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

[Nunny]

What i wrote

Weres a delete botton when you need it.

 

[cobra_ky]

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.

but how does one create a gunless society, especially when American society is already so...gunful?

Stop manufacturing and selling guns. Then make owning one illegal.
Then wait a few houndred years until all the guns have rusted to pieces.
It will take a while to get a 100% gunfree society, but with the first two steps you're well on your way.

Or you could always move to a relatively gunfree European country.

so what happens to America during those few hundred years? Most gun owners aren't willing to ensure trust their self-defense to the government, especially when said government is taking their guns away. America will never have the political will to do this, unless crime rates drop precipitously. maybe not even then.

 

[LackofCertainty]

Some of my thoughts on the issue.


One: I dislike the way you phrased your poll question, because it has unnecessary, loaded words.

"Do you think civilians should have access to lethal modern weaponry." Of course modern weaponry is lethal, you don't need to specify that. By putting that extra word, which has lots of negative connotations, you're influencing the responses your poll will get.


Two: An eight year old shot himself? Well, that's unfortunate, but I've never been one to sympathize with lethal stupidity. No, being eight isn't an excuse. When I was eight, I was smart enough not to screw around with guns, and I had plenty of opportunity, because my father kept his guns in a closet that I could easily access if I had really wanted to.

Three: You'd be killing off certain types of hunting. Yes, people can use muzzleloaders to hunt lots of things, but Muzzleloader hunting is no where near as popular as other types of hunting (gun being number 1, and bow likely being number 2) Also, as far as I'm aware of, there are currently no muzzleloader shotguns on the market. No shotguns means that bird hunting of all kinds is more or less killed.

Four: Loss of hunting means a lot of lost revenue for states where it is popular. Those states will have to deal with the fact that their DNR's suddenly don't have near as many licenses being sold each year, which means they'd need to either dramatically cut back on their conservation efforts, or states would have to increase taxes to fund those ventures.

Five: You're clumping together a ridiculous sum of weapons that don't necessarily need to be grouped. By saying "all modern weapons" you're including relatively harmless guns in with assault weaponry. Who in their right (or perhaps off-kilter) mind would try to do something criminal with a .22 rifle? No one. Try narrowing your question to something like "assault weaponry and pistols" and you're more likely to find a more favorable response from the gun-using populous of America.

Six: A nation-wide ban of all the firearms currently owned by the american people would be... well ridiculously expensive. How are you going to convince a group of somewhere around 80 million people that they need to destroy/dispose of the guns they currently own, especially when you consider the fact that the average gun costs hundreds of dollars. That's not even taking into account disposal/destruction of ammunition. Even if you go through all of that, who are the people most likely to ignore a law like that? Criminals. (the people you're trying to get guns away from)

Seven: How many jobs would be lost by banning the production and distribution of guns?


Edit:

Eight: We need guns, to keep the Canadians down, obviously.

Nine: How am I going to defend myself during the zombie apocalypse if I don't have a good selection of rifles and shotguns in my home?

 

[Kayevcee]

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."

This, right here, is what we call "gross oversimplification". Gun crimes are on the increase in the UK, according to the police, the government and the media (you'd have to be fairly paranoid to assume they're all lying) because drug dealers are being sent them by their suppliers to help them deal with the competition in a safer manner than traditional British melee combat. The handgun ban was introduced to stop nutters from going on rampages, and since there have been no more rampages since Dunblane we can call it a tentative success.

As alluded to above, we Brits aren't quite as fond of guns as we prefer to get in close with knives, swords and impromptu weapons such as bricks, bins and sports equipment. 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.

Maybe only outlaws do have guns in Britain. You know what? They're welcome to them. We'll stick with our golf clubs and our Bowie knives, in the manner of our ancestors.

-Nick

 

[Demonraiser]

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.

Stun guns are more than lethal, after they did a large amount of testing >.>

 

[The Hairminator]

so what happens to America during those few hundred years? Most gun owners aren't willing to ensure trust their self-defense to the government, especially when said government is taking their guns away. America will never have the political will to do this, unless crime rates drop precipitously. maybe not even then.

Nope, you're right. There is no easy way. I suspect that if you want to take their guns away you'd have to kill them first :/.
I still beleive that guns being is a BIG step in the wrong direction, since there is evidently less gun crimes in almost ever other none-develeopement countries. But now there seems to be no way to undo it.

 

[Eleuthera]

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.

 

[Pimppeter2]

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

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

If a particular civilian gets special training and a special permit that would require multiple background checks and wouldn't be easy for just anyone to get, than I would actually say yes.

Otherwise, no. Such weapons are far too dangerous in the hands of those who have no real clue how to use them.

 

[Nunny]

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.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip

Your point about hunting is valid, but not really convincing.

EDIT: Small correction: Germany hands out hunting permits for ground owners and groups of ground owners. Hunting icenses are a practice in different countries, must've mixed this up.

Anyway, the rest still holds true: Special training, permission or licensing and occupation should play the most important roles in giving out guns. That way hunters can still get their hunting rifles, same goes for sportsmen, while keeping the general populace away from guns.
And look at our position on the firearms-death-list.

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.

Exactly. "Good thing I bought this chainsaw."

 

[LackofCertainty]

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.

Lies and hogwash. Any weapon that forces you into melee with a creature that can kill you in a single bite is a weapon that is undesirable. Firearms have their downsides as well, of course, but they have the benefit of putting you safely out of zombie reach.

*snip

Your point about hunting is valid, but not really convincing.

Germany hands out hunting and gun licenses after special training and depending on occupation but makes general ownership of firearms illegal. So, hunters can still get their hunting rifles, same goes for sportsmen, while keeping the general populace away from guns.
And look at our position on the firearms-death-list.

I wasn't responding to a "well, we could allow hunters to own blah blah blah" I was responding to the OP. The OP is saying "Blanket no 'modern' firearms for any civilian."

I find your suggestion a lot more reasonable, but that's not what the poll is offering.

 

[Pimppeter2]

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

 

[LackofCertainty]

*snip*

The defense rests

Truly, this is a proud day for mankind. *salutes*

 

[Nunny]

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.

Lies and hogwash. Any weapon that forces you into melee with a creature that can kill you in a single bite is a weapon that is undesirable. Firearms have their downsides as well, of course, but they have the benefit of putting you safely out of zombie reach.

Most melee weopons will be able to kill without bringing you in range of being bitten. Guns require ammunition, maintanence (urk spelling)and expecially skill to be able to headshot such an creature.

Back to the topic at hand .

 

[Igen]

remove guns, and the only ones with guns will be those that break the law. A criminal is less likely to attack those who are armed, a person with no means of self defence is a much easier target.

Admiral Yamamoto

Just Prior to Pearl Harbor

"I would never invade America, there will be a gun behind every blade of grass."

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.

no, your fucking dead long before the cops arrive.

 

[nonl33t m4st3r]

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.

The police cannot be everywhere at once, and in many parts of the country, it can take up to 2 hours for the police to show up. For my house, it can take anywhere from 30 to and hour. For some people, it's just not a realistic option. By the time the police get there, the crime is already committed, and you're robbed/raped/dead/whatever.

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.

Many criminals find gun laws laughable. They don't follow the law anyway, so banning guns for the general public will give the only give criminals the advantage.

Having guns tends to reduce the crime rate, and criminals are scared of people with guns. Two examples:

Before Texas have a concealed weapon law , quite a few people predicted shoot-outs ,blood baths , and massive jumps in crime,and that never happened. In fact, violent crime rates were reduced.

In Florida, there was a huge jump in crime for people using rental cars, and no one could figure out why until they looked at the recent change in law. Florida just enacted a "shall-issue" law for concealed weapons. So, many criminals were targeting rental cars because the people were less likely to be armed. They fixed it my having rental have the same plates as normal in-state cars,and the physiological effect of guns is shown.

I'm NOT saying that people that every idiot on the street should get a .50 cal machine gun, but any law abiding citizen should have access to the reasonable means to defend themselves, like pistols, shotguns, and assault rifles. Even if you don't hit the guy, he's gonna be pissed scared and probably run away.

Preemptive answers: "It is dangerous to keep a loaded weapon in a household." Then don't keep it locked, cocked, and ready to rock. Keep it unloaded with the ammo nearby in a magazine or speed loader. Nothing is scarier than hearing a shotgun pump in the middle of the night.

"You could make a situation worse by firing at the criminal." What's worse than letting a criminal have his way? You might hit someone else, but that's better than having him definitively kill you and others.

"But guns didn't stop the Ft. Hood killer." In military bases, we have to keep our personal weapons at home. We are not allowed to wear our weapons everywhere, especially in the States. (In theater, of course, rules are different) I'm sure that even if that cop who took him down wasn't there, that man would have a very short life span.

 

[Skeleon]

I wasn't responding to a "well, we could allow hunters to own blah blah blah" I was responding to the OP. The OP is saying "Blanket no 'modern' firearms for any civilian."

I find your suggestion a lot more reasonable, but that's not what the poll is offering.

I just looked into the law to make sure and had to make a small correction. Anyhow, the principle remains the same.
Well, I agree that there's no reason to keep all civilians from owning guns, but there must be severe restrictions (like an occupation-based permission system).