Poll: There is no justifiable reason for civilians to own modern weapons.
- Thread starter HotFezz8
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, the existence of Civilian owned guns is useful, because anything commercially available is cheaper, so if civilians could buy M16's, they would cost less for the military (This is why "Silent Spring" killed millions of people)
And anyway, i can BUILD an accurate handgun that isn't muzzle loaded, and i can build a decent shotgun, boomerang, or whip-bow too
And anyway, i can BUILD an accurate handgun that isn't muzzle loaded, and i can build a decent shotgun, boomerang, or whip-bow too
You're right, I can't. In fact I would go so far as to say that there is no justifiable reason that anyone should have access to anything more dangerous than a fencing sword.HotFezz8 said:
*sigh*
Wars would be so much more elegant, or at least a little simpler...
For the record, I'm already a pro-rights, anti-rights-removal kind of guy, and the pro-gun side just has more good arguments. It always seemed like gun licensing and education were much better than just taking away the right to own "modern" (as many people have mentioned, that's much, much too broad) weapons.
If the police or military can own a certain weapon, then a civilian should be allowed to own it too.
In your country, things are different. In your country, it is probably best that civillians not be allowed to carry handguns.Noelveiga said:
However, America is a more dangerous place. Maybe that's not a good thing, but we have to work with what there is to work with. When we put gun control laws on places in the USA, homicide rates go up. It is how it works. When the gun control laws relax, we get fewer of them.
I am not saying that it can't work for you guys, I'm saying it doesn't work over here in the USA the same way it works from where you are.
And, maybe this will come off as completely stupid, but at least we have the freedom to have weapons.
I throw my hat in the sea of 9-page (at time of typing) obscurity;
I am a U.S. Citizen, I do not own a gun, and I think it is perfectly fine for civilians to own weapons.
People like to take the humanity out of problems and blame objects.
If a person wants to kill someone bad enough, they'll find a way. If you remove guns from a gun-owning society, you'll only see a significant decrease in gun-related crimes, not total crimes. Sooner or later you'll have to ban axes. Then baseball bats; crowbars, blunt object, sharp objects, hydrolics, cars, anything "dangerous".
I don't know about other countries, but when you try to ban something in the United States that people have taken for granted, you just turn regular folks into "criminals". See: Prohibition. (well, at least we got Nascar out of that... wait, is that a pro or con?). Most people won't want it for murder, they'll want it for protection or hunting or whatever, and they'll just keep their "illegal firearms".
As for "protection from goverment" and people citing how their country has no guns and they're fine, the issue is that domestic forces do not have firearms either. In countries where the government has guns and civilians don't, it generally doesn't end up well.
There has also been mention of "self-defense" or "protection of property" being invalid due to Law Enforcement. In smaller, densly populated areas, maybe. In most U.S. Cities, there simply aren't enough police officers available to respond to every call in a timely manner. In higher population areas, they also have problems with prioritizing and false alarms.
Hunting. There are very few, but still some, who hunt for food. Otherwise, it is still a sport that many U.S. citizens enjoy.
It is not easy to get a gun legally in the United States. Yes, they are sold at Wal-Mart. However, Wal-Mart conforms to the same regulations on gun sales as everyone else. There are usually only one or two salespeople who are qualified to sell them, and they have to go through separate government-administered training, like every other gun vendor. They have computers hooked directly into each State's gun registry and background check system, like every other gun vendor. People who wish to purchase a gun from Wal-Mart have to go through the same application and background check as every other gun purchaser, as well as the waiting time.
Assault-type firearms are illegal for civilian ownership in the U.S..
Those who own guns and use them for crime tend to get them through illegal means already. You wouldn't kill someone with a gun that could be traced directly back to you. If you aren't thinking clearly enough to do that, you probably want to kill them so bad you'd use whatever you could get your hands on anyway. So, criminals will still acquire guns via illegal means, citizens will be without them "for their own good", and the government will have guns as well to "contend with the criminals". How do the civilians benefit? Even in one "wiki research" presented here, the "accidental death by firearm" rate was beans.
If you want to kill yourself, there are plenty of bridges, tall buildings, freeways, poisons, pills, and good-'ol fashioned rope to get the job done without guns.
Here's the pseudo conernstone of the "anti-gun" platform: accidents. Here's what I say; personal responsibility. If you take the time to purchase a gun, you are responsible for it. You are responsible to keep it out of the wrong hands and to make sure that you only use it in a responsible fashion. As with any other dangerous item you may possess.
Again, most cultures today like to objectify problems, instead of the human aspect. People want to kill people, people want to kill themselves, people don't feel safe at home, people aren't responsible with their property. Guns are a means to express those problems. Remove them, and the problem remains.
Guns are responsible for murder and crime as much as McDonald's is responsible for me being a fatty, as Marketing is for me buying crap I don't need, as the Credit Card companies are for me being in debt. Which is, they aren't. They are all decisions people make, yes, there may be enablers, but it still comes down to personal responsibity and flawed humanity. We just don't want to admit it could be personal or societal problems, so we blame objects (that we created in the first place).
I am a U.S. Citizen, I do not own a gun, and I think it is perfectly fine for civilians to own weapons.
People like to take the humanity out of problems and blame objects.
If a person wants to kill someone bad enough, they'll find a way. If you remove guns from a gun-owning society, you'll only see a significant decrease in gun-related crimes, not total crimes. Sooner or later you'll have to ban axes. Then baseball bats; crowbars, blunt object, sharp objects, hydrolics, cars, anything "dangerous".
I don't know about other countries, but when you try to ban something in the United States that people have taken for granted, you just turn regular folks into "criminals". See: Prohibition. (well, at least we got Nascar out of that... wait, is that a pro or con?). Most people won't want it for murder, they'll want it for protection or hunting or whatever, and they'll just keep their "illegal firearms".
As for "protection from goverment" and people citing how their country has no guns and they're fine, the issue is that domestic forces do not have firearms either. In countries where the government has guns and civilians don't, it generally doesn't end up well.
There has also been mention of "self-defense" or "protection of property" being invalid due to Law Enforcement. In smaller, densly populated areas, maybe. In most U.S. Cities, there simply aren't enough police officers available to respond to every call in a timely manner. In higher population areas, they also have problems with prioritizing and false alarms.
Hunting. There are very few, but still some, who hunt for food. Otherwise, it is still a sport that many U.S. citizens enjoy.
It is not easy to get a gun legally in the United States. Yes, they are sold at Wal-Mart. However, Wal-Mart conforms to the same regulations on gun sales as everyone else. There are usually only one or two salespeople who are qualified to sell them, and they have to go through separate government-administered training, like every other gun vendor. They have computers hooked directly into each State's gun registry and background check system, like every other gun vendor. People who wish to purchase a gun from Wal-Mart have to go through the same application and background check as every other gun purchaser, as well as the waiting time.
Assault-type firearms are illegal for civilian ownership in the U.S..
Those who own guns and use them for crime tend to get them through illegal means already. You wouldn't kill someone with a gun that could be traced directly back to you. If you aren't thinking clearly enough to do that, you probably want to kill them so bad you'd use whatever you could get your hands on anyway. So, criminals will still acquire guns via illegal means, citizens will be without them "for their own good", and the government will have guns as well to "contend with the criminals". How do the civilians benefit? Even in one "wiki research" presented here, the "accidental death by firearm" rate was beans.
If you want to kill yourself, there are plenty of bridges, tall buildings, freeways, poisons, pills, and good-'ol fashioned rope to get the job done without guns.
Here's the pseudo conernstone of the "anti-gun" platform: accidents. Here's what I say; personal responsibility. If you take the time to purchase a gun, you are responsible for it. You are responsible to keep it out of the wrong hands and to make sure that you only use it in a responsible fashion. As with any other dangerous item you may possess.
Again, most cultures today like to objectify problems, instead of the human aspect. People want to kill people, people want to kill themselves, people don't feel safe at home, people aren't responsible with their property. Guns are a means to express those problems. Remove them, and the problem remains.
Guns are responsible for murder and crime as much as McDonald's is responsible for me being a fatty, as Marketing is for me buying crap I don't need, as the Credit Card companies are for me being in debt. Which is, they aren't. They are all decisions people make, yes, there may be enablers, but it still comes down to personal responsibity and flawed humanity. We just don't want to admit it could be personal or societal problems, so we blame objects (that we created in the first place).
Here's an important thing to remember (maybe only in the US but probably not): The police are NOT legally responsible for your safety. If they take too long to get to your house and your entire family is slaughtered, oh well. Your mother can't sue the police for not getting there soon enough. It's not their responsibility.
Also many accidental police shootings happen because the police don't know what's going on, they just got there. This is one reason why the police tend to be hesitant to get involved in domestic disputes.
By the way, are you planning on banning household chemicals that can be used to make bombs? Even small ones can kill large groups of people in a public area. Also bleach and ammonia mix together and create a toxic gas that can kill (rather painfully I might add)... do we ban those too?
It's not the weapons that are the issue, it's the society. And right now the US has a very fucked mindset due to various elements. Racial tension, poverty, loss of respect for others, poor upbringing, poor education, and so on. You don't attack the symptoms, you attack the cause of the root problem. It's how you prevent the symptoms from being problems.
Also many accidental police shootings happen because the police don't know what's going on, they just got there. This is one reason why the police tend to be hesitant to get involved in domestic disputes.
By the way, are you planning on banning household chemicals that can be used to make bombs? Even small ones can kill large groups of people in a public area. Also bleach and ammonia mix together and create a toxic gas that can kill (rather painfully I might add)... do we ban those too?
It's not the weapons that are the issue, it's the society. And right now the US has a very fucked mindset due to various elements. Racial tension, poverty, loss of respect for others, poor upbringing, poor education, and so on. You don't attack the symptoms, you attack the cause of the root problem. It's how you prevent the symptoms from being problems.
Hahaha!Greyfox105 said:
"OI!"
*fires weapon*
"Bollocks! I missed him!"
*pulls out funnel, gunpowder and a small metal ball bearing*
....
OT: I guess so, I mean, military is only going to buy so much right? It's what sort of confuses me about the COD games and such. There's all these rifles and submachine guns you've never heard of....but who's buying them?! The worlds military only needs so many different types of rifle, so who's buying the rest?!
"Open your present son, I think you'll like it"
"Oh WOW!!! A military grade assault rifle! Thanks mom!"
"Aww, that's my boy, and if you're a good boy until you're birthday, we'll buy you armour piercing rounds! How's that sound?"
"Awesome! I'm going to shoot a bear!"
That's what it is in my mind anyway....I mean, nobody else is buying them, right?
Perhaps it's cultural, but we have much more serious gangs over here than in other places. We're not all dangerous people, of course not, but we have groups of people who are that way. They're called criminals. We put them in jail when we can.Noelveiga said:
Rarely, very rarely, do normal Americans go around killing people with their guns. There is a problem with education here, I will agree with that, but that is moving more into "education to prevent crime" not "gun control to prevent homicide."
I think that owning guns is a right that people should have, especially since over here, people who legally own guns hardly ever use them to kill other people. The right to bear arms is an important one, it's why it was layed out in our Constitution. It may be hard to defend at times, but it is nonetheless a right that reasonable people in America should have.
I doubt I am going to get you to agree with what I am saying, but we should be able to agree that our countries are different and that what works for you may not work for us.
We dont need guns, we'll just fling snowballs at you! Nobody wants to fight when they're all cold and wetLackofCertainty said:
These threads are so idiotic. It's a poorly disguised "America vs. the rest of the world" debate. And, you know what? If you're in the rest of the world, I don't really give a shit what you think America needs to do. That's what I've noticed from most of the anti-gun replies: a) they're non-American b) they say America should ban guns. I don't run around screaming what other countries "need" to do, because I don't care. I don't live there. And, it's really annoying when 98% of the time America is blamed for trying to tell everyone else what to do.
Well, here you go. One time when we really don't care what you're doing in your private time, and when you can't shut up about what we're doing with ours.
Well, here you go. One time when we really don't care what you're doing in your private time, and when you can't shut up about what we're doing with ours.
Me and my friend were at his house one night after coming home from the bar. We were down in the basement playing vids (so all the upstairs lights were off) when we heard some noise out in the garage. We went upstrairs and could hear people talking through the door into his garage. He went into his room and grabbed his shotgun, I was only armed with my wits and a bat. We bursted into the garage, flipped on the lights only to see four tweakers rummaging through his shit. They started to get all bucked up and tough until my friend racked one in the chanber and drew a bead on the biggest one. Needless to say they immediately gentled down and left the premises without any cause for injury. Without the advantage of a firearm, who know what would have happened.HotFezz8 said:
Also people just like firearms, just like others like cars, or clothes. Most people who collect firearms or are enthusiasts are very, very safe and have a great respect for the firearm itself. But, the universe is a chaotic place and things happen for no reason in the form of accidents. Even if you take every necessary precaution and follow all the rules, people can still die or get hurt... and this applies to all things not just guns.
Honestly I think the sheer number of people dying from being fat and overweight in the USA should be a bigger issue. I find the notion that more people die every year from to much cheese then they do from firearms much more terrifying.
Clearly you don't know how big a problem knife-crime is over here, then.Simalacrum said:
And look at Canada; they have a shitload of civilian access to firearms too, and gun-crime rates are MUCH lower there than in America.
That is the most AWESOME thing I've ever seen. Okay, I fucking hate gears of war, but still; the levels of win on chainsaw-rifle there is sky-high.LackofCertainty said:Truly, this is a proud day for mankind. *salutes*pimppeter2 said:*snip*
The defense rests
Personally, I believe civilians should be allowed access to any firearm they want short of explosive, incendiary, etc types as long as they prove to be the types of people who would never use them on another human being unless it was a truly 'them or me' situation.
Of course, people who are liable to misuse said weapons or those that have not proven trustworthy and done all the required tests/paperwork shouldn't be allowed them. The same goes for those who have commited a violent crime in the past.
Even with typos I found yours the most coherent argument.Nuke_em_05 said:
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.
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?Jdopus said:
For those holding the UK's ban as evidence of a solution: gun crime increasing in the UK, despite the ban.