or limitation on the Right To Bear Arms. Read it for yourself:
People demand laws change all the time, yet are slaves to the Constitution, which they feel is infallible. Well, it isn't. Like any set of laws, it's subject to changes when times and society changes.
MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED.
Around the Internet, many people toss around the number '2.5 million,' as in 'There are 2.5 million DGUs a year.' That's quite a lot of lives possibly saved. Now compare it to, say, the 75,684 gun-related injuries back in 2000, or the 31,224 gun-related deaths in 2007. Two and a half million.
Except '2.5 million' comes from a single study back in 1993. The number is both highly cited and highly disputed. Not only are the figures not enough to make an accurate estimate (other studies range from 50,000 to 2 million), but the results don't actually translate to "lives saved thanks to gun use." They refer to a gun being involved in the presumed protection of a person or thing. The general consensus is that 2.5 million is a gross exaggeration.
Firearms provide a simple and exceptionally effective means for self-defense and the defense of others. Therefore, simple logic dictates that when there are MORE GUNS in the hands of the citizenry, crime will decline accordingly. Similarly, greater gun restriction and fewer guns will lead to an increase in crime, including gun crime. But don't take my word, or even logic's word for it. Here's undeniable proof: 25 Years Murder-Free in a Town Full of GUNS.
Singapore, Malaysia, Japan. Kinda, enough said. No guns, no gun murders.
In the land of the unarmed, the man with a gun is king.
People demand laws change all the time, yet are slaves to the Constitution, which they feel is infallible. Well, it isn't. Like any set of laws, it's subject to changes when times and society changes.
The founding fathers added the second amendment in because they realized that an unarmed citizenry is easy prey. I'm sure that the Zetas would be delighted to disarm the US populace. Over here, in no small part because of the strong gun laws, they can't engage in widespread intimidation of the populace, voter suppression, etc. like they do in Mexico. Take away gun rights, and suddenly it becomes relatively easy to bully the US population into submission and intimidate the government.
Singapore, Malaysia, Japan. Kinda, enough said. No guns, no gun murders.
Mexico, Somalia, Congo. Strong gun laws on paper. Gun traffickers are making a fortune off these countries selling illegal guns.
MORE GUNS = MORE LIVES SAVED.
That's a bad argument. Sometimes, more can can mean increased safety, sometimes it can mean less, and sometimes the number of firearms in the area has little bearing on the safety of a situation.
I'm sure that the Zetas would be delighted to disarm the US populace.
Zeta is a Mexican cartel, with the majority of operations in Mexico, not the US. Gun rights do not intimidate the government with the most powerful army in the world. These are handguns and shotguns we're talking about, not anything that can seriously challenge the US army.
Mexico, Somalia, Congo. Strong gun laws on paper. Gun traffickers are making a fortune off these countries selling illegal guns.
You said it yourself. On paper. These are all states with weak governance, who cannot enforce their own laws, and in the latter two, exert power outside their own capitals.
Zeta is a Mexican cartel, with the majority of operations in Mexico, not the US. Gun rights do not intimidate the government with the most powerful army in the world. These are handguns and shotguns we're talking about, not anything that can seriously challenge the US army.
I was talking only about civilians and civilian guns in this case. No they wouldn't attempt an open invasion- but right now, if you try to scare someone in the US into submission, there's a very real chance they may own a firearm. In Mexico, only the cartels have guns- if you want to bully someone into doing what you want, there's a very low chance that they will have the capability to shoot you in the face. I don't want Mexican mobs assuming that they can mug me without fear of retaliation.
You said it yourself. On paper. These are all states with weak governance, who cannot enforce their own laws, and in the latter two, exert power outside their own capitals.
Right. There's more at stake here than just the number of firearms present in an area, or the firearms laws that apply to them. After all, there are very few bloody shootouts in gun stores.
If firearms were made illegal in the US, there would still be a demand for them. Black market firearms deals would make a killing. There's a very real possibility that it could result in bloody riots and shootouts from angry gun owners. If we want to deal with violence in the US, we have to deal with poverty, a poor mental health care system, and a host of other factors that directly lead to people being violent. Gun laws can at best decrease violence (and at worst increase or cause it) but they don't deal with the underlying social problems that cause violence in the first place.
In Mexico, only the cartels have guns- if you want to bully someone into doing what you want, there's a very low chance that they will have the capability to shoot you in the face. I don't want Mexican mobs assuming that they can mug me without fear of retaliation.
Why are the American police left out of the equation? Or the border guards? Is it a unique phenomenon in the States, that the first reaction to danger is to shoot, or pull out a gun, whereas in the rest of the world, it's either to run, or call the cops?
If firearms were made illegal in the US, there would still be a demand for them.
No one is espousing a ban on guns. What gun-control lobbyists are baying for, is stricter regulation. But not that solely, they are also calling for a re-hauling of the police force, a revamping of the mental health system, and a crack down on illegal gun suppliers. Gun control is not a silver bullet panacea if not paired with suitable policies.
Why are the American police left out of the equation? Or the border guards? Is it a unique phenomenon in the States, that the first reaction to danger is to shoot, or pull out a gun, whereas in the rest of the world, it's either to run, or call the cops?
No one is espousing a ban on guns. What gun-control lobbyists are baying for, is stricter regulation.
Some gun control lobbyists do just want stricter regulations, but all too many seem to want to make sure that private citizens can't be armed.
But not that solely, they are also calling for a re-hauling of the police force, a revamping of the mental health system, and a crack down on illegal gun suppliers. Gun control is not a silver bullet panacea if not paired with suitable policies.
On the recent school shooting, as well as the theater shooting a while ago, I did not hear any gun control lobbyists seriously suggest that the cause of the shootings were mental insanity, and that guns were the tool used to facilitate the shootings, but they did not cause the shootings themselves. The anti-gun lobby makes the same mistake as the NRA in assuming that guns are a cause, rather than a means to an end.
Back to an earlier argument:
Guns are made to kill and harm. If you're not using that for such purposes, you're doing it wrong.
So competition target shooters, prop managers, and collectors are misusing their guns?
On the other hand, no one makes cars just to ram people down.
No, but it certainly makes an awfully good tool to use if you want to run someone over.
Well, no, Americans aren't psychologically different than everyone else. The police can only help if they care to, they have evidence, and if they can take action before a crime is committed. If a guy storms your house with a gun, shooting him may be the only way to survive.
Also, if an elderly person is attacked, they may not have any other way to defend themselves.
I see elderly people get attacked and reported on the news daily. Either they flee, or people around call.
On the recent school shooting, as well as the theater shooting a while ago, I did not hear any gun control lobbyists seriously suggest that the cause of the shootings were mental insanity, and that guns were the tool used to facilitate the shootings, but they did not cause the shootings themselves. The anti-gun lobby makes the same mistake as the NRA in assuming that guns are a cause, rather than a means to an end.
How many registered guns are used for killing innocents? I guarantee that it is a ridiculously low amount.
The marvelous thing about an alleyway is that it is generally disused and secluded. If you can drag someone there, voila, easy pickings.
Stricter gun laws. Vigorous background checks. The theatre shooter was declared medically unfit, yet could still buy guns when the legal process was lax.
Stricter gun laws. Vigorous background checks. The theatre shooter was declared medically unfit, yet could still buy guns when the legal process was lax.
For that, you'll need a bigger, tougher, and better managed police force. Paperwork is half a job, you still have to nab the suspects. Of course, it may be better to just put more officers "on the beat" because people begin to trust an officer if he is seen regularly. They may already do this, I haven't visited America in a while.
gun control does nothing. period. if somebody is going to kill someone a silly little gun law isnt going to prevent them from accuirng a gun. they are even easier to come by illegaly
gun control does nothing. period. if somebody is going to kill someone a silly little gun law isnt going to prevent them from accuirng a gun. they are even easier to come by illegaly
Gun control does nothing if not paired with other measures.
Look at other nations speed past the US in terms of lowering the gun homicide per capita.
