When we start having energy weapons in the future like say phasers, should people allow to own them or not?
Since the question is vague, I'll just state the two possible answers depending on the meaning. If the question is, if I were given the power to eradicate guns from all private citizens, and have US laws treat gun possession in similar way to, say, crack, then the answer is YES. I would wish guns would disappear. By the same token, I would also wish for eradication of nuclear weapons, bio weapons, and in general things that are designed solely for killing people. I'm basically not a fan of weaponry. Now, if the question is, given the current situation and history of the US, would I advocate for a law that outlaws all guns, I would say NO. Even if it can be done, I feel it would be like Prohibition where things may go out of control.
Nope. Pandoras already out of the box and can't be put back in. Plus even if you could take away all the guns from legal gun owners... criminals don't seem the type to turn them in. Basically turn the U.S. into one big gun free zone. Dunno about everyone else but "gun free zones" tend to be deadly because criminals get to run amok.
Because they are fun to shoot. Why would anyone want to own a Lamborghini? Just in case, they remove the speed limit from some highways? But seriously, so called "assault" rifles are some of the best rifles for varmint hunting since .223/5.56 was developed as varmint round.
Absolutely. We let people purchase tanks, ICBM's and nukes from their local Walmart, I figured phasers should be fair game.
Ok. According to the center for disease control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
So you do not think we should let people purchase weapons once we get to a certain point. When the military weapons all convert to energy weapons and you have energy shield that can stop bullets, gun right would be dead right?
Those are not the kind of statistics we like to see. Now how many of those 2200 happened to be from "assault weapons"? The government is not trying to control assault weapons to protect the people. If they wanted to protect the people they would be trying to ban handguns.
So you agree, owning a gun doesn't protect you from the overwhelming majority of murders in this country which are from gang violence. I thought so.
Yes, if someone wants to kill you there's nothing you and your gun are going do about it. Anyone can walk right up to you and blow you away. What are you going to do about it? Return fire after you're full of holes? Mkay. This is the gun nut fantasy that somehow someone is going to draw on you old west style and you're going to "defend" yourself. Whatever.
All I am saying is that the weapons one can legally possess now are not vastly superior to the ones we had 300 years ago. Sure, rifling has been improved for more accuracy and semi-automatic makes it superior, but its still based on the same principal. In the grand scheme of things, most munitions are illegal and nobody is really arguing against it. Energy weapons now are illegal and there is no reason to believe that will change.
Lets reexamine this ignorant logic; If someone really wants to kill you, they will find a way. So therefore, nobody should have means to protect themselves There are respectable arguments against gun ownership. Yours just does not come close to any of them.
i don't really need to argue that your posting incorrect facts. it's not a subjective thing to debate. posting false facts makes you look foolish. quit embarrassing yourself
those sissies still live under the Queen of England's rule hardly an example for us to follow (and a very different situation than the US, of course)
