AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Gun control in the US

1089 413704
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
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

It might be in a thousand years but I guarantee that the 2nd amendment will be needed eventually. Get rid of it now and your potentially dooming the future of this country.


To assume that America will last for centuries is errant folly. While much of our modern world is historically unprecedented, this does not mean that our nations will remain for longer. America has roughly 200 years of history, in historical terms 200 years is nothing. Arguing for the far flung future is pointless.

advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.


This is... well wrong. Many of the insurgents fighting American forces over there have some degree of military training. Furthermore, terrain plays a huge role in these engagements. Guerilla style warfare, in rough terrain, is actually very effective.

As for the Vietnam War, this is also wrong. Once more for the same reasons. Those fighting Americans were trained to some degree, many with military training, and the jungle is a hard place to fight in if you do not know the terrain.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

you group aswell.


I do, but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

tbh, i dont see what is wrong whit stereotyping.


It's inaccurate, simply.

we all do that. look at yourself. your stereotyping me for being sstg and for having his ideas.


No, I've already said this. What I'm grouping you with him in is how you (not recently) came into this thread and just shot off one sarcastic remark after another and acted like your views are so superior. I know you aren't as hard-line thinking as he is, and I've said as much.

stereotyping happens all the time and people laugh about it.
stereotypes hold some truth but is taken a step further then reality go's. if you know that, then what is wrong whit stereotypes?


There's nothing wrong with it in jokes.
In a debate though, it's annoying, inaccurate, and shows that someone either does not understand the issue or has a messed up world view.

Redneck does something stupid in a joke = funny for 99% of people.
All people who like guns get called a redneck = inaccurate and offensive.

showing the point that a average joe whit a gun for self defense can easly use it to kill someone if they dont agree. i.e. showing the risk of guns everywhere.


Yes, they could. That's why it's important to make sure those types of people don't get their hands on guns.

Do I need an electric mixer for the kitchen? No, I don't.


Red Herring. An electric mixer isn't (usually...) capable of killing people. Nor is it a gun.

Do I need to own several different kitchen knives? No.


Red Herring, again. Knives aren't guns and a kitchen knife is a utensil for cooking. Unless you want to argue that you use an assault rifle when making scrambled eggs, well...

They are not made only for killing.


Deth666, if you're seriously going to argue that modern assault rifles were made for anything other than war, I'm going to start questioning some other things.

Assault rifles are made for accuracy, rate of fire, ruggedness, as well as other things that make them great for competition as well as very enjoyable to shoot. They're easy to use, easy to shoot and most of all they're fun.


And so there should be no problem with such things being kept out of people's houses and in places where they are used for competition, now is there? Unless you want to argue that you're going to be using your assault rifle in your backyard, or on some intruder.

All guns are made for killing, when it comes down to it. Your argument applies to all guns.


Yes, but not all guns are equal in those qualities which you listed.

Also, machine guns are different from assault rifles. What credible threat is there for a law abiding citizen, as an overwhelming majority of gun owners are, to own an assault rifle?


Perhaps I've got a different idea of what an assault rifle is than you do.

Here's the definition of what I think they are. "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Basically, something that can shoot a lot of lead and do a lot of damage fast.

As for what threat they are? None, in the hands of someone who isn't going to harm anyone with them.

Again, I don't see why such weapons can't be kept at gun clubs or shooting ranges or whatever. People could still legally own them, they just wouldn't be keeping them at their homes.

That advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s.


US Military Casualties in Iraq
Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Wikipedia

4488 vs ~116k.

Also known as, completely out matched. Imagine what the situation would be where the side that lost 4488 is on its homefield, where all of its heavy duty thingamabobs rest sitting around, where the police would be with them, where transportation costs would be so much less, and much, much more?

What can an armed mob do against an air strike? Tanks? Helicopters? All it would be is a blood bath.

they still get offended when I call it a terrorist organization.


I'm not offended. I'm simply amazed at how stubborn you can be in making that ridiculous claim. They fit none of the criteria to be considered terrorists and also advocate things that are directly opposite to what terrorism is.

They are also naive to think that the National Retard Association doesn't have a monetary gain by protecting gun factories and the gun nuts.


I've already admitted that they do. I'm just not such a conspiracy nut to think that the NRA advocates civilian ownership of guns because they're running secret gun manufacturing plants and stores.

BTW, that link that doesn't work talks about how the NRA sabotaged the ATF because they tried to put an end to gun factories selling to the Mexican drug cartel and they wanted everyone who sells guns to keep logs on their sales.


Link it again then please, or give me the name of the article. I wish to read it.
Solarisflair
offline
Solarisflair
6 posts
Farmer

My opinion on gun control is that everybody should own a gun. Here are two examples to illustrate this:

example 1: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this they reach for there 45ib riot shields that nobody would carry everywhere anyway and two are shot because they were not fast/strong enough. The remaining 8 customers hide behind there slabs of plastic hoping for protection but are gunned down one by one (because riot shields are not made to stop bullets) until only 2 customers are left because there riot shields were (for the sake of the story) bullet-proof. The shooter simply tears the shields from the remaining costumers hands and shoots them. (If you want to test this go bench press 45 pounds and then have a friend jump on top of the dumbbell. if you drop the dumbbell even a little bit your dead.) There are no survivors.

example 2: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this 5 of them reach for their guns and 2 are shot because they are two slow. The remaining three shoot the shooter and he dies. There are 8 survivors.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

My opinion on gun control is that everybody should own a gun.


Yes...give all the anger management, mentally unstable, extremist believers, irresponsible jocks and whatever other groups you want weapons which can kill with the pull of a trigger.

I suspect you didn't mean "everybody" but still, why should everyone own a gun? What if they don't want to? Why is it necessary?

example 1: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this they reach for there 45ib riot shields that nobody would carry everywhere anyway and two are shot because they were not fast/strong enough. The remaining 8 customers hide behind there slabs of plastic hoping for protection but are gunned down one by one (because riot shields are not made to stop bullets) until only 2 customers are left because there riot shields were (for the sake of the story) bullet-proof. The shooter simply tears the shields from the remaining costumers hands and shoots them. (If you want to test this go bench press 45 pounds and then have a friend jump on top of the dumbbell. if you drop the dumbbell even a little bit your dead.) There are no survivors.


That was honestly the worst fake hypothetical I've ever read, and I've read some really bad ones. Go look up the definition of bias.

example 2: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this 5 of them reach for their guns and 2 are shot because they are two slow. The remaining three shoot the shooter and he dies. There are 8 survivors.


Not going into how if things were regulated as they should be, said traumatized soldier shouldn't have a high caliber gun to begin with.

In the case of a random shooting, yes, someone on scene with a means to defend oneself is better than waiting the few minutes it takes for the police to arrive. However, just having a gun doesn't guarantee that the civilian will win the shoot out. They're just going to get shot at first.

Ever heard of the term, "escalation?" That's where your line of thinking leads.
Blairlarson
offline
Blairlarson
93 posts
Nomad

I think that you should be able to have guns.
Guns are dangerous but that is only in the wrong hands. I think people should take hunter safety before you buy a gun. Guns are really fun to shoot at targets with family and friends. Guns can also be used for safety purposes. I think if you sell guns you should do an intense back ground check of the people you are selling the guns to.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

I do, but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

Kasic, really? You're so busy thinking you're right that you didn't even realized I was messing with you. xD
You should have ignored my comments a long time ago.
I could care less if people own guns, machine guns, missile launcher, or whatever. I just love to stir sh*t and I'm sorry to say that you're not half as smart as you think you are. xD xD xD
Don't worry, you'll survive.
I just can't help it, this thread has gone for way too long and it's getting pathetic.
I feel sorry for Obama to have to put up with all this crap but as he showed before, he can do it.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

and have you seen me make such big leap? i might leap sometimes. but not this far, i'm for sure.
why do you put me in the same team then?

No, I've already said this. What I'm grouping you with him in is how you (not recently) came into this thread and just shot off one sarcastic remark after another and acted like your views are so superior. I know you aren't as hard-line thinking as he is, and I've said as much.

your putting my name next to his when replying to him.
it makes it show like i am the same as he is. while i got nothing to do whit what he say's.

Redneck does something stupid in a joke = funny for 99% of people.
All people who like guns get called a redneck = inaccurate and offensive.

good example. i have never said the word redneck in these entire 58 pages.
still you make it look like i call them rednecks aswell.

That's why it's important to make sure those types of people don't get their hands on guns.

well befor he just wanted to defend himself. and now wants to kill him to "defend" his right for a minigun. (ofcours this is a dumb person. but there are many. and many of those have a gun)

I'm not offended. I'm simply amazed at how stubborn you can be in making that ridiculous claim.

note i never said this either. i called the NRA evil, not terrorists.
greenpeace is more a terrorist organization then the NRA is.
Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

seriously? a assault rifle for competition? what is the sport in shooting a paper whit 100 bullets?
have ever seen a actual competition gun? they look nothing like a normal gun at all. a competition gun has hundreds of settings that you dont have whit a normal gun of any kind.


Yes, modified ARs are used in many competitions. You can even buy some that are competition ready out of the box. Some of them don't look all that different. It depends on the shooter and the type of competition.

Deth666, if you're seriously going to argue that modern assault rifles were made for anything other than war, I'm going to start questioning some other things.


There's many assault rifles that are made for competition and not meant for war or killing. There's even a few AR frame hunting rifles. So, yeah...

Here's the definition of what I think they are. "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."


Yes, that's what the military gets. It's not what civilians can buy at a gun store. Everyone gets hung up on the fire rate of a gun. It depends on how fast you can pull the trigger, how fast the action of the gun can work. These rifles are civilian versions not fully automatic infantry rifles. I'm not saying it's drastically different but it is a bit different. By your definition a WWII M1 carbine is an assault rifle. Saying that an assault rifle has no other purpose but to kill is sensationalism. It's like saying a sword has no other purpose but to kill but look at all these ren fair guys running around practicing with swords for fun.

hello strawman. (yes i can do that aswell)


Sorry for the sarcasm, but maybe I just didn't understand your point. People with guns will be more apt to snap and shoot someone doesn't seem very likely. People walk around with guns all the time. I walk around with a gun all the time and never felt like I was gonna snap. I've even gotten into heated arguments with people that have gotten physical while carrying concealed. I've never snapped and shot them. Maybe, that's not what you mean?

Also known as, completely out matched. Imagine what the situation would be where the side that lost 4488 is on its homefield, where all of its heavy duty thingamabobs rest sitting around, where the police would be with them, where transportation costs would be so much less, and much, much more?

What can an armed mob do against an air strike? Tanks? Helicopters? All it would be is a blood bath.


I don't completely agree, but I suppose, I see your point.

As for what threat they are? None, in the hands of someone who isn't going to harm anyone with them.

Again, I don't see why such weapons can't be kept at gun clubs or shooting ranges or whatever. People could still legally own them, they just wouldn't be keeping them at their homes.


What's the advantage keeping them at the gun club locked up vs. in their homes locked up?
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh07kudqNZg

Assuming the information in the video is true, we need to understand where crime is happening, who it's happening to, and who is committing said crime. When it comes to violent crime, most of it is committed by gangs. Furthermore, we keep creating these hypothetical situations where innocent people are getting hurt, even though most of these victims are criminals themselves.

Most homicides happen to criminals who murder, by criminals who murder.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition

look, it are these people that i call crazy and stupid gun lovers.
(thx for showing yourself)
i make the comments you spoke about against these people.

granted that i miss interpreted master and emperor in the begin. after they said what they actually stand for except bashing me back. i didn't made any reply in this way against them anymore.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition


Modified for, maybe. I'm not aware of any assault rifles that were developed for the sole use of competition shooting. Link some if there are any...

What's the advantage keeping them at the gun club locked up vs. in their homes locked up?


Well, they wouldn't be within reach of anyone else in the household. They wouldn't be stolen in a simple robbery either.

It's like saying a sword has no other purpose but to kill but look at all these ren fair guys running around practicing with swords for fun.


Swords aren't guns. For one, they're highly conspicuous, and they are heavy. There's also a lot less of them out there, and what sports do use swords usually use specialized ones and aren't lethal.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Well, they wouldn't be within reach of anyone else in the household. They wouldn't be stolen in a simple robbery either.


They also wouldn't be around for self defense. Considering the guns are private property, you should be able to keep those guns within your own home.

Robbers will likely steal guns if they find them, but the chances of a robber going into a person's home, stealing their gun, then killing whoever is in that home with said gun is very, very, slim. As for having you gun somewhere else so those living with you can't get their hands on the gun, that's just assuming people can't be trusted to keep guns out of the hands of their loved ones. Yes, it's important we keep guns out of the hands of children, but it's also important we don't treat every gun owner as irresponsible.

Modified for, maybe. I'm not aware of any assault rifles that were developed for the sole use of competition shooting. Link some if there are any...


As long as people aren't using the guns to kill, it doesn't matter.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

They also wouldn't be around for self defense. Considering the guns are private property, you should be able to keep those guns within your own home.

But private guns are exactly those I like the least. Besides, as I mentioned already, endorsed by nicho, the chance of actually making the robber shoot at you is critically increased if you have a gun yourself. Playing hero only cost lives. But if that's what you want...

Yes, it's important we keep guns out of the hands of children, but it's also important we don't treat every gun owner as irresponsible.

Accidents happen so quickly. Increasing the safety of a household is not necessarily treating them as irresponsible, it's common sense.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

But private guns are exactly those I like the least. Besides, as I mentioned already, endorsed by nicho, the chance of actually making the robber shoot at you is critically increased if you have a gun yourself. Playing hero only cost lives. But if that's what you want...


Guns have very often saved lives, and likely saved more lives than they have taken. Most gun crimes are committed between criminals and are gang related.

Accidents happen so quickly. Increasing the safety of a household is not necessarily treating them as irresponsible, it's common sense.


Accidents happen so quickly, but often accidents don't happen at all. Some accidents smell of feces, and others result from broken condoms. Accidents are all over, and it's a word that's easy to throw around. We have to look at reality though.

Almost all families who own guns are successful in keeping guns out of their children's hands. These accidents you speak of are VERY uncommon. I'm not saying these accidents never happen, but with the number of people that populate this country, it's statistically astonishing that you feel like gun ownership is a significant threat to children.

Safety is great and all, but we can't Styrofoam the whole world. If you want to significantly increase the safety of your children, don't drive them around with you if you can help it and find a babysitter instead of taking them to the store - after all, it's safer for them to be left home than in the seat of a mess of metal screaming 60 miles per hour down the road and risk getting them killed in a head on collision!
Solarisflair
offline
Solarisflair
6 posts
Farmer

That was honestly the worst fake hypothetical I've ever read, and I've read some really bad ones.


I was not trying to tell a convincing story I was trying to show that riot shields only work a portable fences not force-fields.

Yes...give all the anger management, mentally unstable, extremist believers, irresponsible jocks and whatever other groups you want weapons which can kill with the pull of a trigger.


You do have a point there, if every single person owned a gun lots of people might be shot. But at the same time look at Switzerland, every single resident is required to have a machine gun in their house and most will have many other guns but Switzerland's crime rate is almost null.

I suspect you didn't mean "everybody" but still, why should everyone own a gun? What if they don't want to? Why is it necessary?


Say nobody has a gun except the military. There would be no shootings or armed robberies and it would be harder to commit suicide. Plus it would give illegal gun trading over borders a real kick in the pants.

But now imagine that the government becomes corrupt and tries to establish a dictator or something. How would you defend yourself without a gun?

And look at London their crime rate is despicable and nobody is allowed to own a gun.

[quote]Not going into how if things were regulated as they should be, said traumatized soldier shouldn't have a high calibre gun to begin with.[quote]

Explain to me how a traumatized soldier can get one of these and not a rifle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcnQ5jVGEds
Showing 571-585 of 1089