Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.

[Hedberger]

Ugh....you people never cease to amaze me. Of course civilians have a right to own almost all weapons save for heavy weapons like anti-tank launchers and such.

After you've all happily given your guns away, don't come crying to me when your government decides to go 1984 on you and take away all the freedoms you may or may not currently enjoy.

The civilian militia is the basis of the (U.S.) 2nd amendment. The minute leaders and rulers decide they're not afraid of the electorate and feel they can gain more power without consequence, they will.

Enough of this pansy, guns cause tragedies, crap. There are a lot of other things that can hurt people and cause horrible accidents. It's called life.

And you never cease to amaze me. In case the government goes "1984" on you you won't be able to stop them with a badly trained badly organized militia just because they have a few assault rifles. If there would be any point of a militia at all they should be properly trained and have nukes, airplanes a fleet and fighter jets. Otherwise it's just a preposturous waste of time. Suddenly it doesn't sound that attractive doesn't it?

Would it be worth all the money on the off chance that the government manages to slip a quick totalitarian bill past you without anyone noticing?

 

[Igen]

http://mksviews.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/stupid_neighbor.jpg

I should get on of those signs for my front yard.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

before I leave:

I need to point out that my greatest war hero Simo Häyhä, the white death, never would of existed had there been a ban on guns. This man, with nothing more then his families unscoped bolt action rifle, still holds the highest body count of any sniper to date. When the Russians invaded he took up the weapon and became a living horror stories for their troops, a ghost that killed anyone sent after him.

Without free access to a fire arm throughout most of his life he wouldn't of been able to shoot one straight, let alone become a hero of the Finish army.

The biggest reason you want an armed and trained populous is so you have a shit load of troops that can be called on in times of dire need. Sure the USA doesn't have to worry about Canada or Mexico invading in this day and age, but throughout history it never had a strong foothold like this. In the future who knows what might happen, particularly if the USA crumbles like the USSR did due to bad finances coupled with unobtainable, endless, wars.

 

[chronobreak]

I think a lot of people here would benefit from the 20 or 30 dollar FID or LTC course. It gives you some perspective on the benefits of owning a weapon, and the classes are run by police officers, so it's people that you can trust with your safety. I've taken 3, each in different places, and I've never seen a cop tell anybody they shouldn't own a firearm. From what I have seen, they all see it as taking your life in your own hands, as even they will admit they won't always be there to save you.

Not saying guns are for everyone, but there is no reason a responsible person shouldn't be able to own one.

For home defence, you're more likely to be shot with your own gun.

The National Crime Victimization survey shows that rates of this happening are at mose one percent. Maybe you should read up on the hundreds of thousands of successful gun uses for defense each year, but that would be hard to do, as why would any organization want to report guns... doing something good?

Just one more unrelated number: In 2005, 789 people died from accidental firearm discharge in the US. Taking population into consideration, the risk of having such an accident per 100,000 people is .30, which is the same risk as dying of a plane crash.

The whole premise of this thread is wrong, however, as many justifiable reasons have been said. Hell, people can justify whatever they want to anyways, right?

 

[lvl9000_woot]

Thank you. However, times have changed and there is almost no reason for it.

There is a procedure in place to take an amendment off the books you know. Till that procedure is followed then the government can't just magically declare there is no reason for the law and shit all over it. Well, at least in theory cause the government loves to shit over peoples rights whenever it can.

Which... in itself sort of points out the fact there might still a actually be a reason for it....

Maybe we don't need to overthrow the government today, maybe not tomorrow, but if this government already cares so little for the rights of the citizens then who knows what the next one will be like or the one after that.

Anarchist handbook can be your friend.

That's why I said "almost"

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

I think it would be more interesting if civilians had to use flint-lock guns instead of magazine-fed modern handguns.
It could lead to some hilarity.
And robbing banks would become harder. loading time would be a *****.

Um no it wouldn't, criminals don't get guns through civilian means, that's why banning guns wouldn't really cut down on gun crime in America

Frankly, I don't give a damn, it would be fun to watch someone squirm.
let them rob banks any damn way they want.
Sorry if my reply makes me seem like an asshole, I feel like being an asshole right now, so I'll say sorry now.
Sorry.

 

[Skaramine]

What makes governments so special that they should have thousands of people armed with them but "civilians" should be completely denied access to them? Governments are made up of people and their actions. They're not magic.

Well, you see, 'civilians' arent as trained with deadly weaponry as military personel are. Guns are an abomination, at least there mostly restricted to the military.

Civilians are more likely to train and practice and actually know how to safely handle and store their firearms than someone in the military. 95% of all military personnel don't even receive the training that allows their commanders to consider them safe to have a loaded magazine or a loaded chamber for their rifles.

Also, the military are not especially good at knowing WHO to shoot. During the Vietnam War, 1,326 American soldiers were killed by "friendly fire" - ie: their fellow soldiers.

Here's another thought - murder is almost 100% illegal. Yet, thousands are murdered around the world every day. Making guns illegal won't do a single damn thing to stop killing. If people are going to break the law, they're not going to worry about the legalities of owning a firearm. Indeed, in Africa, in the Philipines, and in Pakistan, arms manufacturing circumvents cutting off access to buying firearms. Those guns are ugly as hell, but they can still be used to kill.

 

[DayDark]

This reminds me of the movie Lord of War in that 1 man was able to get thousands upon thousands of AKs grenades pistols and the like out of an army facility, yes it is a movie but its not hard to imagine how far money will go. No one is saying a gun is a magic you not get killed shield, and I'd like to think that if your at gun point there is nothing stopping the guy with the gun from shooting you and taking your money anyway so why not have a fair chance at not dieing? There are people that are that messed up that they will shot you after taking your money, because they can. I don't live in Denmark so i don't know what its like, butif your organized crime gets to bad and say they start robbing people or just killing them then are you guys shit out of luck? (and that's a dodgy question i know so don't answer if you don't want)

I fully understand the reasoning behind wanting to get a gun for self defends, your right, there's nothing stopping a gun wielding burglar from killing you, other then his own will, which is not a comfortable situation, and some people murder just for murdering.

It's just that I think, that at least armed theives and burglars, an organised criminals, aren't interested in killing you, unless they see a reason to do it, because your not really a "threat", provided they know you don't have a gun. If they shoot you, they'll leave more evidence, then if they simply rob you and leave you healthy.

Thieves and Burglars, usually are so out a desperation, if the victims get guns, I don't believe it will stop the crime, it will simply make the criminal prepaire accordingly. I mean he doesn't want to leave you alive if there's a chance you'll shoot him in the back, when he runs away. At least this is my theory, and it's only a theory.

 

[vector03]

Guns go hand-in-hand with freedom. If you have a gun-less society, do you really expect to have a crime-less society? Also, do you really trust the govt enough to save you?

 

[lucaf]

Guns go hand-in-hand with freedom. If you have a gun-less society, do you really expect to have a crime-less society? Also, do you really trust the govt enough to save you?

well i trust my govornment. mabey thats because we have no guns, but still a lower murder rate than the US and the govornment hasnt... what WOULD the govornment do? seize power lol?

 

[The Hairminator]

By removing guns from the masses you also remove the need of guns from the masses.
In a gunless society no one needs a gun to defend himself.

Gun control -
The theory that a 120-lb woman is morally superior when she is raped, strangled and defiled by a 200-lb man, rather than putting a bullet through his heart with a .38 Special.

*sniffs the air*

Ah, I love the scent of ignorance in the morning.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have pepper-spray or any other ways of self-defence. And unless she is in a confined area people ought to be around to help. And if she IS in a confined place with a possible rapist a gun wouldn't always be a 100% option to get out of the situation. And who knows? Trying to fire at him could actually become a reason for him to kill her later. You do have a point, but your argument is flawed. It's not that easy.

 

[thiosk]

im stockpiling my guns and bibles for z day, thank you very much.

 

[stabnex]

The instant we lose our right to bear overpowered willy extensions is the day women murder all men and rule through cloning.

 

[The Sorrow]

Alright, great.
Maybe you don't think hunting is a valid reason for guns.
But keep this in mind.
Does a criminal give two shits whether he's allowed to have a gun or not?

 

[vector03]

Guns go hand-in-hand with freedom. If you have a gun-less society, do you really expect to have a crime-less society? Also, do you really trust the govt enough to save you?

well i trust my govornment. mabey thats because we haveno guns, but still a lower murder rate than the US and the govornment hasnt... what WOULD the govornment do? seize power lol?

Yes, I can see why you would trust your 'govornment', they educated your dumbass. Also remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[Clutchdude]

I was watching ZP and saw this thread. Just had to register and comment on it.

First off, different cultures hold different values. USA != Britain. What works in one place may not work in another.

Second, a study carried out by Sociology professor had originally figured that higher gun ownership correlated to higher death rates. After carrying out the study, he found out the opposite-owning a gun makes crime less harmful to the victim.

I highly recommend you read the 3-page article by Florida State University(http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp).

The take-home point of his paper was this: If you own a gun, you are much less likely to sustain injury/property loss during a crime.

Of course, the statistics used to reach this finding are up for debate. I'm all for reading a counter point to the argument laid out in his findings...as long as it's supported with references or first hand research.

Now, that said, there is no reason you should be able to walk into your local grocery store and buy a bazooka, PK, etc. All folks, besides those who love shooting guns, have no need for an automatic weapon.

Additionally, any gun owner should be trained and competent with their firearm. I'd advocate anyone wishing to own a firearm should seek professional training before planning to use it for self defense purposes.

 

[lucaf]

Guns go hand-in-hand with freedom. If you have a gun-less society, do you really expect to have a crime-less society? Also, do you really trust the govt enough to save you?

well i trust my govornment. mabey thats because we haveno guns, but still a lower murder rate than the US and the govornment hasnt... what WOULD the govornment do? seize power lol?

Yes, I can see why you would trust your 'govornment', they educated your dumbass. Also remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

i was saying that people are saying that without guns the US government will enslave everyone or something, but that hasnt happened in any developed country iv heard of with no guns (like mine, the uk)

so saying they brainwashed me into trusting them is pointless, because they havent given me a proper reason (like enslaving me) to not.