NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: A trained populace, knowledgeable about the function and use of firearms, being necessary for the survival of a truly free society, the right of citizens in UN member nations to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let it be hereby resolved that no UN member nation shall prohibit their citizens from owning firearms which are not fully automatic, nor prohibit their ownership of swords, knives, or other bladed weaponry. Let it further be resolved that State mandated Gun Registration is also prohibited, as this commonly leads to tyranny through government abuse of power.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who believes in their individual liberty and protecting citizens from state sponsored tyranny should support this.

Unfortunately, this is too extreme to most anti-gun nuts in the UN.

Of course it's extremist, Fantasan has to be extremist. Now will he make more than one post in this thread or just leave it like the others he has started recently?

Fantasan, which countries with gun control have descended into tyranny as a direct result?

Do you have any historical evidence that gun registration has led to government abuse?

Do you have any historical evidence that gun registration has led to government abuse?

Example Of Gun Registration leading to Tyranny: Nazi Germany; Mandatory Gun registration allowed Hitler's goons to know which Jews had guns, and permitted them to confiscate them "for the people's own good" prior to shipping them off to concentration camps.

Example of Lack of Gun Ownership leading to Tyranny: Communist Russia. 30 Million poor farmers did not want Stalin's new Communist government to steal their land. However, they had no guns. Therefore, Stalin had Soldiers come and take all the farm crops at gunpoint, and left the farmers to starve to death.

Now I'd appreciate it if the radical "ban all guns" crowd could refrain from flaming.

I'll tell you all about the glory of guns. The people of Lykneer find song bird shooting a very fun past time. Song birds are noisy pests that wake up poor people trying to sleep. So because of our right for guns, nearly everyone in lykneer has them and uses them on song birds regularly. It's really good because now we have no more noisy song birds in Lykneer and so now we are trying to get rid of the butterflies in our country, those horrible distracting little creatures. If everyone was not given the right to have guns than no one would be able to shoot animals, and what a terrible place that would be!
Imagine in what a state of famine China if it wasn't for their "kill capitalist pig traitor Sparrow" campaign! Of course they didn't use guns, but guns are more effective than tiring sparrows out.

We in Gurthark have no wish to be forced to allow guns into our country. We are an entirely gun-free state, and have virtually no crime, "excellent" civil rights, and "superb" political freedoms (the latter two as determined by the United Nations). We would point out the the representative from Fantasan that, despite their guns, they cannot truthfully say any of these things.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Example Of Gun Registration leading to Tyranny: Nazi Germany; Mandatory Gun registration allowed Hitler's goons to know which Jews had guns, and permitted them to confiscate them "for the people's own good" prior to shipping them off to concentration camps.

Um, I wouldn't say that led to tyranny, and it's a thin arguement on aiding tyranny. I don't believe for a second that a lack of gun registration in Nazi Germany would have led to more Jews being spared the concentration camps. There were numerous armed freedom fighting groups in the Jewish ghettos and the Nazis limited their access to weapons by a very simple tactic: house to house sweeps and weapons confiscation. Registration or not, the Nazis would have done exactly what they did. And weapon ownership or not, the majority of Jews would have done exactly what they did: follow the orders of the government by showing up at a specified time and place with only a suitcase.

On the other hand, weapon registration has led to numerous murder, assault and robbery cases being solved, as well as help slow black market sales.



Example of Lack of Gun Ownership leading to Tyranny: Communist Russia. 30 Million poor farmers did not want Stalin's new Communist government to steal their land. However, they had no guns. Therefore, Stalin had Soldiers come and take all the farm crops at gunpoint, and left the farmers to starve to death.


You know, I really think you are unaware of the way the majority of the people react. If the United States government seized someone's farmland, that person is not likely to start shooting, even if he has an arsenal in the back. As long as the government does not break down, people are likely to trust it. This was the case in both Germany and Russia. You could have given the 30 million farmers guns (and are you suggesting that every person in the United States own a weapon?) and they would not have cohesed into an army that repelled the Soviets. They would have one by one given their land to the government.

I believe in gun ownership, but I don't believe something that has the potential to be dangerous should be left unregulated. The government is the people and only stays in power with the support, even if its out of fear, of the people. If the worry is tyranny, the answer is political activism, not deregulation of dangerous weapons.

Example Of Gun Registration leading to Tyranny: Nazi Germany; Mandatory Gun registration allowed Hitler's goons to know which Jews had guns, and permitted them to confiscate them "for the people's own good" prior to shipping them off to concentration camps.

Um, I wouldn't say that led to tyranny, and it's a thin arguement on aiding tyranny. I don't believe for a second that a lack of gun registration in Nazi Germany would have led to more Jews being spared the concentration camps. There were numerous armed freedom fighting groups in the Jewish ghettos and the Nazis limited their access to weapons by a very simple tactic: house to house sweeps and weapons confiscation. Registration or not, the Nazis would have done exactly what they did. And weapon ownership or not, the majority of Jews would have done exactly what they did: follow the orders of the government by showing up at a specified time and place with only a suitcase.

On the other hand, weapon registration has led to numerous murder, assault and robbery cases being solved, as well as help slow black market sales.



Example of Lack of Gun Ownership leading to Tyranny: Communist Russia. 30 Million poor farmers did not want Stalin's new Communist government to steal their land. However, they had no guns. Therefore, Stalin had Soldiers come and take all the farm crops at gunpoint, and left the farmers to starve to death.


You know, I really think you are unaware of the way the majority of the people react. If the United States government seized someone's farmland, that person is not likely to start shooting, even if he has an arsenal in the back. As long as the government does not break down, people are likely to trust it. This was the case in both Germany and Russia. You could have given the 30 million farmers guns (and are you suggesting that every person in the United States own a weapon?) and they would not have cohesed into an army that repelled the Soviets. They would have one by one given their land to the government.

I believe in gun ownership, but I don't believe something that has the potential to be dangerous should be left unregulated. The government is the people and only stays in power with the support, even if its out of fear, of the people. If the worry is tyranny, the answer is political activism, not deregulation of dangerous weapons.

There were numerous armed freedom fighting groups in the Jewish ghettos and the Nazis limited their access to weapons by a very simple tactic: house to house sweeps and weapons confiscation.

In actuality, the groups where always very small - but very effective in the sense that the ratio of survivors in those groups was much greater than in the overall Jewish population.

However, the big problem was not that Jews did not have guns, but that they didn't have a gun culture, i.e. where not mentally (culturally) prepared to resist. Go into a Texas town and try to put the locals into cattle-trains - you'll see what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, weapon registration has led to numerous murder, assault and robbery cases being solved, as well as help slow black market sales.

Can you actually prove that, or are you using "common sense" and "gut feelings"?

I really want to know what moron uses a registered weapon to commit a crime.

But, I don't believe the UN should be used in this way. If the people of a certain country want firearms, it is up to them to first speak up and do something about it. The UN is not some world government to be issuing domestic laws.

Allanea,

Actually, good point about the gun culture. I conceed that you are not very likely to do that to Texans. Still, does that make registration a bad idea? And would registration do harm should the government try to take guns from the Texans?

MacroHard,

Gut feeling, all the way, but I'm going to see if I can't dig up some real statistics. Thakns for pointing that out, as any arguement should have some hard evidence.

The government of this fief does not support this proposal.

"What kind of moron uses a registered gun to commit a crime?"

Answer: A moron. You'd be surprised how many of those there are out there. But good point about the evidence thing, and good man Danchan for seeing good criticism and responding positively.

The right to arms is something that should be put up to each individual nation. I am in agreement with the point brought up earlier that the UN is not a world goverenment creating legislation for the world. In reference to the post about the mandate of the UN, this would overstep its bounds. The UN should concern itself with universal problems, the right to arms is and should be localized within each nation. After all, who sufferes emotional trauma from not being allowed to own a gun?

Gun ownership should be a privilege due to the dangerous nature of guns. Guns were meant to be used to shoot at things. It is in their nature to bring about something's death. Thus a certain amount of responsibility is required and this responsibility should be assessed by each individual nation.

Description: A trained populace, knowledgeable about the function and use of firearms, being necessary for the survival of a truly free society, the right of citizens in UN member nations to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let it be hereby resolved that no UN member nation shall prohibit their citizens from owning firearms which are not fully automatic, nor prohibit their ownership of swords, knives, or other bladed weaponry. Let it further be resolved that State mandated Gun Registration is also prohibited, as this commonly leads to tyranny through government abuse of power.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who believes in their individual liberty and protecting citizens from state sponsored tyranny should support this.

Great idea, instead of letting a bunch of people rule over the nation with an iron fist, you let.... a bunch of people rule over the nation with an iron fist.

But I suppose it's better to have a bun of gun nuts abuse thier power rather than the government abuse thier power. :roll:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

But I suppose it's better to have a bun of gun nuts abuse thier power rather than the government abuse thier power. :roll:


Governments killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century.



The military and police force needs to possess them but no one else does.

Really? :roll:

Example Of Gun Registration leading to Tyranny: Nazi Germany; Mandatory Gun registration allowed Hitler's goons to know which Jews had guns, and permitted them to confiscate them "for the people's own good" prior to shipping them off to concentration camps.

Example of Lack of Gun Ownership leading to Tyranny: Communist Russia. 30 Million poor farmers did not want Stalin's new Communist government to steal their land. However, they had no guns. Therefore, Stalin had Soldiers come and take all the farm crops at gunpoint, and left the farmers to starve to death.

Oooh! wasn't Stalin mean? You forgot the best example though, in modern day Iraq the evil oppressive Americans are trying to take away the Iraqis God given right to keep and bear arms. Luckily the Iraqis are well armed and able to resist the imperialist aggression.


But I suppose it's better to have a bun of gun nuts abuse thier power rather than the government abuse thier power. :roll:


Governments killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century.

Of course they did. Now what did they use to kill people? I suspect that in many cases guns may have been involved. From this we can conclude that guns are bad and that no one should have them.

Allanea, why do you think "gun culture" is such a good thing? Surely it would be better if we solved our problems without shooting people?

Governments killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century.

I believe you miss the point. Tisonica is not saying governments have done a good thing or should be excused, but that it makes no difference who has the guns, people will still kill people. Governments may have killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century, but individual people have also killed many, many people in the 20th century. People die every day on the streets at the hands of their fellow man. One is not better than the other.

Oh, and Fantascan, with your statements about how people will not be able to maintain their freedom without arms... very Lockeian of you, but not practical. If people want to revolt, and are determined enough, they will do it guns or no.

Governments killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century.

I believe you miss the point. Tisonica is not saying governments have done a good thing or should be excused, but that it makes no difference who has the guns, people will still kill people. Governments may have killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century, but individual people have also killed many, many people in the 20th century. People die every day on the streets at the hands of their fellow man. One is not better than the other.

Pretty much dead on. And, essentially, a group of gun nuts taking over is a coup, so they would just end up being a government. The only thing replacing Tyranny with Tyranny does is get some new fresh inexperienced Tyrannical dictators.

...which countries with gun control have descended into tyranny as a direct result?
Cuba and the Soviet Union, for instance. For Lenin and Castro, disarmament of the workers was the first step toward totalitarianism.
It was, ironically, the failure of Soviet gun control that led to the downfall of the regime. The people of the Baltic republics had kept large numbers of guns hidden since WWII, which ultimately enabled Lithuania to defy Gorbachev. By 1990, using the Red Army against domestic enemies was not politically feasible, and Gorbechev was obliged to back down in view of the world, after which Soviet rule rapidly unravelled. Had Lithuanians not been armed, this confrontation would not have been possible.

Do you have any historical evidence that gun registration has led to government abuse?
Registration has led to confiscation in the U.K. and Australia. Registration is of very limited value in solving crimes, since guns are not usually left at a crime scene, are easy to dipose of, and (unlike an automobile) don't have license plates that can be read (or whose absence can be noted) by anyone nearby. Registration certainly hasn't diminished the black firearms market in the U.K., either.

I believe you miss the point. Tisonica is not saying governments have done a good thing or should be excused, but that it makes no difference who has the guns, people will still kill people. Governments may have killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century, but individual people have also killed many, many people in the 20th century. People die every day on the streets at the hands of their fellow man. One is not better than the other.

Pretty much dead on. And, essentially, a group of gun nuts taking over is a coup, so they would just end up being a government. The only thing replacing Tyranny with Tyranny does is get some new fresh inexperienced Tyrannical dictators.[/quote]

Two points:

1.1776 created a tyranny? Really?

2.Organised killers (governments) will (and did) kill more people than unorganised ones. How many people where killed by criminals in the 20th century?

This proposal is acceptable to us and I would probably vote for it if it reached the floor. However, I have a policy against approving any gun-related proposals, either pro-gun control or anti-gun control, in order to properly represent my region.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I believe you miss the point. Tisonica is not saying governments have done a good thing or should be excused, but that it makes no difference who has the guns, people will still kill people. Governments may have killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century, but individual people have also killed many, many people in the 20th century. People die every day on the streets at the hands of their fellow man. One is not better than the other.

Pretty much dead on. And, essentially, a group of gun nuts taking over is a coup, so they would just end up being a government. The only thing replacing Tyranny with Tyranny does is get some new fresh inexperienced Tyrannical dictators.

Two points:

1.1776 created a tyranny? Really?

One example does not prove your point, I can only think of two times in history a rebel overthrow did not end in tyranny, US revolutionary war, and the french rebellion. But you cannot deny the fact that majority of rebel overthrows end in another tyrannical government taking place.

2.Organised killers (governments) will (and did) kill more people than unorganised ones. How many people where killed by criminals in the 20th century?

Obviously you did not even read what I said, if the rebels took control and killed a bunch of people, it would be a government killing people. So it does not prove your point or even help your point to say that governments kill most of the people.

You cannot tell me you actually believe that we would be better off letting rebels take control whenever they felt like they wanted a new government. That did not work for Argentina at all, and Argentina was lucky enough not to get a crazy dictator in. I may also point out that most (if not all) of the communist revolutions that ever took place were done by armed rebellers.

I am not arguing in favor or strict gun control though, I am simply saying that this particular argument against gun control is completely invalid. Which should have not been to hard for people to see in the first place.

It's acceptable but not complete. It refuses military grade equipment. Fix it to the right to all arms and it would be complete.

There is no reason for the civilians of our nation to posses firearms. Our great armies and the police forces protect them. The only private citizens granted the use of firearms here are government-endorsed 3rd party security firms.

Do not force our nation to give the tools of death to our innocent peoples and we will not force you to take them away from your hick populous.

AND IF by some miraculous act of God this does pass you should know that Nevermoore's High Council will put so much bureaucratic red tape on gun ownership that no one without a team of lawyers could consider buying a gun!

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

It's acceptable but not complete. It refuses military grade equipment. Fix it to the right to all arms and it would be complete.

Why in the world does a regular citizen require a military grade firearm? Rationalize that first before making the statement.

One example does not prove your point, I can only think of two times in history a rebel overthrow did not end in tyranny, US revolutionary war, and the french rebellion.

Uh, actually, the French Rebellion degenerated into the Terror led by Robespierre in which people were afraid to do anything that the Jacobins were against for fear of getting their heads chopped off... maybe the guns didn't do it, but it was still tyranny, and it led to the rise of Napoleon as the emperor of France. Not that I'm disagreeing, I just dislike it when facts are incorrectly quoted. :D

Why in the world does a regular citizen require a military grade firearm? Rationalize that first before making the statement.

Since Big Tree Little Stick hasn't answered.

Ultimately in case the government has decided to either send you to the camps or is committing genocide; examples Indonesia 1965, USSR 1921 - 1953, Guatamala 1980s, Afghanistan 1980 to present, Nazi Germany 1941 - 1945. You would want to be on the same equipment level.

Secondly experience with such weapons is neccessary for militia systems, for example Switzerland.

Lastly for self defence, military grade equipment is the most useful and effective. It is one of the better options to use, since governments have spent millions on making sure they work.

One example does not prove your point, I can only think of two times in history a rebel overthrow did not end in tyranny, US revolutionary war, and the french rebellion.

Uh, actually, the French Rebellion degenerated into the Terror led by Robespierre in which people were afraid to do anything that the Jacobins were against for fear of getting their heads chopped off... maybe the guns didn't do it, but it was still tyranny, and it led to the rise of Napoleon as the emperor of France. Not that I'm disagreeing, I just dislike it when facts are incorrectly quoted. :D

Good point, I wasn't quite sure about that one. Ok, so it's only one example.

In response to Gurning's post, I will make it one at a time.

Ultimately in case the government has decided to either send you to the camps or is committing genocide; examples Indonesia 1965, USSR 1921 - 1953, Guatamala 1980s, Afghanistan 1980 to present, Nazi Germany 1941 - 1945. You would want to be on the same equipment level.

This is of course assuming that you distrust your government that much that you think they will force you into camps etc. A high powered hunting rifle, in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing is just as effective as an automatic weapon.

Secondly experience with such weapons is neccessary for militia systems, for example Switzerland.

Experience with a fully automatic military grade weapon is quite a different matter from owning one. Reserve forces in many nations will send their citizen soldiers on weekend drills to make sure that their training does not fall below par. Granted you may not be as good as the regular soldier who practices with it everyday, but if you, as a citizen, plan on practicing with it everyday, why not just join the military in the first place?

Lastly for self defence, military grade equipment is the most useful and effective. It is one of the better options to use, since governments have spent millions on making sure they work.

A well maintained handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle will do just fine in neutralizing a trespasser or fighting off a mugger; you don't need an automatic weapon.

Baron Porkonia
UN Member
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

--Edit for typos

You seem to have gone off topic a bit, its all about people owning guns. Tyranny is one of the advantages (or disadvantages) of owning guns. It is the U.N. responsibility to deal with tyrannical leaders. Crime is really the key part of citizens owning guns. Most likely if there were a tyrannical leader in power, the U.N. or a cocky superpower would intervene, and overthrow the government (i.e. Afghanistan and the Talebans). I think people should have the right to own and maintain firearms.

Lastly for self defence, military grade equipment is the most useful and effective. It is one of the better options to use, since governments have spent millions on making sure they work.
Yes, hand grenades, bazookas, mortars, main battle tanks, anti-aircraft guns and helicopter gunships are all effective in deterring would-be rapists and burglars, but really adequate personal security demands nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, or at least B-52 bombers, in order to deal with those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses.

I firmly believe that guns should definately not be outlawed among the people because it is the only right that protects the other rights. The first things dictators in rececnt history did before a complete takeover was to disarm his people (hitler).

Without really caring about what all these "bleeding heart liberals" care about, saying all these nasty things, after all, who wouldn't want the right to have a nice big bazooka in their back yard.

However our main concern would be that if the citizens were armed they might get some form of idea that they have a say in government, and with lots of weapons they could cause a problem for my beautiful army. Oppressing people who can fight back is not fun as proved by America not intervening in North Korea...

Its a shame, our government(all me of it) would love to have a lot more guns, but we feel that our people's might get ideas above their station and as such its more worthwhile for us to keep them down and armed with sticks so that when the next time to come along organ harvesting they don't complain or fight back

KK

Killerland has just epitomized the opposing sides argument by showing the reasons why the right to arms is necessary... :lol:

However, this government still hasn't changed its stance. The rationale that the opposing side uses about guns deterring tyranny may be all well and noble; meanwhile, however, the government has to pour funds into the police to deter the crime caused by said military grade weapons. What happens if a deranged person becomes disgruntled with his work place? Many instances have occurred where a hand gun or rifle (in the case of Columbine, assault rifles) were acquired and people were killed. Do the other ambassadors not agree that if the normal citizen could acquire an automatic rifle and high explosives just as easily as handgun that many more people would die in such cases?

As for the argument about tyranny, everyone seems to be ignoring Tisonica's point about how armed rebellions have generally failed to bring about democracy but instead have replaced a tyrannical government with another tyrannical government.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

The CFL-GM will support this resolution.

Gun ownership is a fundamental right, and to be perfectly realistic, a right which may be necessary in checking government when the law fails to do so. We sincerely believe in promoting nonviolence, but since less than 1 in 500 gun owners use their guns irresponsibly, we see no reason to use government coercion to take away the liberties of innocents.

I believe it is the right for every responsible citizen to own firearms. Any citizen convicted of acts of violence against others should be permanently banned from firearm ownership.

I also believe registering firearms does not threaten my rights in a free society. I would go further and require all guns to have on file a "ballistic fingerprint".

Any weapon found not registered or fingerprinted would be subject to destruction.

I personally own 8 hand guns and 4 long guns.

The rationale that the opposing side uses about guns deterring tyranny may be all well and noble; meanwhile, however, the government has to pour funds into the police to deter the crime caused by said military grade weapons.
Guns, even assault rifles, do not cause crime. Possession of assault rifles would increase the risk to bystanders of gang warfare, but would otherwise have no significant impact.

What happens if a deranged person becomes disgruntled with his work place? Many instances have occurred where a hand gun or rifle (in the case of Columbine, assault rifles) were acquired and people were killed.
It is not possible to remove all risks from life. Even if guns were banned, occasionally someone would still acquire one and use it in a random massacre; even if guns could actually all be eliminated, people would still die from falls, lightning strikes, etc. As it is, more people are killed by lightning strikes than by random killings by lunatics. There is some level of risk in life that we must simply accept. Note: No assault rifles were involved in Columbine, nor to our knowledge in any similar crime.

Do the other ambassadors not agree that if the normal citizen could acquire an automatic rifle and high explosives just as easily as handgun that many more people would die in such cases?
Unfortunately, as Mr. McVeigh demonstrated, getting high explosives can in fact be easier than getting a handgun, and there's very little anyone can do about it.

...everyone seems to be ignoring Tisonica's point about how armed rebellions have generally failed to bring about democracy but instead have replaced a tyrannical government with another tyrannical government.
Responding to Tisonica is rather like trying to talk to a parrot who has been listening to Soviet indoctrination tapes over and over for ten thousand hours.... the fact is, that armed mass rebellions are very rare in history, and they have usually failed. Most successful "revolts" have in reality been military coups, or carried on by a small part of the populace armed by an outside power, while the greater part of the people stood by helpless. Further, leaders of revolts have often taken care to disarm their former supporters as quickly as possible (e.g., Hideyoshi 1582, Lenin 1919, Castro, et al.)
There have, however, been at least three successful mass rebellions that we know of, that brought lasting liberty to their peoples: Switzerland, the Netherlands, and America.

Do you have any historical evidence that gun registration has led to government abuse?

Example Of Gun Registration leading to Tyranny: Nazi Germany; Mandatory Gun registration allowed Hitler's goons to know which Jews had guns, and permitted them to confiscate them "for the people's own good" prior to shipping them off to concentration camps.

A pretty line to deliver - seemingly heartfelt, but false. The prevailing attitude among the Jews in Nazi Germany, one especially preached by religious leaders at the time, was pacifism and compliance with the government. They Jews didn't resist, but that was voluntary in hopes of better treatment, not for lack of guns.

Quite frankly, you had us up to the part about not registering the weapons(even though you do not bar semi-automatics). These are implements of death, and ought to be regulated to some extent. As such, we will not support this resolution.

Now I'd appreciate it if the radical "ban all guns" crowd could refrain from flaming.

Your reputation precedes you, and you continue to validate it with your usual generalizing - who here has said anything about banning all guns? We've seen no flames here, just raw truth. We suppose that can hurt about as much, hmm?

Yes, hand grenades, bazookas, mortars, main battle tanks, anti-aircraft guns and helicopter gunships are all effective in deterring would-be rapists and burglars

Especially if they are also government forces or terrorists. You forgot suitcase nukes by the way.

Most likely if there were a tyrannical leader in power, the U.N. or a cocky superpower would intervene, and overthrow the government (i.e. Afghanistan and the Talebans).

In perfect world, yes. This world, No. Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example.

A high powered hunting rifle, in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing is just as effective as an automatic weapon.

Just as effective as but cannot replace an automatic weapon.

but if you, as a citizen, plan on practicing with it everyday, why not just join the military in the first place?

If you own handguns, shotguns and rifles why don't you join the police? Practice is essential with all firearms.

A well maintained handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle will do just fine in neutralizing a trespasser or fighting off a mugger

As is an automatic carbine.

What happens if a deranged person becomes disgruntled with his work place? Many instances have occurred where a hand gun or rifle (in the case of Columbine, assault rifles) were acquired and people were killed.

Criminals by defination break laws. If someone decides on pre-meditated murder they aren't going to worry about the law.

Columbine didn't have 'assualt rifles', it had 2 shotguns a rifle and semi automatic Tec 9. Pity all the people except the criminals inside the school were disarmed eh?