Okay,
I stated my point above and I'm no going to provide the philosophy behind it:
It's rather simple. Handguns (and submachine-guns, assault rifles,...) have been invented and produced throughout history for one purpose: To hurt/kill humans. Now a country who forbids these things by law should have no big problem banning items that are tools to solely that purpose.
The difference is that if your average Joe snaps and goes on a rampage he will probably
wound 3-4 people with a
knife before stopped, but may
kill 5-6 people with a handgun, with an assault-rifle or and MP maybe even more.
Now let me address the common defensive arguments on gun ownership:
- I need a gun for personal defense: No you don't. There are plenty of non-lethal defense weapons out there and they will mostly give you the appropriate edge over a burglar or another criminal unless he has a gun.
- I need a gun for personal defense, in case the burglar got a gun: No you don't and you can be thankful if you have no gun in that case. Simply because generally: 2 guns = 1 corpse
- If we ban guns the criminals will still have guns: Yes, In fact if we ban guns everybody who's got a gun will be a criminal. A gun was built for malicious purposes, people who hold it (although it's against the law) probably have malicious intents.
- You are limiting my freedom, I use my gun only for sports: And I used the nuclear reactor in my backyard for educational purposes. And I know a guy who grows his own pot just for personal use. Why is the country limiting our freedom. Because it reserves the right to ban/forbid items that are highly dangerous for the community.
- Guns don't kill people, people kill people: But guns make the whole job a lot easier. Like "It's not the football that scores, but the player". Correct, but if you keep the football away from the player all the time I guarantee you, you won't lose a sinlge match anymore.
- Unarmed citizens can be easily surpressed by the government. We need guns to defend our internal freedom: This is IMHO the only VALID argument for private gun ownership. However, putting this argument to the max private persons should also be able to own: Howitzers, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Submarines, Cruise Missiles, Nuclear Warheads (no ICBMs though as you don't need THAT long range for civil war),...
The choice at the moment is limited because of the relation between the extraordinary threat these items can pose and the need to use them in a civil war. The more lenient, functioning and liberal a government is and the less the chances for tyranny, the less heavy weaponry the average citizen needs.
Of course it would be outright stupid to ban public armament in countries like Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but in peaceful countries such as Germany, France, Austria, Singapore, Japan or the US private gun ownership - at least of full-auto weaponry - can IMO easily be restricted.
- But what if tyranny comes anyway? We will be completely defenseless: You will be completely defenseless anyway.
Even if you DO own a complete assortment of M16A2s, MP5s, M9s, M60ies, LAWs and an M2 in your backyard. Not only because the army still has superior weaponry, but mainly because they are trained.
The forces sent to Iraq were an expidition troop. Yet the Iraqi army could not hold them back and within shortest time the war was over. Does anybody really believe that some citizens with an M16 would defeat the whole US Army.
If there really was a civil war the only chance of freedom-fighters would be to get a part of the army to join them, which is not unrealistic but invalidates the argument again. Because if you manage to get some divisions join you in fight against tyranny does the M16 in your cabinet really matter? I don't doubt they will join you, but most likely because they love their country as much as you do and not because you force them at gunpoint.
[ 11-13-2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]