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

[ninjajoeman]

I throw my hat in the sea of 9-page (at time of typing) obscurity;

Even with typos I found yours the most coherent argument.

It's a rosey thought that someday the branch of human experience that supports the growth and development of armaments might just die and fall off the tree. Prohibition only prunes at the periphery of the problem however, and shamefully procrastinates in the more difficult questions of how we can become less destructive to ourselves and those around us.

people use big words to sound smart =]

like this
you sir are a leach sucking at the vein of acknowledgment by acting higher then your brothers through cheap parlour tricks and flare of the tongue.

ps: If you do talk like that try to say what you are saying in engrish.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Guess what people, as to the old saying "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns"

I don't think you realise just how difficult it is to lay your hands on guns when they're as widely illegalised as they are in the UK. Sure all you gun nuts can keep preaching about how they let you protect yourself. But guess what. The facts of the matter are that the more guns in a country, the more gun deaths. You can preach all you want about your right to bear arms but those are the facts of the matter.

I don't care if someone is robbing your house, you shoot an unarmed burglar and you deserve to have your ass thrown in jail.

As I said earlier in this thread, dead is dead. What does it matter if the victim was killed by someone with a gun, or a knife, or bat, or rock, or sharpened stick, or just plain beaten to death? If we remove all bathtubs, fewer children will be drowned by mothers in them. Where's the call to outlaw bathtubs? We can still clean ourselves without them, why does anyone need one?

For those holding the UK's ban as evidence of a solution: gun crime increasing in the UK, despite the ban.

There is the increase in Gun-crime too. Despite things being banned, people find ways to get access to things they otherwise shouldn't have. Imports, smuggling, black markets, theft from someone who owns them legitimately, etc.

Plus, as I'd already said, Knife-crime is a huge problem over here, so it basically means that people just have to injure or kill others from close by rather than from further away.

 

[LeonLethality]

if we didnt have weapons we would just beat each other up with out fists...

 

[ninjajoeman]

if we didnt have weapons we would just beat each other up with out fists...

huh fist control... I guess I'm just going have to put my guns away *lowers arms*

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I don't know what you are asking exactly. I think that people should be allowed a smaller handgun for the possibility of a break in, but people getting military grade stuff is a bad idea.

 

[Dahni]

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."

We're also capable of affirmative action- when a dealer up in Springburn (north Glasgow) decided to shoot one of his customers as a warning to others about heroine arrears he found almost the entire local community outside his door the next morning, Gandhi-style. His whole operation was forced out of the area by the end of the week. One of the perks of not having many firearms around is that when a shooting does occur it's usually pretty easy to figure out the guilty party.

-Nick

that was earlier this year, wasn't it?
all my friends in springburn shit themselves when they heard about it.


OT: non-lethal weapons are reasonable, there's nothing wrong with being able to defend yourself without hurting someone too severely. lethal "modern weapons" like uzis and what not have no place in a civilian's home.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

The xm307... When you absolutely, positively, have to kill that stag by shooting a 1.0 caliber bullet (25mm diameter) through five trees, seven rocks, and two animal rights activists.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Jark212]

"When the people don't have guns, only the Government will."

Those that command the guns command the people. It worked well for the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany/Occupied Europe, The Ottoman Empire, China, exc...

 

[toastmaster2k8]

The Zombies are gonna be here soon so me and my family are getting ready.


TIP: Use hollow points!

 

[Seydaman]

Regardless of wether we make guns legal or not, criminals will still have them because THEY ARE CRIMINALS, they don't care about gun laws, because THEY ARE CRIMINALS
But OT I would say a handgun is fine, an assault rifle is unnecessary

 

[VicunaBlue]

This is a good time to bring up the circle of life for societies. An empire is founded as a bastion of freedom, and gradually rights are taken away "for the good of the people", until totalitarianism is reached, at which citizen become enraged and rebel, only to start a new empire with the same fate.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I throw my hat in the sea of 9-page (at time of typing) obscurity; *snip*

Even with typos I found yours the most coherent argument.

It's a rosey thought that someday the branch of human experience which supports the growth and development of armaments might just die and fall off the tree. Prohibition only prunes at the periphery of the problem however, and shamefully procrastinates on the more difficult questions of how we can become less destructive to ourselves and those around us.

I really hate to de-rail things or make unrelated comments, but seriously?

"Even with typos"?

I admit, there are a few. Is it really necessary to make it a point like that? Read as the first item, and even as a qualifier on the positive, it makes it seem as though the post was rife with errors.

Relative to any other post of that length, the quantity and severity of the typos in my post is fairly inconsequential. Then considering I did it on my 15-minute break among many other things. Also, I usually have firefox to catch the little finger-fudges from time to time, but I can't install that on my work PC for security purposes (or so they tell me). I could type it out in Word, and then forget to change the font and paste it in with all of my apostrophies and quotes converted to God knows what.

To me, typos are less distracting than using a thesarus and aliteration. To me, it just makes you seem like you want to show off how smart you think you are with a large vocabulary. Or, as you might prefer, you seem garrulous and pretentious. Essentially you paraphrased me and then switched in a few "big words" to sound important. You couldn't have said "It is nice to think that someday we'll get past the need for weapons. However, removing them only takes away the symptom and ignores the root problem of our need to be destructive to ourselves and others."? I actually added a transition there because your two sentences were very distinct subjects and didn't flow well.

Also, in case you are the type, the question mark is on the outside of the quotes because the quote is within the question sentence and not the question itself.

Apologies for the off-topic rant, but people who concern themselves with typos so compulsively irritate me.

 

[NoriYuki Sato]

it's called the Right to Bear Arms..it's a Constitutional Right that American citizens have to own weapons, modern or other. there's no argument available. the constitution says we are allowed to have weapons, that's the justifiable reason.

((admittedly no president after the first few were ever constitutional, we can't have a standing army for more than 2 years))

 

[ethaninja]

It's ridiculous. Even law shouldn't need them, but then again they should, should a criminal find a way to smuggle one in. I reckon crime would drop way down in America if they put a law up against guns/

 

[ethaninja]

Regardless of wether we make guns legal or not, criminals will still have them because THEY ARE CRIMINALS, they don't care about gun laws, because THEY ARE CRIMINALS
But OT I would say a handgun is fine, an assault rifle is unnecessary

I would say a lever action is fine, a handgun or assault rifle is unnecessary.

 

[Rabite]

OT: non-lethal weapons are reasonable, there's nothing wrong with being able to defend yourself without hurting someone too severely. lethal "modern weapons" like uzis and what not have no place in a civilian's home.

Name one weapon that if used sufficiently is not lethal. Pillow? Suffocation. Pillow case? Tons of creative ways. Baseball bat? Repeated use to vital spots or a couple good shots to the head. Taser? Numerous reports lately of people dying by being tased too many times. Fists? Push the nose into the brain. Bare hands? Snap the person's neck. Crush the vital vertebrae directly under the skull. Etc.

 

[Citrus]

In the future, when people in general have a higher intelligence than they do today and the redneck population starts to decline, they will look back and sigh at how stupid we were to sell lethal weapons to any average Joe who wanted one.

When the main argument against the banning of guns is a bit of parchment written in 1787, something is wrong. Founding Fathers or not, they didn't know what the future would be like, and if they saw that America has the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the world today, they might have something else to say. It isn't debatable that the US that existed in the late 1700s is much different than it is now.

So I'd say to only give the guns to the people it makes sense to give them to: the police and the military. Since there's no way that could be accomplished in the next 100 years without people throwing a hissy fit and screaming about their rights, limiting gun sales to pistols would have to suffice. Either way, it's a guarantee that when people stop selling guns to criminals, there will be less criminals with guns.

Just my two cents.

 

[G1eet]

i can't think of a single valid reason for civilians to own modern weapons (thats any gunpowder weapon which is not muzzle loaded) that can outweigh the often fatal results of mistakes, accidents, and malicious criminal activity thanks to easy access to lethal weaponary.

For when Genentech ushers in the global zombie Armageddon. Duh.

In all seriousness, I'm fine with restricted ownership (you know, like if you have an anger issue, you can't get one, et cetera), and having regular guns (pistols, rifles, and shotguns), but I think it's fairly preposterous to own an assault rifle or other such absurd armament, unless you have a really bad pest problem.

<spoiler=Though I doubt anybody has it THIS bad>http://yourereadingthis.com/wp-content/uploads/velociraptor.jpg

Much as I'd like to own a Carl G for shits and giggles, that doesn't mean I need one. Actually, I'm fairly certain I can't own one.

 

[GoldenCondor]

You see, the constitution is a lot like the bible. Many old things don't or shouldn't apply. The reason behind the right to bear arms was to protect yourself from english soldiers, which there are none here. If you get rid of civilian GUNS, then crime would go down significantly (except for those that import their guns or buy them from a source).

Slavery does not exist, and stoning your kids is now illegal in most countries. So why should we have the right to bear arms?

 

[ninjajoeman]

You see, the constitution is a lot like the bible. Many old things don't or shouldn't apply. The reason behind the right to bear arms was to protect yourself from english soldiers, which there are none here. If you get rid of civilian GUNS, then crime would go down significantly (except for those that import their guns or buy them from a source).

Slavery does not exist, and stoning your kids is now illegal in most countries. So why should we have the right to bear arms?

It also says not to steal or kill people but pft what do they know right?