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

[Nunny]

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?

 

[Macgyvercas]

I think you should change the title from "modern weapons" "Automatic weapons" since I'm almost certain that you aren't serious about us only having muzzle loaders and not permiting single action hunting rifles (which are breech loaders). Semi autos, I'm fine with, but full autos...yeah, no reason for civilians to own those.

 

[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.

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 .

I cannot let this stand!

Skill is relative. Asking a person to hit a head with a pistol is indeed demanding a lot, but with a shotgun? Not so much of a challenge.

Maintenance varies between guns, most semi-automatic rifles/shotguns can handle hundreds of rounds in a row without needing any immediate care. Plus, maintenance provides survivors with a task to occupy their minds during downtime, so that they are less likely to "lose it" during the less hectic days.

Also, most large guns can double as a bludgeoning weapon if ammo dries up, or if a zombie manages a surprise attack.

 

[devillenator]

i see no reason for someone to have the need to own a gun, that said i don?t see anything wrong with owning a non automatic rifle for hunting or even just for target shooting.

hand guns and automatic rifles i feel should not be allowed to the common folk such as myself.

 

[darkless]

Any advantage you have over anyone one by sneaking up on them with a gun is just as useful if you have a stun gun there is absolutely no need to keep lethal firearms for the any purpose when there are so many non lethal alternatives.

 

[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 .

I cannot let this stand!

Skill is relative. Asking a person to hit a head with a pistol is indeed demanding a lot, but with a shotgun? Not so much of a challenge.

Maintenance varies between guns, most semi-automatic rifles/shotguns can handle hundreds of rounds in a row without needing any immediate care. Plus, maintenance provides survivors with a task to occupy their minds during downtime, so that they are less likely to "lose it" during the less hectic days.

Also, most large guns can double as a bludgeoning weapon if ammo dries up, or if a zombie manages a surprise attack.

True true, i still think not having to worry about anything other then smacking it in the head is better though .

 

[BonsaiK]

Modern weapons yuk. Antique weapons are so much cooler anyway. I visited on a friend's farm in rural NSW a couple months ago and fired bolt-action rifles and shotguns that were over 100 years old. Was very awesome. If you don't have to fuss around with little levers, bolts or whatever other fiddly crap between shots, you're not really experiencing shooting in all its tactile, fetishistic glory.

 

[Nunny]

$5 that once i wake up in the morning this thread will have far more pages then im willing to read through.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Should civilians have access to modern weaponry? Yes.

Should an 8 year old be allowed to go to a gun show and shoot an uzi? Fuck no!

 

[Pingieking]

Handguns and shotguns are all fine and good, but I can't find a reason for people to own assult rifles.

 

[Gustav55]

If the US government tried to ban firearms it would more than likely find itself replaced by one means or another. around 42-8% of households in the US have a gun in them and more than a few are like me collectors. I understand the need for having background checks and registering of firearms but sense I am an honest citizen with no criminal record and i have served in the Military I see no reason I should be refused owning any type of firearm.

 

[Spitfire175]

We must make a divide betweed military designated assault weapons with automatic fire capabilities and modern weapons that aren't only designed to kill humans (they're still designed to kill something). Hunting rifles and shotguns are the least dangerous group of modern guns out there. Usually the people who have them know exactly how and when to use them. It's idiots with submachineguns that cause the problems.

 

[SithDaddy75]

We don't ban swimming pools, which by the way kill far more children every year than gun accidents, so why should we ban guns? Aside from the basic human right of self defense, guns should be allowed by the civilian populace to guard against overzealous government.

The 2nd amendment was added to the US Constitution to ensure that the government could not take away all of the other rights (read the Federalist Papers for clarification), and this is still as valid as it ever was.

If you study history, brutal subjugation of civilians, mass genocide (Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Cambodian Killing Fields) were always preceded by a mass disarming of the civilian population. While a disarming of civilians does not automatically mean genocide, there can not be a genocide without disarming the general population.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

"People should not fear their government, the government should fear its people" - V (although I am pretty sure someone else said it first)

 

[THAC0]

if guns are outlawed then only outlaws blah blah blah.

we have been hearing that same tired old useless line from the gun nuts in America for some time (i'm American). But the bottom line is that the average person is NEVER going to need to protect themselves with an assault rifle, its just not going to happen.

typically these people are just super paranoid of "big olde government" and how its gonna talk all their liberties away if they are not armed to the teeth. and if anyone calls them out on it they whip out the constitution and start fapping with the 2nd amendment.

mean while, America is more dangerous because of people like them, because they make is so difficult to create or enforce any kind of reasonable gun laws.

sad really.

 

[Tread184]

I'm going to simplify my argument because I don't want to get angry. Yes, I am an American.
6 reasons the 2nd Amendment exists, listed in order of relative importance and purpose of said amendment.

6. Gun collecting: A lot of people like to collect firearms, old and new, especially old, since they are pieces of history.
5. Sport shooting: A lot of people shoot clay pigeons and targets for sport.
4. Hunting: A lot of people like to hunt. (This isn't an argument for hunting, so please don't make it one)
Now the big 3...
3. Defense from criminals.
2. Defense from foreign invaders.
1. Defense from the government IF it were to turn corrupt/tyrannical and flat out take away our rights stated in the Bill of Rights.

I'm completely serious, the founding fathers fought a war against the (at the time) tyrannical English in order to earn their own freedom from them and their sovereignty as a Nation State. They were completely aware of human nature and what happens to those in power, with to much of it. The entire Constitution was designed with this in mind, and they fully intended for another revolution, should the law of the Constitution fail or be ignored.

I understand your fear or aversion to firearms, I understand how you feel about death. I don't think war and killing are good things, but they are as natural as human nature and sometimes very necessary (In defense). As an American, I put the first 10 amendments in high regard and I truly believe in them. I also believe a lot in personal responsibility. The day you think the average civilian isn't capable of doing things on his/her own, is the day you support authoritarianism.

P.S. It isn't the gun culture, nor the law abiding, gun owning citizen that causes the large amounts of violent crime in America, it's the, you know,large amount of CRIMINALS! Don't believe me? Canada has just as many guns in like per 1000 people as America. It has nothing to do with the gun, it has everything to do with our culture in general, something is fucked up, I will admit.

 

[Iron Mal]

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.

Show me evidence of this raise in gun crime (after all, if you don't have a gun then it's really hard to shoot someone).

Also, the 'if guns are outlawed' quote sounds reasonable until you realise that not outlawing guns means that not only will outlaws still have guns, but they will definately have more of them and bigger ones than you will (in the end you still lose), while banning guns may not stop gun crime 100% it does make it much harder for someone to commit a shooting (which is exactly what it's supposed to do).

Also, if somebody put myself or my family in mortal danger then I wouldn't want to be the stupid prick who thinks he's Rambo and either gets himself or their family killed (the US has a large statistic for people who are shot and killed by their own spouses in the middle of the night due to mistaken identity and the police and army are there for a reason).

 

[turbosloth]

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

I would consider myself very anti-gun rights by american standards, middle of the road by australian standards. I think the current gun laws here function just fine. My brother has 2 rifles (a .22 and a .222) and a 12 gauge double barrel (over-under) shotgun, all of which he uses to control pests on his property, all of which are licensed and kept according to license regulations in a registered gun safe. They are far less dangerous or likely to cause an accident than the chainsaw he keeps in the shed next to them, which he also needs for his work.

An uzi on the other hand? Please. No concievable reason at all.

Note on handguns: In australia it is legal to own a handgun for sport shooting, however it must be kept on premises at a licensed shooting range. You retrieve it in person with photo ID and a membership card, use it on premises, and then hand it back in. If you move you put in a transfer request and your weapon is transfered to your new shooting range under armoured guard (which is how it gets to a shooting range from the gunstore to begin with). So basically if you wanna spend your weekends shooting targets with your desert eagle, nothing stops you, but you can't ever have the gun in your possession in the wide world

I think as far as handgun control goes, that system is completely fine.

 

[Nazulu]

This is probably over hundredth time I have said it on this forum but no civilian should have bloody weapons. Even if people are so paranoid that criminals will still have them, it's still better than everyone owning them, every sick, crazy, depressed, obsessed, etc. person who are capable of pulling the trigger. Thats why the high gun crime rate is sooo bloody high in the USA!

 

[oppp7]

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

I'm more afraid of when the aliens att- *neck snapping noise*
There is no alien threat. Stop asking questions. Get rid of your guns.