[Christopher Halsey]

COMMUNITY DEBATE

LETHAL WEAPONS

In Star Trek we've seen examples of civilians having access to potentially lethal weapons*. The ability for a civilian to own a potentially lethal weapon*, such as a gun, is legal in some countries and illegal in others. Regardless of the legality where you live, do you believe that civilians should or should not have access to potentially lethal weapons* and why?

*When I refer to potentially lethal weapons I mean something that was first and foremost designed to be a weapon that can kill so something like a bread knife which you could use to kill someone would not count.

[Blackeagle]

I think civilians should have access to weapons (but not military grade ones).
I mean if you live in a dangerous or unsecured environment (the middle east) then civilians should definitely own a gun (for self-defense). Owning a gun doesn't make you a criminal nor a sociopath as it's quite rare for a civilian to go berserk and start killing people.

Many guys in my country have lethal weapons but they primarily use them for hunting purposes.
Plus, most citizens use non-lethal ammo (Birdshots or plain blanks). Gun stores don't usually sell AP ammo or battle rifles.

Any weapon can be lethal, you just need to use them responsibly (having the right permits etc).
Most deaths are caused by diseases, not by firearms (except in wars)

[Bar'ol]

When you name it as lethal weapons gives it a bad taste. Should people be able to bare arms, I think they should for various of reasons. Primary reason is for protection, I dont think many people will disagree with that. Taking away guns and only having army/government seems dangerous to me, especially when we look at the history books when that scenario happens. Should there be a limit to how far a citizen can carry, absolutely. Really no need for a civilian to be walking down the street with a assault rifle or having a Gatling gun on back of their truck.

However when it comes to incidents with school shootings or crazy man going to the mall not entirely sure if its the guns fault in how the media is playing it out. Proper education and consoling of those kids or man men might of help. When it comes to that particular scenario I honestly think person(s) would of snapped regardless if they had access to guns or not.

[Christopher Halsey]

When you name it as lethal weapons gives it a bad taste. Should people be able to bare arms, I think they should for various of reasons. Primary reason is for protection, I dont think many people will disagree with that. Taking away guns and only having army/government seems dangerous to me, especially when we look at the history books when that scenario happens. Should there be a limit to how far a citizen can carry, absolutely. Really no need for a civilian to be walking down the street with a assault rifle or having a Gatling gun on back of their truck.

Hi Gunges, not disagreeing with you but I highlighted a couple of bits which I would be interested in hearing your opinion on. You've led with the fact that you think such weapons should be available for protection but that there should maybe be a limit as to what is reasonable. Where would you say that line is between reasonable and unreasonable? As I say I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested to see at what point reasonable self defence stops.

[Christopher Halsey]

I think civilians should have access to weapons (but not military grade ones).
I mean if you live in a dangerous or unsecured environment (the middle east) then civilians should definitely own a gun (for self-defense). Owning a gun doesn't make you a criminal nor a sociopath as it's quite rare for a civilian to go berserk and start killing people.

Many guys in my country have lethal weapons but they primarily use them for hunting purposes.
Plus, most citizens use non-lethal ammo (Birdshots or plain blanks). Gun stores don't usually sell AP ammo or battle rifles.

Any weapon can be lethal, you just need to use them responsibly (having the right permits etc).
Most deaths are caused by diseases, not by firearms (except in wars)

Just wanted to clarify, are you saying that with the exception of certain dangerous environments (such as where there is military action) then civilians shouldn't need/have access to such weapons or that in their case it's even more justifiable that they should?

[Blackeagle]

Just wanted to clarify, are you saying that with the exception of certain dangerous environments (such as where there is military action) then civilians shouldn't need/have access to such weapons or that in their case it's even more justifiable that they should?

Well that's the problem, there are no 'safe' environments, crimes happen everywhere and unexpectedly. Homicides even happen in the united states but not as frequent as in the middle east (and vice versa). Some countries don't even have armies or any sort of homeland security. Therefore, it is justifiable that civilians should have access to weapons.
Please note that firearm usage is not limited to self defense only, people own weapons for entertainment purposes such as competitive shooting, hunting or just showing off one's gun collection.

[Bar'ol]

Hi Gunges, not disagreeing with you but I highlighted a couple of bits which I would be interested in hearing your opinion on. You've led with the fact that you think such weapons should be available for protection but that there should maybe be a limit as to what is reasonable. Where would you say that line is between reasonable and unreasonable? As I say I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested to see at what point reasonable self defence stops.

I guess you got two categories for self defense, personal and national wise. For personal wise this could be from conceal arming yourself so you can protect your family if need be or home invasion type protection. National wise this goes with where ever rules of the land or society really struggling with protecting its people.

Unreasonable self defense is the guy who is afraid of society and thinks everyone is a bad guy. This attitude is very dangerous not only to the people around this guy but also for the person that has the lethal weapons. This goes into the scenario I illustrated earlier with mad men or children I suppose even the category of terrorist. The idea of people having lethal weapons with this is just scary in my opinion.

When it comes to the USA bill of rights of Right to bear arms I'm kinda not really sure which side to fully to support. Yeah I get it people want to go hunting with lethal weapons or doing it for sport. But when society is scared of the fact of all these different type of shootings that have happened, or even the USA police scenarios shooting civilians for no cause just down right scary. This is why people are even considering the need to carry a weapon on them due to these situations. Like we are living in the old west again. Just plain stupidity. Then on the other side we don't want them taken away due to what happened from the past when governments taking away lethal weapons from civilians. I dont know I just shake my head in disappointment with the whole thing.

[Tain]

I believe people should have the wright to bear arms if they so chose. So long as they pass all the appropriate testing and can prove they are not a danger to them selves or anyone else. I have my license and am looking forward to getting my first gun. It's not for self defence, but for fun at the range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christopher Halsey]

Whether more people having potentially lethal weapons translates to more people being safer is probably another discussion, but when it comes to self defence at what point would somewhere be sufficiently unsafe that you it's completely reasonable to have a weapon designed to be lethal to protect yourself? At what point does it become "not only do I need a weapon but it needs to be a weapon designed to be lethal". I'm curious not only because that line I'm assuming exists somewhere but also because even in countries were it is legal to own such weapons there are often rules about where you can't have them.

I remember a recent petition about being able to take guns to a rally Donald Trump was holding and guns not being allowed. To an extent that makes sense but really isn't there actually a double standard there? If people have these weapons for self defence then why is it not safe for them to have them at a rally? Where is that line between weapons being essential for self defence to them being deemed a risk? Now I know that is to do with policy in one very specific example but the reason I bring it up is because as explained above I'm curious about the fact that your need to defend yourself or the potential risk to others seems to vary which suggests somewhere there is a line that separates one situation from another and I'm really interested to hear people's thoughts about whether such a line should exist, where it is and where they think it should be.

A few people have mentioned having guns for recreation rather than defence which is a fair point but for a shooting range or the purpose of being a collector do you need to have a weapon is designed to be lethal? Couldn't a gun and ammunition designed not to be lethal replace those at a gun range and couldn't non-functioning weapons still be a valid part of a collection? I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to participate in these activities but asking couldn't a substitute for a weapon designed to be non-lethal or less lethal work? Obviously with hunting that would probably be more difficult although I'm sure there are non or less lethal projectiles that could incapacitate an animal for if you just needed to show you were capable of hunting the creature, obviously if you have to kill it then there isn't much substitute for a lethal weapon.

[Bar'ol]

The risk I would consider using lethal is person flashing a gun around. The guy already sealed his fate either with person with concealing or when the police show up. Guess you can try to tell him to drop his weapon. But I would rather duke it out personally mortal kombat style. But yeah there is a lot of controversy with people concealing weapons as well. Looking more into the topic finding things like rubber bullets seems like a alternative to just a lead bullet.

[Ross]

Have to be honest, I've dreamt of a gatling gun on the roof of my car while in traffic, but who hasn't!?

IMHO, lethal weapons are an extension of human aggression and should not be permitted for civilian use. Our fascination with weapons is the result of glorification of violance and romanticization of war, whether through literature, film, video games or any other medium.

Each person that chooses to own a lethal weapon must have extensive training and education regarding the dangers that lethal weapons represent and the definitive, irreversible outcome of using such a weapon. A world would be a safer place.

[Caymen Greener]

I wish we could be rid of guns, truly. But that will never happen. So if I can have a revolver that belonged to my grandfather, and feel better about keeping my home and family safe (yes, I am fairly well versed in how to use that weapon), then I should be allowed. I would also love a cheap shotgun - I've heard the best home defenses are a dog or a shotgun, purely for the noises they make. The loading action of a shotgun is usually enough for criminals to run, so I've heard. As a midwestern 'Mericun, I like that I can get a gun and go shoot it places to practice. And it does make me feel safer, even if some of that feeling is from a false assumption.

That said, scaling that up to militias or even a country ("well, each country should be able to have nukes" says Caymen)... that gets wishy washy, and I don't have a good answer for that. Heck, I truly wish we could go back before gunpowder and just have swords. Of course those are quite lethal in the right hands as well - in my hands, I'd kill myself quicker than anything, with a combat katana or something.

TL;DR = I like guns, people should be able to have guns, but I wish guns were NOT such a problem. Such is life in a broken world.

[Christopher Halsey]

Have to be honest, I've dreamt of a gatling gun on the roof of my car while in traffic, but who hasn't!?

One of the best quotes I've seen or expect to see in any of our community debates.

[Buckaroo]

Civilians should definitely have access to weapons for use not only for hunting (if needed) but also for protecting themselves, family, and others from possible threats both foreign and domestic. Evil is real, as well as dangerous people--mostly because of lack of education or mental health, and none of that is going away anytime soon. Those two last issues can be addressed and helped if given the opportunity, but until evil is extinguished from the world there will always be a need for weapons to protect yourself and the ones you love. If the world was a perfect utopia, I'd be happy to give up my guns.

As I believe someone has mentioned above, "safe zones" don't work and are as useful as putting up a sign that says "No wolves" next to a sheep pen and expecting the wolves to turn around because of the sign. It only makes that place an easy target for those that want to do harm and don't care who they hurt.

I do believe in some limitations for what civilian can own and use, such as some military grade weapons shouldn't be openly available. I also believe in conceal carry with the proper permit and training. Even without a carry permit I believe that anyone who wants to own or use a gun, even for just protection, should go through the proper training on use of that weapon.

Those are my thoughts and opinions.

[Silynn]

It if wasn't guns, it was swords or bows. If not swords, it was sticks and stones. Weapons may be apart of our DNA.

With that said, I will say that I do not own any weapon (well, my baseball bat can be considered one). No guns, no swords, no bows, but my stick (baseball bat) is in the grey zone.

This is obviously from my perspective as an American. But law abiding citizens should be able to arm themselves if they so choose to do so. I believe if one (Tyrant or Dictator) takes away that right, then the voice and freedoms of said citizens is very easily trounced upon. History has proved this time after time.

In both European and Asian Medieval Periods you had 'lords' (armed) who controlled the serfs (later peasants) who were forbidden to have arms. Be they knights, samurai, or under the chinese imperial mandate, civilians (peasants/etc) were kept under control (often in terrible conditions) as they had no choice.

American colonials were able to rise-up and revolt as they were armed (frontier life making it a necessity).

Hitler and the Nazi's disarmed the populace, and the world saw what happened there.

Civilians forbidden the choice to arm themselves are sheep that Tyrants and Dictators wish to herd and abuse at their whim.

Weapons are violent, I totally acknowledge and agree there. Criminals will *ALWAYS* have access to weapons, no matter how many laws or regulations one puts into being. However, I consider this idea and concept the price of freedom.

Is it an ideal price? No, ideal is what we see in the Star Trek universe. Until we achieve that level of enlightenment, which is a completely different topic, I firmly believe that civilians should be allowed the choice to bare arms.