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

[Mordwyl]

Anything can be made lethal in the wrong hands.

The US has a very violent mentality and convincing them murders will diminish once you take away firearms will be nigh impossible. More reasonable countries like the majority of European nations outright make them illegal, as for example in Malta (where I live) there's a higher chance a sane person dies from jumping in the middle of busy traffic by their own will than murdered.

It's a shame, the cycle of violence seems so intricate even removing all the guns won't remove someone's murderous tendencies.

 

[Gruthar]

Since I don't think this has been made clear, I can't pop into my neighborhood Walmart and buy an Uzi or any automatic weapon. That includes suppressed firearms, and anything classified as a destructive device (grenades, grenade launchers, artillery, etc.) It is possible for a civilian to own such a weapon in the US, but:

1) It requires a lot of paperwork, including a letter to your local PD and the BATF, which they can reject at their discretion. Being a bureaucracy, it also takes a loooong time.
2) It's hideously expensive to do -- in the realm of thousands of dollars -- largely because
3) There's a finite number of automatics; any built after the mid-1980s cannot be sold to the public

Similarly, .50 cal weapons are also hugely expensive to own and obtain ammo for, though require less legal hurdles. For that and the above reasons, criminals don't own or use these weapons. These are generally owned by hardcore collectors, competitors, or dealers/manufacturers. Given these circumstances, it's extremely rare that weapons like these are actually used in a crime. As it stands, I would argue these are luxury goods. There is no justification for owning them (except for maybe as tech demos), but nor is there is a compelling reason to ban them altogether. They are extravagances only afforded by people with a lot of disposable income.

With regards to criminals, they generally use cheap 'street pieces,' which is a piece of crap 9mm handgun with the serials filed off. These are illegal to begin with. Someone with a felony record isn't going to walk into a gun store and buy a pistol; they wouldn't be able to even if they wanted. In other words, criminals are already acquiring firearms by illegal means, such that a blanket ban on guns isn't going to affect their access to them. They also do not tend to use semi-auto rifles, or long guns of any kind, for the simple reason that they can't be concealed.

With regards to accidental deaths, well... accidents happen. They type of gun doesn't matter, it's still dangerous if mishandled. I'm all for more rigorous training in order to legally own a firearm, just as I would say the same about driving a car. But it doesn't warrant a ban. I don't believe the role of government is to idiot-proof the nation, for in doing so you tread a fine line between making the country safer and infringing upon our freedoms. Part of the price of freedom is that stupid people do stupid things, but it's a price I'd be willing to pay if the alternative is living with a controlling, overbearing government. I would no more stand for a blanket ban on guns than I would for a blanket ban on sports cars, or swords, or alcohol, or...

As far as the rest of the firearms go, here are just a few non-2nd Amendment justifications why civilians should be allowed to own them:

1) Recreation
2) Competition
3) Military relics/collecting
4) Family heirlooms
5) Hunting
6) Self-defense
7) All associated employment

Civilian ownership justified. Thanks for playing.

 

[NemoSD]

But is it worth this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Especially interesting when comapred to this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership]

Theres an almost 1:1 corrolation between gun ownership and gun death, Switserland has about half as many guns and about half as many deaths, Canada about a third and a third again.

Our 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own guns in order to defend ourselves.

From the government, not from burglars or hold-ups.

The first table here I have an issue with, simply because it includes suicide deaths. If we want to have a discussion about gun violence, then the suicides need to be taken out. It is safe to assume that those who truly intended to commit suicide would not go, "Oh I have no gun, so not going to try the millions of other possible ways to die..." Once you take the suicide numbers out of the chart, then the unintentional, you have a much closer % to every other nation in the world. In other words, people owning guns does nothing for or against crime at a national level.

A local level however is different. American gun crimes are isolated almost exclusively to large cities, where gun ownership is lower percentage wise. Conversely when we look at areas with low gun control, high gun ownership, such as Texas. Since 1995 when Concealed Carry became open to everyone who applied, gun related crimes, and violent crimes, have been dropping. Home invasions and burglaries have increasingly been non-confrontational and the criminals unarmed.

Then in California with its ever tightening grip on guns, violent deaths due to guns increase every year. A new law is trying to make hollow tipped rounds illegal, which will increase the number of accidental deaths, as hollow tips will not exit a body, or rarely make it through a wall with enough velocity to kill, where as blunt nose, or pointed ammo, can go through a couple of walls and still kill.

Is gun ownership the only means to crime deterrent? No. Stricter punishment for violent criminals, a life sentence that means something, and if the death penalty is there, it must be used. Criminals in a whole are choosing the easy way out of their problems, if the results to these choices is a swift and tough punishment, then less are likely to view this as the easy way.

Geography need be considered as well. Someone already mentioned that American cities are far more sprawling then most European cities, and that is simply because we were not confined to construction and city planning dating back to the time of Augustus of Rome.

One last note: Gun bans do not always help: Mexico is in a virtual state of war right now. Guns are not allowed to be owned by anyone, yet the cartels as a rule, out arm the Mexican military.

 

[Vuljatar]

People deserve the right and ability to defend themselves, thank you very much.

 

[The Bandit]

I think civilians should be allowed to own all kinds of guns, but not allowed to keep ammo on the same premises. If you use them, I reckon you should be able hire an ammo locker at gun range or something.

I think civilians should be allowed to use any non-lethal or non-crippling weapon (i.e. stun gun, bean bag shotgun etc) in the correct legal circumstances.

This... Completely defeats the purpose of owning a gun for private protection.

 

[Bureacreative]

that is just riculous. Banning all breechloading weapons? If you actually know what you're talking about (and if you do i apollogize it's just so many people don't) i'd like an honest debate. But if not, don't start talking about banning something you don't know about

 

[Motiv_]

Oh yes, because criminals totally would go out and buy flintlock muskets from legit dealers instead of going to a black market dealer for an AK47. Yes, that makes total sense.

You're only taking guns out of the hands of civilians, not criminals. And while it may stop accidents like the 8 year old Uzi tragedy, it will certainly not stop crime.

 

[Lexodus]

Of course not, the idea that anyone should be able to have guns and whatnot to 'protect' themselves is a stupid idea.

Why else would America have such a high gun crime rate? Cause everyone has guns, duh. Why are the gun crime rates so low in Britain? Cause NOBODY (policemen included) have guns.

Actually, gun-related violence went UP after England instituted it's gun ban. There's a saying that explains this:
"If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

If somebody puts you or your family in mortal danger, it's completely absurd to expect the police or military to arrive immediately and save you. Our 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own guns in order to defend ourselves.

Not true. Britain's problem is knife crime.

 

[Lexodus]

But is it worth this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Especially interesting when comapred to this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership]

Theres an almost 1:1 corrolation between gun ownership and gun death, Switserland has about half as many guns and about half as many deaths, Canada about a third and a third again.

Our 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own guns in order to defend ourselves.

From the government, not from burglars or hold-ups.

The first table here I have an issue with, simply because it includes suicide deaths. If we want to have a discussion about gun violence, then the suicides need to be taken out. It is safe to assume that those who truly intended to commit suicide would not go, "Oh I have no gun, so not going to try the millions of other possible ways to die..." Once you take the suicide numbers out of the chart, then the unintentional

HAHAHA. Okay, I have to stop you there. Why are you taking away the unintentional deaths? That's part of the whole fucking problem we're talking about here!

 

[historybuff]

Obviously, you want to make this about America because--seriously--who doesn't when they bring this up?

It gets so old.

Also, yeah, I like having the right to protect myself in my own home. So cry moar.

I'd like to see what you're going to say when the Zombie Apocalypse comes

Everyone knows that melee weopons fair much better then guns when fighting zombies.

The defense rests its case

Also, this. While the rest of you are getting chewed up by zombies, America will be A-Okay. Because we have chainsaw guns. And it's awesome.

 

[Cheeseknife]

I just want to point out two things.

If everyone had a gun (which they should imo) gun violence would drop dramatically.

and

For you folks in Europe who claim you don't need a gun to protect yourself just a: knife, bat, club, sword, etc.

Look at the case of Sean Taylor. He used to play foot ball for the Washington Redskins
until of course his home was robbed. He tried to fend them off with a machete but was shot in an artery in the leg and bled out. If he had his gun with him he would still be alive.

Nuff Said.

 

[Nasti]

Personally I can see reasons why guns are more nessesary in America as opposed to the UK (where i live); hunting and protection (in remote areas where police response could be insufficient) . This does not justify concealed weapons or any weapons in the posession of civilans in densly populated areas.

My answer doesnt fit into any of the poll choices. Conclusion: Fail Poll

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Wow, this thread makes me thrilled to be an American.

I own 3 AR15's, 2 Semiauto handguns, and one AK. And they're all legal. Not only that, but they haven't magically fought their way out of the safe to go hunt down innocent schoolchildren on their own. Neener-Neener.

Jeez people, they're just guns....

 

[HotFezz8]

How are we going to overthrow a corrupt and ineffective goverment without our modern weapons?

How are we going to have our Modern Warfare?

you cant!

taking down the goverment (WHAT?! ... WHAT?! clearly whoever posted that lives on a mountain and says the moon landings were faked. the last time a armed populace tried to overthrow the goverment was; the IRA (who succeded in killing thousands, most of them civilians, and failed) the kurds in iraq (who suceeded in killing and getting killed thousands, most of them civilians, and failed) oh and the dafur uprising (still progressing, current count, 300,000 dead. still rising). there are only armed violent uprisings in third and second world countries. on this continent we have DEMOCRACY. the goverment gets too mad, you riot till they get rid of their head of state and change, then loose the next election. i.e. Margret Thatcher)

the second (this should give you a hint about its effectiveness) intifada (6,000 dead, unsuccessful)
iraqi insurgency (estimates vary, minimum 100,000 dead, unsuccessful)
the darfur rebellion (300,000 dead, unsuccessful)
Ingushetia civil war (800 dead, ongoing, unsuccessful)
Tuareg Rebellion (7,000 dead, unsuccessful)
Shiite Uprising in Karbala (unknown, unsuccessful)
Bosnian War of Independence (60,000 soldiers dead, 40,000 civilians dead possibly successful, depends on the source)
Romanian Revolution (1,104 dead) SUCCESSFUL!!

waayyy!!! proof a armed uprising can be successful!!! we only had to go back 20 years and half a million dead your stupid fucking idiot.

yeah. you toddle off and shoot at parliment. see how much of a fucking dent you make on the Challenger 2 they send at you.

what the hell are you suggesting?! give everyone heat explosive anti tank weaponary so they really make a difference against their goverment?! how stupid do you have to be to think having a lethal weapon in you house is a good idea because it gives you the oppurtunity to conduct guerilla warfare?!!

I thought my statement was too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously, but you have shown me that their are people out there who take everything way to seriously.

Also if someone handed me heat seeking anti-tank weapon I would most certainly keep it, I can imagine a number of uses for it.

oops... sorry having just read through 4 pages since i posted it i got a little carried away... apologies for jumping down your throat... :-(

 

[HotFezz8]

Snip (gun death "statistics")

Source please?

Once again you are using logical fallacies. No one but you is claiming that "everyone must own guns." Please keep your arguments in the realm of logic and reason if you hope to ever be taken seriously.

According to the cdc, these are the leading causes of death in america:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm

Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234

Accidents presumably includes gun deaths.

This chart breaks down injury and accident deaths:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/Images/LC-Charts/10lc%20-Unintentional%20Injury%202006-7_6_09-a.pdf

To summarize, the leading causes of injury-related death in order are: Motor vehicles, poisoning, falling, suicides, followed by gun homicides. Accidental gun deaths don't even register on the chart. I think we can assume those suicides will find a way to off themselves one way or another, as will the killers find a way to kill each other somehow. By your logic we must first outlaw all cars, poisonous things, and anything which you could fall off of.

sorry i can't find that link again, but here,

"From 1990 to 1997, there were 293,781 firearm deaths?homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.12"

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

maybe a quarter in, interesting it also says that 44% of americans would support a ban on firearms except for law enforcement...

i appreciate that there are more causes of death out there, my point is that guns and firearms have no purpose other than to end lives. owning one only allows you the oppurtunity to kill someone. period.

 

[Mantonio]

The problem with banning guns is that criminals, BY VERY DEFINITION, DON'T follow the law.

All you'll be doing is taking the guns away from people who AREN'T going to commit a crime with them. So they won't be able to protect themselves unless they acquire one illegally. So instead of turning criminals into honest men, you'll be turning honest men into criminals.

 

[HotFezz8]

Eh, more people die from falling down stairs than from accidental gun deaths. Should we outlaw stairs? Stop the stair menace! End the tragedy!

Gun fatalities make the news because they are sensational. Where I live they passed laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons (actually the law already existed, they just changed the details of it a little bit). All the alarmists predicted bedlam in the streets and schoolyard massacres... which never happened.

I don't mind waiting periods, background checks, registrations, mandatory gun safety training, etc (in fact I'm a big fan of this one, I HATE it when people to not follow gun safety!) You need a license to drive, so too should you be licensed to go armed. Most people don't need guns per se, but what kind of person lives such a spartan life where they only own things they absolutely need? Furthermore I think all people have a fundamental right to protect themselves; indeed this was once common sense.

yes, when their were bears and indians and crap... refer to above reply.

 

[Nasti]

For all of you still arguing for guns over melee vs zombies. Both of them have drawbacks and these arnt completly overcome by having both combined into one weapon

I present the polesaw. As reliable as a chainsaw, keeps you at a safe range