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

[New York Patrick]

I think this poll should have been called: "Who doesn't believe in having rights?"

 

[Infernai]

I actually would find it more interesting if we went back to how things were in the feudal japan era, in that civilians are allowed swords. But, law enforcers and soldiers and whatnot are the only ones are allowed access to guns and all the good shit. And the only reason i say this is because i just want an excuse to carry around a sword XD

 

[Woodsey]

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

Your car isn't built for killing though, unless it's got machine guns welded to the front.

And considering the gun-crime rate in America, I'm surprised they haven't made them less accessible.

 

[titanium turtle]

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.

fighting an enemy on their own turf will be difficult- in ww2 the Russian army were still under gunned and over manned- they beat the Nazis by fighting in their own country, in their own conditions and also fighting an enemy in your own country makes you much more determined

 

[NuclearPenguin]

They should be allowed to have Muskets and flintlock pistols.

 

[Heeman89]

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.

Umm maybe because the police aren't reliable? average response time is what 8 minutes? somebody breaking into your house isn't going to wait 8 minutes until the cops show up. I used to have that exact same mentality until my house was broken into and I called the cops, guess what they didn't show up until the next DAY. If I hadn't have had my shotgun I use for hunting I bet I wouldn't be here typing this. Funny thing is I live 3 blocks from the Police Station, I was told "All officers are currently busy".

That's why I own a gun, because a crook ain't gonna wait for the cops to show up.

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.

First thing, that's wikipedia, anyone can edit that, and 2nd that last link is just dumb, you replace "guns" with "apples" and still get percentages as whacked out as those. The numbers aren't accurate or up-to-date in any of those links

 

[WolfThomas]

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.

Hunting? I'll damned if I'm hunting a deer, pig, fox, kangaroo or rabbit with a musket. Now a straight pull blaser R93 (drools).

 

[Floppertje]

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

why should America have handguns and not the rest of the world? I think they should just be banned altogether, make owning them illegal but not actively search for them. just arrest people when you happen to find one. that, combined with making sales illegal, would make sure it dries up.

I agree with you on the drugs. Softdrugs aren't illegal here, guns are and we're doing quite a bit better death-rate wise.

death by guncrimes:

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

drugs:
NL's: from the central bureau of statistics:
Volgens deze richtlijnen zijn er in
2001 in Nederland 144 mensen overleden aan de directe gevolgen
van drugs.
translation:
according to these guidelines there in 2001 144 people died as a direct result of drugs.

US: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen008.htm

So I think I can say our way of doing it is better. Or at least results in fewer people dying.
p.s.: sorry if I'm coming off as a bit arrogant, that's not the intention at all. I just think the US system could use some improvement.

 

[RabidusUnus]

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.

Yep, those cops sure do a great job at identifying 5 to 6 minute old bodies.

 

[ChainsawEnima]

What if they need to protect themselves from T E R R O R I S T S

 

[Tears of Blood]

The problem is not that we allow people to have guns. The problem is that criminals get ahold of guns illegally. They can get ahold of some of the best shit, too. Thus, as civilians, we have a right to protect ourselves from such reprobates by owning a weapon. We, in turn, make ourselves dangerous and help to deter people from commiting violent crimes upon us.

If there were a way to make sure no guns ever came into the country, that would be great. I'd support such things if they were possible. But they aren't. Not in the USA, anyway. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. Over here in the USA, homicide by firearms goes UP when gun control laws are placed on an area.

As for modern weaponry? Fully-automatic machine guns and explosives? I am not sure whether civilians need such things. Most any gun that is not from the dark ages should suit someone's needs just fine. It can be argued that enraged targets may not be put down by a 9mm or below, but still, I don't see the need for advanced weapons in the hands of civilians. Especially explosives. They're more likely to get themselves hurt.

 

[Wadders]

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

Who the fuck said anything about machine guns being used for hunting? And if anything handguns are the most dangerous of all, as they can be concealed so easily...

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.

I agree, and I'm a fucking limey Brit

This guy speaks the truth: Charlton Heston FTW

I think you guys should keep your gun laws the way they are, and we should keep ours. It works well for us, even if it is a bit too strict for my liking. If anyone tried to totally ban civiliam firearms in the UK though, I actually think they would succeed, judging by the state of our country at the moment

 

[DanielPowell33]

What if someone breaks into your house, and trys to kill you? Wouldn't you like to have a shotgun or an AR-15 or a handgun?
Plus, lots of people own guns for hunting, are you against hunting too?

 

[Caligulove]

Im assuming you mean something like Military-grade?

Because the stuff that's sold on the market for people to buy is still modern... but its still just a handgun/shotgun etc.

I think everyone has the right to bear arms. But that does not extend to fully automatic or armor-piercing weapons. Or ANYTHING explosive. Bearing arms is about defending yourself... and those weapons are instruments of war.

And no ones going to take them away from you despite what rabble-rousers and others might say... Jesus Christ

 

[Godavari]

If the government becomes oppressive and the people want to have an uprising, they're gonna need a way to fight against the entire US army.
Plus, zombies. Never forget about zombies.

 

[Agayek]

That's all good and well, but liberty does not equal guns in my book. I don't see how I would be liberated by being afraid of people since they might carry guns.

lib⋅er⋅ty
?noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Banning you from doing something strikes me as control, interference, and restriction. Thus, it violates the idea of liberty.

The thing is, owning a gun does not increase your likelihood of committing violent crime. Just like owning a computer does not increase your likelihood of playing video games. If someone wants to be violent, they will find a way to do so, no matter what weapons are available. And I for one would much rather have less control of my life in the hands of someone else, especially since it would be ineffectual in its stated purpose anyway.

 

[slackbheep]

If by modern weapons you mean fully automatics, and so on then no I don't believe civilians have any legitimate use for those. That said standard hunting rifles, and handguns or shotguns intended for home and personal defense are perfectly reasonable, provided the person has the proper registration and training. For reference, I'm Canadian.

 

[Floppertje]

The problem is not that we allow people to have guns. The problem is that criminals get ahold of guns illegally. They can get ahold of some of the best shit, too. Thus, as civilians, we have a right to protect ourselves from such reprobates by owning a weapon. We, in turn, make ourselves dangerous and help to deter people from commiting violent crimes upon us.

you know why it's so easy to get a hold of guns? because they can be bought in the supermarket!