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

[Robby Foxfur]

i think if you look at the news it justifies itself. If we didn't have guns we'd be using knives, if no knives we'd be being each other up, its not because of the weapons that we can do harm its because of hate. (gonna stop there to avoid the preachieness)

Modern Weapons is also a broad term, because if we didn't have guns then swords would be modern. Its kind of an awkward question, so I'll pose you this, Can you justify why we shouldn't have guns? (and don't bring up violence as a reason)

In my thought guns equalize the field of fighting, guns are not hard to use, case in point the 8 or 10 year the shot himself with and uzi, but without them then everyone would being going around with groups of people or we'd have to bulk up. And as for the 8 year old shooting himself with an Uzi, Where the hell did he get it? They don't fall from the sky, cuz I'd have one if they did.

 

[Bilbo536]

Gun bans only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still be able to purchase them on the black market. Banning guns will cause a rise in crime, especially organized crime.

An unarmed populace is at the mercy of it's government. The best way to keep a government from running rampant over it's citizens is to make sure there is consequences to such actions.

A person who kills someone with a gun is no different from a person who kills someone with a knife or a baseball bat. And if you take away a murderer's weapon and leave him to his devices he will just find some other way to kill a person.

If your eight year-old kid found your handgun and shot his sibling, his friend or himself. Then you are a bad parent who has failed to either sufficiently instruct him of the dangers of firearms, or store the gun in a place where he could not possibly reach it. And in all honesty, you should probably be doing both.

The gun is not the problem.

Actually, I've heard of studies done where guns had been banned and a significant drop in crime followed. This black market is not so easily accessible as you'd think. You can't say 'oh, I'm a criminal now' and you'll suddenly gain knowledge of the locations of all your local underground M16 dealers. Also, were civilians to take up arms against the government, all that would happen is we'd force the military to defend and we'd all get our mouths stuffed with lead. Besides, what's our government gonna do? Start ordering soldiers to kill us for no reason? At least in most societies, this would never happen. A gun kills easier than a bat, you always hear of spouses accidentally shooting one another, never accidentally bludgeoning one another to death. I know that when I was a kid, the forbidden and dangerous things were always what I wanted to play with most, even though I knew I shouldn't. So yeah, guns and civilians, not a good idea.

 

[Agayek]

Double post.

History has shown that an armed populas has no chance agaisnt its own governments military force. What makes you think that a much of civilians will be successful?

The whole insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq seems to say otherwise. Just saying.

 

[Grampy_bone]

people so far all we have been able to come up with for the question: what reason to people have to keep firearms that out weighs the lethal consequences

Logical fallacy: loaded question. It's like asking people, "How long have you been beating your wife?" You're asking people why they must own 'lethal' items without establishing such items are 100% lethal and dangerous all of the time. This is an argument to the absurd, another fallacy.

Everyone owns multiple devices which could, in untrained hands, be used to cause harm.

Come back when you can prove guns are bad, then I'll tell you why we should still have them.

 

[orangebandguy]

A musket can still kill someone, however many times you miss with it.

It's just the stupid kids with guns that result in accidents like that.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

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

How are we going to have our Modern Warfare?

 

[HotFezz8]

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?!!

 

[Gmano]

this is a new link i have put on having read, and replied, to the topic about the 8 year old shooting himself with a Uzi submachin gun.

that got me thinking, and 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.

i appreciate its written into the american constitution, and i don't want a argument about whether that is still valid, because it doesn't matter. its as part of the american psche now as mcdonalds and weed, so lets navigate around that and focus on whether anyone can justify the contiued use (and abuse) of dangerous and lethal weaponary

Home defense against criminals?

Wait, that just means the home invaders will also have guns..... shit.

 

[Katana314]

The weird thing is how differently this seems to work in different countries.
My opinion is that everyone has the right to weapons, but very few people should have the right to high-powered ones.

Here's the thing though; I feel like what's important is the RIGHT to bear arms, not the actual arms themselves. Which is why I'm a bit pissed off that people collect guns just to take them to shooting ranges and think they're a cowboy.

 

[HotFezz8]

people so far all we have been able to come up with for the question: what reason to people have to keep firearms that out weighs the lethal consequences

Logical fallacy: loaded question. It's like asking people, "How long have you been beating your wife?" You're asking people why they must own 'lethal' items without establishing such items are 100% lethal and dangerous all of the time. This is an argument to the absurd, another fallacy.

Everyone owns multiple devices which could, in untrained hands, be used to cause harm.

Come back when you can prove guns are bad, then I'll tell you why we should still have them.

simple answer to your logical fallacy: are you suggesting we should class a potatoe peeler the same way we class a .50 cal heavy machine gun?

ok, well: deaths in america caused by firearms
1991 38,317
1992 37,776
1993 39,595
1994 38,505
1995 35,957
1996 34,040
1997 32,436
1998 30,708
1999 28,874
2000 28,663
2001

 

[HotFezz8]

people so far all we have been able to come up with for the question: what reason to people have to keep firearms that out weighs the lethal consequences

Logical fallacy: loaded question. It's like asking people, "How long have you been beating your wife?" You're asking people why they must own 'lethal' items without establishing such items are 100% lethal and dangerous all of the time. This is an argument to the absurd, another fallacy.

Everyone owns multiple devices which could, in untrained hands, be used to cause harm.

Come back when you can prove guns are bad, then I'll tell you why we should still have them.

simple answer to your logical fallacy: are you suggesting we should class a potatoe peeler the same way we class a .50 cal heavy machine gun?

ok, well: deaths in america caused by firearms
1991 38,317
1992 37,776
1993 39,595
1994 38,505
1995 35,957
1996 34,040
1997 32,436
1998 30,708
1999 28,874
2000 28,663
2001

sorry, i didn't finish that,

2001 29,573

deaths in the ten years between 1991 to 2001, something around 300,000

shall we measure deaths caused by potatoe peelers now?

maybe i didn't phrase the question well becuase i didn't think anyone would question the fucking definitions.

a firearm is desinged and made for the sole purpose of killing. their exists no other reason for it. whether you shoot at a 4 year old girl or a cardboard box is irrelevant. the fact remains if you shoot at the box you are not using the weapon correctly.

not please justify why everyone should have one.

 

[Robby Foxfur]

people so far all we have been able to come up with for the question: what reason to people have to keep firearms that out weighs the lethal consequences are:

hunting (debatable, if you want to hunt for skill, use a bow and arrow. and i still don't think your desperate urge to kill something is adequate enough reason to keep a weapon in your house)

defending yourself (well it should be perfectly acceptable for everyone to walk around with a GPMG then is it? fuck sake thats what the police are for. and generally it is safer if the criminals think someone is unarmed, they are less likely to walk in shooting and be calmer. also if their is a criminal who has a gun, what situation would you rather your wife and child were involved in? he walks in armed, everyone is unarmed and noone acts like a hero, or he walks in armed and some miserable cretin with no experience lines up and unloads?)

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)

oh and zombies (for fuck sake whoever started that needs a spanking.)

Ok i wanna play devil's advocate with you here, as for hunting, no i don't think its a good reason, but aren't bow and arrows pretty much just as lethal if put in a trained person's hands? (see the Indians, Samurai, medieval archers, the Huns!) its a matter of how the weapon is used, i can kill someone with a sharpened pencil does that mean they are all evil tools of death no, it means I'm a little more deranged than everyone else.

I do however believe guns are needed for self defense, yes the cops are there to protect you but they are more crime stopping than crime prevention, unless a cop is gonna follow everyone around and sit in every dark ally, then we will still all need to know how to defend ourselves, and sometimes hand to hand combat isn't and option. (ie: a mob of people, someone a lot bigger than you, someone more skilled than you) does this mean we all need MAC 10s and Uzis? no it mean that those that want a gun should be able to get it, WITH LIMITATIONS!(not gonna go into that here) as for criminals being more calm, um i think the thought of everyone packing might be a HUGE deterrent to trying to rob a place, unless they are crazy and in that case a crazy gun toting nut job, who is to say he isn't gonna shot them all anyway? I would rather have the hero situation in my book, but maybe that's just because i think if you commit a crime you should be punished, and I'm sorry but i have NO none nill nada! zip zero sympathy for someone that gets killed trying to rob a place, in my book if your that dumb then you deserved it, if that makes me extreme THEN I'M EXTREME

As for taking down the government, this reason is why the second amendment is there, our forefathers had an thought that if the government should become overly powerful and no longer work for the good of the people then the people should remove the government, by force if necessary. Yes all the Current apempts to over though governments have failed but have you seen what the people were armed with? rocks, signs, knives, and these people were fighting and army, yes some had AKs and RPGs but there is only so much 1 rocket can do were as a well trained fighting force has a lot more it can do.

and the zombies thing ... i gotta agree with you there but not a spanking they'd probably enjoy it to much.

 

[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?!!

 

[ma55ter_fett]

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.

 

[Robby Foxfur]

deaths in the ten years between 1991 to 2001, something around 300,000

shall we measure deaths caused by potatoe peelers now?

maybe i didn't phrase the question well becuase i didn't think anyone would question the fucking definitions.

a firearm is desinged and made for the sole purpose of killing. their exists no other reason for it. whether you shoot at a 4 year old girl or a cardboard box is irrelevant. the fact remains if you shoot at the box you are not using the weapon correctly.

Sorry Fezz not picking on you again just being the counter point in the argument

Yes deaths have risen but so have the number of smoking deaths, cars deaths, and many others. I could argue that cigarettes were designed to kill the people that use them slowly but that is getting off topic. My point is that in that time frame there are more people thus more chances for death to occur by what ever means. if you put smoking deaths next to gun deaths the numbers would look tragically different.

and yes a gun was designed to kill, and so were swords and bow and clubs and spears and almost any other weapon you can think of. As for the box, i know your not saying this but, does that mean i should shoot at people in stead of targets so I'm using the weapon right? (as you "target guns" are those meant to kill as well?)

 

[Grampy_bone]

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.

 

[Lullabye]

Zombies.

Zombies.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

It isn't the owning that is the problem.

It is the lack of training, especially in the methods to safely stow a weapon, that leads to all the damn accidents that we are seeing.

People seem able to own a weapon while at the same time being so brain dead stupid not just to the basic 'stats' of that weapon but also lacking any real concern over weapon safety of any other gun at that. They are not mentally ready to operate a fire arm, they have no common sense when it comes to handling the damn thing and are completely clueless when it comes to ensuring others can't get their hands on these weapons.

Worse is most of these idiots compound the problem by showing off their 'elite skills' or how well their ballistic vests work and don't think twice about handing the gun over to a BLOODY KID!

The problem here isn't firearms, it is the lack of training and respect for the damn things. I favor mandatory training for all gun owners, with levels of competency proven including the ability to safely secure the weapon. There are a great deal of things that can be put into place to lower the rate of accidents that do not violate the second amendment.

PS: personally... I think it would be folly to attack someone trained and better armed then you are in a direct fire fight even if your lugging around a SAW. Like say... the US army or police force! I won't stop people from owning an assault rifle but if the government came for you, your screwed in any case.

A hunting rifle with a good scope is far more effective in a guerrilla war then an assault rifle. And IDEs trump both.

Like wise personal defense is better archived with a semi-auto handgun, given the expected ranges you will have to defend yourself in and the fact smaller caliber rounds 'tumble' through a person which cuases more damage and a higher chance of putting them down. The limited penetration also ensures a less likely hood of killing some poor fool who just happens to be behind a wall or the target your shooting at. Also an assault rifle or SMG has too high a rate of fire, and even in train hands it tends to become more luck then skill after the initial shot. The milatary uses high rate of fire weapons cause they have many of them, leading to a 'wall of lead' situation where rapid fire excels and is useful when you don't have a clear line of sight to your target.

Taken to a single person with an assault rifle then they become less effective then a single person with a semi or bolt action rifle. Why do you think the average soldier really hates snipers?