4 ms·
Actually, I believe that there is a better case for civilian ownership of tanks, ordinance, and heavy/automatic weaponry than there is for handguns. According t
by OtterCoder 9y ago
Actually, I believe that there is a better case for civilian ownership of tanks, ordinance, and heavy/automatic weaponry than there is for handguns. According to a study by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 86% of gun crimes involved a handgun, even though there are roughly equal numbers of rifles, handguns, and shotguns in the US.
Meanwhile, there's a tanker militia not far from where I live that practices regularly, and doesn't really bother anyone.
I'm fairly certain that there have been no tank related homicides in living memory, and the only two tank related crimes I can find news reports of involve a tank being taken from an army base for a joyride, and Killdozer, which injured no one (discounting the operator committing suicide), and was home-made anyways.
The thing about crime is that criminals instinctively want to hide what they're doing. Handguns are about a million times easier to hide than a rifle, or even a sawn-off shotgun. Having this bulky, visible weapon hanging off of your back is an automatic deterrent to crime.
- malloryerik 9y agoHaving all guns be part of a "well regulated militia" could indeed solve many problems in the US.
- matt-attack 9y agoIf we can prevent just one Tank Rampage [1] it would be worth it. [1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/lifestyle/people/sdut-tank-rampage-story-symbol-2015may16-htmlstory.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/lifestyle/people/sdut-ta...
- OtterCoder 9y ago... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. That's the first tank incident I referenced, and that wasn't a civilian tank in the first place.