Destroy all privately held guns

Angelina posted under "government" the need for a DEPARTMENT FOR PEACE. Persoannly I think one of the best ways of providing a safer and more peaceful (maybe) world is to destroy all guns that are not used for primary food production or personal protection from dangerous animals. Governments should buy them off their citizens so they are compensated and just destroy them. Recreational users who go to shooting ranges can use guns owned by the range so they are keep out of society. Gun users who hunt wild animals can do something else like go fishing or play golf.

Vote
26%
74%
Votes
15
Views
4139

16 Comments

  • personally

  • I object because who would do the destroying? A bunch of robots? No, a select group will, and everything can be corrupted. Will they alone administer the power to enforce and protect? No. Power to enforce and protect must be distributed equally.

  • We don't want all guns in the hands of the government, military, police. People have right bear arms. Dictatorships ban guns.

  • I object because People kill people, not guns. Blink guns out of existence, and people will just use something else. If the only 2 objects on our planet were people and styrofoam, this idea would be about how the government should disarm people of styrofoam. Plus, most people, especially americans, or any country that has ever lived under a despot's rule, get nervous when the government tries to disarm them; it is a form of control, and government control, in the wrong hands, leads to opression, and power spontaneously moves toward the hands of those who want it the most, who are usually the most corrupt.

  • All we need is strict control over civilian/private firearms. Just because you ban guns, criminals can still acquire them through black-markets and whatever they might use, and there are still plenty of weapons they could use. What would your average Joe use against several criminals when they break in the house?

    Now you could say that we need a better security force as well, but I doubt they will be quick enough to solve every single problem (could they arrive at the scene in time?), and it would almost feel like a police-state, where the government, armies, and police have most of the weapons...

    Now while I'm not saying giving civilians guns does not cause problems, but as I said already, we somehow need to a system which can CONTROL the use of these weapons. We also need to educate users of firearms, for example firearm safety, and also educate them of the consequences.

    Of course, with future-tech, maybe firearms could know the intention of the user, and if the user is using the firearm for murder, then it would not fire, but if it is using in self-defense or for recreation (without putting living beings in harm's way), it will function. As time progresses, we can hope this is possible, and would solve the problem of civilian firearms being used improperly.

  • I object because the proposal albeit sincere and meaningful, is unworkable. A more considerate proposal would be proper educational programs that clearly demonstrate the unnecessary destruction that weapons cause, as suggested by ChakLong.

  • I object because criminals and police gain absolute power over unarmed people because they have, and control, the use of guns. I do not believe we can always trust our protectors, and we certainly cannot trust criminals who we know are intent upon doing us harm. A peaceful man is one who has no fear.

  • Same as the above. I don't like the idea of the letting the government be the only owners of firearms. Big mistake.

  • Better to teach our children non-violence starting at age 5, and punish kids who bully. This will set the appropriate pattern into adulthood and discourage bad behavior. Teach kids how to exercise and choose empathy, how to distance themselves from memes of tribalism (where people not like them are the dreaded "other"). This is how you end violence.

  • I object because what happens when someone gets an illegally obtained gun... then there is no one that can protect themselves from that man

  • mint92 (United States) - I'm only talkig privately held guns so yes the police would still be armed.

  • People will own guns regardless of if it is or isn't legal. If it is illegal, it is likely that more people that don't follow the law will own guns than people that do follow the law. How will lawful people defend themselves if something bad happens involving unlawful people with guns?

  • I object because this will only unarm law abiding citizens, and criminals will still be armed.

  • I object because guns still protect you from external threats that exist and without guns you can't defend yourself or your family which is a fundamental human right. No point fighting with sticks and stones when rogue governments or other poses a real threat to your existence. The 2nd amendment was included because the founding fathers of America realized that people should have the right to bear arms and they realized that the system they provided was imperfect and the real enemy of the people were indeed the state.

    "When people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

    "Those who give up their freedom for security, deserve neither AND will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin (Please consider why he said this and please consider how giving up your freedom of owning guns can seriously come and BITE you in the ass when times gets tough"

    VOTE NO!

Similar Ideas: