If the only benefit of guns was shooting them for fun, would you want them to be legal?

Posted by: Mathgeekjoe

List of benefits lost: Self defense, crime deterrence, hunting for food, protection from government tyranny, and protection of the country in war. If you vote yes, these lost benefits can not be any of your reasoning. Also second amendment deals with protection of government tyranny so you can't use that either.

  • Yes. They should be legal even if their only benefit was using them for fun.

  • No. They should be illegal if their only benefit was using them for fun.

36% 5 votes
64% 9 votes
  • I am pro guns for many reason. But in this hypothetical those reasons do not exist.

  • Well... if supposably you cant protect yourself because they're no benefits to it. So it will just be dangerous. (this is incorrect though)

  • I don't feel like wearing bullet-proof vest every time i go grocery shopping!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-05-21T15:19:37.1187364-05:00
Interested (aside from our conversation) to see the results.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-21T15:21:14.1320246-05:00
@TBR, I am fairly sure the only people who would vote yes would be libertarians and those who didn't read the question correctly.
Reeseroni says2015-05-21T15:31:43.3012177-05:00
Good job mathgeekjoe you have confused me
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-21T15:35:01.6134477-05:00
@Reeseroni, It is a fairly simple question. Would you want guns to be legal if their only benefit was shooting them for fun. Since the question said nothing about the negatives, there will still be gun crime, except there would be no self defense use.
TBR says2015-05-21T15:41:32.5089484-05:00
I think "fun" could have been replaced with "Recreational use", and "List of benefits lost:" replaced with a little better intro. Good poll question, just small points.
tajshar2k says2015-05-21T15:43:32.5619524-05:00
I honestly think the government tyranny thing makes no sense. The government will just carpet bomb us to death. We literally have no weapons to fight them. They are too powerful.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-21T15:47:08.0088781-05:00
@tajshar2k. Old rule in war. Bombing alone doesn't win a war. You can't kill every enemy with a bomb. Instead bombing increases the opponents moral and support.
tajshar2k says2015-05-21T15:48:39.4830242-05:00
Ya, but how exactly would we win? The only advantage we have is numbers. Nothing else. Also bombing usually helps alot (Japan 1945)
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-21T15:55:01.6029076-05:00
@tajshar2k. They were willing to fight even after we practically all of their cities with fire bombs. They were willing to fight even after we dropped the first nuke on them. And they were still willing to fight after we drop the second nuke. The only reason they surrendered was because we were using something new and unimaginably powerful, and that they felt that we could nuke them into nothing. Literally the only war won by bombs.
tajshar2k says2015-05-21T16:05:48.5768185-05:00
Seriously though, How do you think we would defeat the government?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-21T16:14:29.0825587-05:00
@tajshar2k, Are you aware of guerilla warfare? Guerilla warfare basically makes it impossible for your opponent to win. If anything it would be a long standstill.
Krampus says2015-05-26T10:10:18.2572957-05:00
@tajshar2k, If they could just bomb us and end it, why don't we just go bomb ISIS and have that whole organization be gone. I am fairly certain that most countries want them gone, including Muslim ones, so what's stopping us or anyone else from just bombing them out of existence?
tajshar2k says2015-05-26T12:17:05.0903377-05:00
@Krampus Because, there are civilians there. If that isn't I have no clue why else. @mathgeekJoe Ya, I heard of it. Thats what the Viet-Cong used to defeat us in Vietnam. However, you can't compare that to this. The Viet-Cong were supplied by China and the Soviet Union , and they had more knowledge of Jungle warfare. Here, we basically are the same people.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-27T08:11:03.1608754-05:00
@tajshar2k. Guerilla warfare didn't only happen in the vietnam conflict. It was also used when we fought the british in the american revolution, american civil war, and it was used against us in the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and many others. All one needs for guerilla warfare is to attack then run, it is effective against superior forces.
Midnight1131 says2015-05-27T08:13:43.3166710-05:00
@Krampus, the difference is that ISIS is near civilian populated areas. If the USA wanted to kill all of it's citizens, it wouldn't have to worry about unwanted causalities.
tajshar2k says2015-05-27T08:16:45.4669414-05:00
@mathgeejoe We would be fighting the most powerful country in the world.... With modern weapons. You haven't answered how we can stop airstrikes or weapons of mass destruction.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-27T08:27:37.2861725-05:00
@tajshar2k, if the big bad US weaponry was so great and destructive as you treat it, then it would be impossible for terrorist to survive away from civilian areas. Well guess what, they do survive in uncivilized areas, where the full power of our air power can hit them, yet they still do fine. In the end there is just one fact, bombing isn't effective against guerrilla warfare.
tajshar2k says2015-05-27T08:33:01.1003570-05:00
"then it would be impossible for terrorist to survive away from civilian areas." Please explain how that would work. "Well guess what, they do survive in uncivilized areas, where the full power of our air power can hit them, yet they still do fine" Where has that happened? "bombing isn't effective against guerrilla warfare." I'd like to know why you think that, so I can explain why it won't work for us.
Midnight1131 says2015-05-27T08:33:47.3711434-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, the large majority of ISIS fighters live in civilian populated areas. It's not like they have a base in some isolated bit of the desert.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-27T08:36:09.3971076-05:00
@Midnight1131, the war on terror didn't start with ISIS.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-27T08:37:06.6350526-05:00
During the occupation of Iraq, there were many situations where terrorist were in the desert and mountains, far away from towns and cities.
Midnight1131 says2015-05-27T08:39:06.9320610-05:00
Do you have sources to back that statement?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-27T08:44:01.0130035-05:00
@Midnight1131, It is kind of hard to find news sources since they are so focus on debating what the war was on. But I remember looking at documentaries of terrorist ambushing convoys in on roads in the desert. There was also the mountain hideout that the Taliban hid in. It would take a while for me to get sources, but they are there somewhere in the mess.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.