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

[epunk35]

I find the whole idea of having to own a weapon stupid.
Seriously, what do you need a freaking shotgun for at home? If someone breaks into your house you're better off just calling the cops anyway.

Haha ever called the cops in America? The response time is about 2 hours pretty much.

 

[Skaramine]

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.

Really? Because police in America have pepper spray and "stun guns." By your reasoning, that should be plenty of "defence" for them. Yet, that doesn't work, or worse, such items are often abused, despite training.

Those things cause either major irritation or only a brief, one-second solution. A firearm present could convince the perpetrator NOT to continue with violence - 99% of firearms usage in self defense is merely the presence of the weapon.

 

[TheBoulder]

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.

"Well, you see," you're assuming that a person who chooses to purchase a weapon would not undergo training in the handling of one. You're also forgetting to include veterans, who have had just as much training as the people currently serving.

The idea that guns, in and of themselves, are an abomination is absurd. They are inanimate objects which serve as tools. What people do with them is what is important.

Sir i agree with you to no end this is a great statement though i dough it will have much impact in this thread.

I already know that you need training but no matter how trained civies are, there will be 'accidents'. You also have to pass certain tests in the military before you get a gun. People are stupid. Not everybody is, but most are. Guns shouldn't be used at all. Also, a wrench is a tool, scissors are tools, knowledge is a tool. Guns are materialised death. Besides , why do you want a gun?

Triple posting? Really?

Good question. Real men use grenades

Excuse me if I joined yesterday and am not an internet troll.

 

[Tahrqa]

Trying to reply a second time as Escapist keeps bombing out on me .... In response to someone who said that if someone is breaking into your home you are better off calling the cops....

Yes ... because the cops might be able to get there in time and might save your life. I prefer to be proactive and take the responsibility for my own well being as MY responsibility first and foremost. Nobody but me is responsible for my safety, my health, and my life ... as a result I do not intend to rely on any other person ... much less a government run organization ... to protect myself, my family, or my property.

And this as someone who has a lot of friends and family in the police department.

The right to keep and bear arms was not written in to the constitution so that we could hunt ... it was written in to the constitution so that we did not have to depend on the government to protect us AND so that the government would not be the only armed entity.

Governments historically have preferred unarmed peasants .... personally I find it sad that so many people want to turn their rights and responsibilities over to the government....

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

my car is pretty dangerous, does that mean its stupid to have one?

 

[chronobreak]

my car is pretty dangerous, does that mean its stupid to have one?

That would depend upon what kind of driver you are, wouldn't it? If you are a bad driver and endangering people's lives, of course you shouldn't have a car. If you are a responsible driver and always drive safety, then why not.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Only flinklocks? How the hell am I supposed to defend myself from multiple bears attacking my camp site? I totally need something with a faster rate of fire.

 

[Floppertje]

How about people can rent guns at shooting ranges and nature reserves (or wherever they hunt) and ban all other guns? That way, people can still shoot for sport, but the chance of accidents and gun crime is drastically reduced. And the people who feel they need to defend their home can use a baseball bat. or a 9 iron.

 

[Svenparty]

I can't see how anyone can justify Machine Guns for hunting etc..I only think Amerika should have Handguns..So I agree with this thread.


It doesn't make sense to Me that Drugs are banned (Such as Pot/LSD/Ecstacy) and Guns aren't

 

[Midnight Voyager]

I find immense hilarity in the people giving this guy the benefit of the doubt that he allows handguns/hunting rifles. Pretty sure he specifically said muzzle-loaders only.

Am I hallucinating or was that what he actually said? Do I need to adjust my meds or something?

I'd be fine with "no automatic death-spraying BFG missile launchers," but muzzle-loaders only?

 

[lucaf]

Trying to reply a second time as Escapist keeps bombing out on me .... In response to someone who said that if someone is breaking into your home you are better off calling the cops....

Yes ... because the cops might be able to get there in time and might save your life. I prefer to be proactive and take the responsibility for my own well being as MY responsibility first and foremost. Nobody but me is responsible for my safety, my health, and my life ... as a result I do not intend to rely on any other person ... much less a government run organization ... to protect myself, my family, or my property.

And this as someone who has a lot of friends and family in the police department.

The right to keep and bear arms was not written in to the constitution so that we could hunt ... it was written in to the constitution so that we did not have to depend on the government to protect us AND so that the government would not be the only armed entity.

Governments historically have preferred unarmed peasants .... personally I find it sad that so many people want to turn their rights and responsibilities over to the government....

yes, but HISTORICALLY govornments are twats, who abuse peasants and give them no say. modern governments (in the west at least) arent like that. their not entirely trustworthy, but im not expecting them to send me to a concentration camp any time soon.

also, i think banning guns would result in less gun deaths. sure only criminals have guns, but its like than in Britain and we have less gun deaths. the fact is, a burglar in the states knows whoever is in the house might have a gun, so he brings one too and intends to use it, and somebody gets killed. in the UK a burgular assumes they dont have a gun, so the worst he brings is a knife, and probably doesnt intend to use it, because he knows hes basically safe. so what he gets your stuff? he probably gets caught, you have insurance, and nobody is dead

 

[brainless906]

i propose There is no justifiable reason for civilians to NOT have the ability to own modern weapons.

This is America, the land of freedom, get over it *****'z.

 

[VicunaBlue]

Well, do we really need to be able to print whatever books we want either? It does not endanger human life when one is not printed, so why should we be able to? And whats with this whole "voting" thing? The senators are more competent, and does it hurt us to not vote?

/satire

 

[chronobreak]

also, i think banning guns would result in less gun deaths. sure only criminals have guns, but its like than in Britain and we have less gun deaths. the fact is, a burglar in the states knows whoever is in the house might have a gun, so he brings one too and intends to use it, and somebody gets killed. in the UK a burgular assumes they dont have a gun, so the worst he brings is a knife, and probably doesnt intend to use it, because he knows hes basically safe. so what he gets your stuff? he probably gets caught, you have insurance, and nobody is dead

It isn't as easy as just banning guns, though, and you can't really make a comparison between Britain and America. It's the same thing liberals try to do with health care, the fact of the matter is we are two seperate and different countries, and what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I mean shit, it's the second amendment, it's right under the first! It's important for a reason!

It's illegal in our nation's capital to own a gun, yet it is also the "murder capital" of the Uninted States. Banning guns didn't work out too well for them... actually, it didn't work at all. Also, do theifs really get caught that much in Britain, because they don't here. You are probably not getting your things back if you get robbed here, unless you are the cheif of police. Once again, two different countries.

This is America, the land of freedom, get over it *****'z.

This is the sentiment that gets us shit on so much on these forums, you realize that, right?

 

[titanium turtle]

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.

you are an unappreciated political genius

 

[lucaf]

also, i think banning guns would result in less gun deaths. sure only criminals have guns, but its like than in Britain and we have less gun deaths. the fact is, a burglar in the states knows whoever is in the house might have a gun, so he brings one too and intends to use it, and somebody gets killed. in the UK a burgular assumes they dont have a gun, so the worst he brings is a knife, and probably doesnt intend to use it, because he knows hes basically safe. so what he gets your stuff? he probably gets caught, you have insurance, and nobody is dead

It isn't as easy as just banning guns, though, and you can't really make a comparison between Britain and America. It's the same thing liberals try to do with health care, the fact of the matter is we are two seperate and different countries, and what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I mean shit, it's the second amendment, it's right under the first! It's important for a reason!

It's illegal in our nation's capital to own a gun, yet it is also the "murder capital" of the Uninted States. Banning guns didn't work out too well for them... actually, it didn't work at all. Also, do theifs really get caught that much in Britain, because they don't here. You are probably not getting your things back if you get robbed here, unless you are the cheif of police. Once again, two different countries.

true, i forget what country, but they have cannabis legal but a lower useage than either of us. if we had it legal, it would skyrocket lol

 

[Laura.]

I don't like getting in discussions about gun laws... but this is actually about "modern weaponry" which I think refers to guns that are a bit more powerful than your regular six-round revolver.
So... I want to buy a rocket launcher, a flamethrower and 5 kilograms of C-4.
Should I be allowed to?
Also, in 50 years, when someone invents a man-portable laser cannon, should I be able to get one?
I don't think so!

[And guns are designed to kill, cars are meant for transportation (vital for many). Stop comparing guns to pools and forks. It's not a valid analogy.]

 

[Actsub]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Compare all three

See who's always in the top three.

 

[Midnight Voyager]

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.

...Have you ever tried to put a rabid animal out of its misery with a non-lethal weapon?

I wouldn't imagine you WOULD try to do so, as it's pretty obviously a dim idea.

So. What am I supposed to do when a rabid raccoon comes up on my back porch and tries to eat me? Hope it goes away, allowing it to prolong its short, miserable life?

Sorry, do you think that situation never comes up? It has twice in the past year at my house.

 

[martin's a madman]

I find the whole idea of having to own a weapon stupid.
Seriously, what do you need a freaking shotgun for at home? If someone breaks into your house you're better off just calling the cops anyway.

Becuze pepole think they have the power once they have a firearm.
And it dosent help that guns are idolized in a childrens mind.

In my opinion pepole shouldent have guns if the us lost all there guns then the crime rate would fall so much but pepole constantly pull the 2nd amendment out of there ass

I disagree. I wouldn't say that guns are the problem with the crime rate. If people want to kill someone they will, no matter what.
People should be allowed to have modern guns simply because they are made and they have the money to buy tgem. To restrict them to a certain group isn't equality. If guns were to be banned the gun murder rates wouldn't change because it isn't gun enthusiasts who are killing people with guns, it is people who obtained the guns illegally anyways.