30place
Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
19 votes Vote

Should it be legal for individuals to own automatic weapons?

I unequivocally think that people have a right to own handguns. Tentatively, though, I have difficulty in arguing that it should be legal for private households to own sniper rifles or automatic weapons. I'm definitely far from an expert on guns, but I don't think you need a sniper rifle or an automatic weapon to protect yourself from burglars or muggers. I'm under the impression that an automatic weapon inflicts mass destruction, like a tank or a hand grenade. Are there good philosophic arguments for it being legal for individuals to own sniper rifles and/or automatic weapons?

legendre007, 21.12.2012, 03:22
Idea status: under consideration

Comments

Michael A. Slivka, 28.12.2012, 16:38
No one has been able to own an "automatic weapon" since 1934, with getting a Class 3 arms license (a Herculean task). Full auto is a machine gun, that can spray a lot of bullets with just a single trigger pull. Are you actually talking about semi auto? There, you get one bullet per trigger pull, but don't have to keep cocking the weapon to put the next round in place. Like pretty much every rifle and handgun on the market today. This lack of precision in terms just furthers the progressive agenda.
Reply
Jason, 02.01.2013, 13:39
As for true fully-automatic weapons (it keeps firing till the trigger is released or it runs out of bullets), I'd partially agree with you as far as their "protective use" goes:

* For home defense (burglars) I don't see full-autos being the best tactical choice for most home-defense situations... too much risk of stray bullets hitting something you don't want them to. Then again if you live in the country with a large enough property it could work.

* As for personal protection (muggers) most full autos are too large/cumbersome to carry around (mobsters with their violin cases to the contrary). Couple that with the fact that you'd likely have even less control over your lines-of-fire/backstops in a mugging and they are not my first choice there either.

What are they good for? As far as I can tell they are really well suited for 'area denial'. Something that few private citizens would likely have a need, training, discipline, budget.... for.

So, why WOULD a private citizen want to go through all the effort to get a $200 class-3-BATF tax-stamp and buy a full auto? Well, just like owning a really fast car can be fun if used responsibly and under the controlled conditions of a race-track; shooting a fully automatic weapon at suitable targets on a gun range can be a heck of a lot of fun.
Granted, enjoyment is not a reason to make them legal, but it helps frame the question a bit.
I'll leave the philosophical arguments over legality to others.
Reply

Leave a comment