Slashdot Mirror
Assault Weapons Ban
An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Let's see how long this takes to get modded into the toilet.
It's funny that the article mentions that this law bans "military-style" weapons, because "style" is mostly what this law is about.
From the Beeb article - "The move means that ordinary citizens will be allowed to keep heavy assault weapons in their homes."
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
Take a look at this page for some interesting info.
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/
--riney
Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.
The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.
The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...common-sense...
It seems strange that at a time when preventing terrorism is a priority that they would be willing to let weapons such as these enter circulation...
The Clinton ban did not ban "assault weapons," unless you use the term to mean "anything I want to call an assault weapon." It SPECIFICALLY does not ban "AK-47, Kalashnikov and Uzi rifles."
In the US, automatic weapons are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1935, and can be owned by any citizen who can pass the background checks, demonstrate the ability to store them securely and pay the licensing fees. And then pay the exorbinant prices a machinegun commands on today's market, and pay for a private range membership to fire it at, and pay for all that ammo you would use up.
In practical terms, the Clinton ban's main effect was to limit civilian handguns to 10-round magazines. And even then, preban magazines are still widely available for many models of handguns, and law enforcement officers can buy whatever they want.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was nothing more than a feel-good measure that had nothing to do with crime or safety. All it did manage to do was annoy and/or piss-off people who buy or own guns. No appreciable benefit to any constituency, and a big downside to a rather sizeable constituency. It is no wonder that most politicians don't want to touch this issue, and Bush knew full well that it would never end up on his desk. If you ignore the Democrats in "safe States" like California, who can soapbox on this issue all day without consequences, it is a "third-rail" issue everywhere else whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
The 1994 Congressional blood bath pretty much assures that gun control won't be touched again for a long time.
Yes, because rebellion against the US government has been so fscking effective.
Lets see:
Shay's Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
Fries's Rebellion
Nat Turner's Southampton Rebellion
John Brown's attack @ Harper's Ferry
Civil War
Waco
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs.
The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Semi-Automatic: One pull of the trigger, one round fired
Burst/Select Fire: One pull of the trigger fires 2-5 rounds, the MP5N and M16A2 IIRC uses a three round burst
Fully Automatic: One pull of the trigger fires the gun until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammo.
The article linked is incorrect that the AK-47 (and other fully automatic and select fire weapons ie M16, L85, M60, Uzi's, FNFAL, AK-74 and their chinese ripoffs , HK G36, G21, G11, and G53 series rifles, Glock 17 pistols) were banned as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban, it is actully banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act. To posses these weapons today, you must have a Class III Federal Firearms Licence, which includes a massive federal background check, and pay $150 tax per weapon.
The assualt weapons only covers weapons that look different than a traditional deer rifle, there is no functional difference between a AR-15 (semi auto version of the M16) and a Deer rifle you could buy at walmart, they fire the same ammo (.223 Remington Magnum), as fast as you can pull the trigger.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
The reasoning behind granting everyone the unrestricted right to keep and bare arms was that a well armed populace is harder to oppress then an unarmed populous. I.e. he government should not have an excessive advantage over the populous in the amount of force at its disposal.
Carrying this to its logical conclusion, citizens should be allowed to posses all the weapons the government is allowed to; if they cannot, there is no way a popular revolt could succeed. The government, with its tanks and other large weapons, could easily roll over any revolt by citizens.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison,
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."
No, you do not need an assault weapon for hunting. But you do need it for personal defense against an oppressive government. That is the justification for allowing them to be possessed.
Aside from that, how am I going to kick the ass of a foreign army, marauding zombies, or invading aliens if I don't have a handy, insanely large supply of firepower?
________
Magnus frater spectat te
Your post has NOTHING to do with the assault weapons ban. The guns banned as assault weapons are mostly LESS powerful than common hunting guns. In fact for many common hunting activities the guns banned are not powerful enough.
All this ban does is prohibit some cosmetic things. No bayonet mount on your gun for instance. How does a bayonet on a gun make it less acceptable in your eyes?
You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?
Why do you think we *have* the Second Amendment, crispyman?
It has nothing to do with sport weapons.
It is, very simply, to avoid oppressive regimes from ever dominating the citizenry by disarming them.
A gun that could only shoot non-humans would have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Gun rights were guaranteed specifically so that *people* could be shot as a last ditch resort.
I have no interest in ever owning a gun -- the benefits provided by the Second Amendment are present as long as enough citizenry own guns. However, I strongly support allowing citizenry access to assault weapons.
Note that guns simply guarantee Hobbsian "rough equality" between people and soldiers -- if soldiers have assault rifles, people also need assault rifles. I do *not* support allowing people to have weapons that allow massive amplification of killing power above that of a soldier as long as they strike first -- like bombs and the like. Assault weapons? Sure, I'd say that it's pretty much essential to allow people to have assault weapons.
Take a look at Switzerland -- they have almost no limitations on the weapons civilians can have. You want a howitzer, you can have one. And if you're a male and above a certain age, you *must* own a rifle -- you're considered part of the militia. As a result (even aside from the fact that Switzerland has never been invaded) Switzerland has a low gun crime rate, much lower than the United States. It's hard to glamorize a tool that everyone has (e.g. you could stick someone in the eye with a pen, but everyone has a pen and it isn't very exciting). Furthermore, it's a dissusasive factor to someone who might consider committing a crime if most people are walking around with weapons. Sure, maybe you can pull out your gun and hold up a bank, but you're nothing special -- it'd be like doing so with a knife when everyone else has knives. Or with your bare hands when everyone else has bare hands -- you're going to be hurt by similarly-armed people.
I could *maybe* even see gun laws banning handguns. But never assault rifles. Assault weapons are the core of the Second Amendment.
May we never see th
The law banned manufacture of large capacity magazines, except for sale to police. So in many towns, police traded in their old guns and large mags for new, and their old large mags went into the secondary market. Go to a gun store and ask to see the selection of large mags, if you don't believe me. There's a glut.
The whole thing was about appearances, and giving people the warn fuzzies. Did you know the law banned bayonet lugs on the muzzle? Sure, I'm real concerned about being STABBED when someone's pointing a gun at me.
Ever felt threatened by a folding stock? Banned.
Anything that looks like a milspec gun? Banned.
The EXACT SAME barrel, ammo, receiver, trigger action, etc? Not banned.
The latest Slashdot meme.
1. The thing to remember with Columbine is none of the guns used were legally obtained by the kids using them.
2. None of the guns on the ban are fully automatic guns. Those have been illegal since the 1940's.
3. So what if some one shoots a bunch of people with a gun that looks like a hunting rifle or a military style rifle. The results are still the same.
Kill the criminals and stop attacking the guns.
The AWB does not ban these - they are covered under an earlier law which does not expire (they can still be owned under certain onerous conditions).
The AWB, despite its name, actually covers semi-automatic rifles which resemble to certain assault rifles. Semis fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, in the same way that a policeman's pistol or a cowboy's revolver does. They are not assault weapons since they cannot be fired in automatic mode. The AWB lists guns resembling certain assault weapons, or which have more than a certain number of specific features, such as a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a flash hider, or a telescoping stock.
The AWB bans semi-automatic rifles which look scary, ignoring the fact that the average deer rifle is far more powerful and has better range.
I own an AR15 which I use in CMP target matches. While this rifle fires essentially the same round as our soldiers are using in Iraq, in many places I could not even use it to hunt deer legally, since its too feeble a round. Something like this packs a much bigger punch. Of course, there is no talk of banning this rifle, since it does not look scary.
A good analogy to the AWB would be if the legislature decided to attack dangerous driving by banning fuzzy dice and chrome exhausts. It might make some people feel better, but actually attacks the wrong target. (The right target is the criminal, not the gun.)
The (so-called) "Assault Weapons Ban" is a very silly law which did not ban Assault Weapons, or detectably reduce crime. I'm glad its dying. I'm not going out to buy any of the 'scary features' for my rifle - it's fine as it is. But I will like having the ability to do so if I wanted - that's what freedom is all about.
This has been a very ill-conceived and widely misunderstood law, and I will be glad to see it go.
The affected weapons are mostly ones that outwardly resemble military firearms, while having nowhere near the firepower. Rather than firing bursts of ammunition like their fully-automatic counterparts, the so-called assault rifles fire one shot at a time, with less powerful ammunition than a hunting rifle. Pistols affected by this law generally had outward designs similar to fully-automatic submachine guns, but had only the same caliber and rate of fire as an ordinary handgun - with much bulkier size and weight.
A criminal would be an idiot to choose a firearm from the affected class of firearms. They would use an ordinary handgun, or if they really sought something more powerful as defenders of the legislation claim, they would smuggle in some firearms that actually WERE military grade instead of just superficially looking like it.
In practice, the only people affected by the law have been legitimate gun collectors, who disagree with the law but struggle to comply with it. What shape grips constitute a "conspicuous pistol grip"? When the law requires a barrel attachment to be "permanently affixed", do you weld it, super-glue it on, pin it, use lock-tight? Interpret the subjective phrases differently than someone at the ATF, and you become a felon.
The other major provision was a limitation on ammunition magazines ("clips") to 10 rounds. Much like 640k of memory, this might seem to be enough for anybody. But, given that those who are most in the know about defending oneself in life and death situations (police, military, federal agents, etc.) generally carry larger magazines than this themselves, even with superior training to worry less about missing their target, perhaps there is something to be said for having a couple extra rounds just in case.
The other flaw with the 10 round limit is that it was based on the arbitrary assumption that no civilian would ever need more than this to protect themself, but provided no guarantee to back this up. Why did the law not include language guaranteeing that before any civilian had fired the 10th shot in a life-and-death situation, police would had arrived on the scene and taken their attacker into custody?
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
.30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important ...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler
Creative Demolition
"The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer?"
;), who needs an Anything?
;)
Not to pick on you in particular (except, well, that I am picking on you in particular
The idea that things not specifically "needed" (as determined by whom?) are suspect or should need to be justified for some reason has implications that I don't like, most especially when applied blithely to weapons (potentially, at least) of self defense.
Who needs plastic bags for groceries? After all, (conventional) plastics rely on petroleum, and contribute to the dissipation of natural resources. [Ignore the considerations of price, convenience, shipping convenience, reusability, etc, that might lead a person or a business to prefer them.]
Who needs more than one child? The world has enough people, and any more mouths to feed are a net loss. If you want more, too bad, others have decided you don't need any. (Forced abortions in the western provinces of China.)
Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? It's unhealthy to overeat, and people who overeat (and then develop health problems) are a burden and drain on society.
Who needs more than 10 shirts? Can't those people just wash more often? They're depleting resources and spending their money inefficiently, and hurting all of us.
Who needs sharp knives? They're dangerous in the hands of lunatics.
Who needs a computer that is powerful enough to play a significant role in designing nuclear weapons?
I wish these questions were more rhetorical, but obviously some of them are not! And of course, who needs a Xerox machine? (Illegal to have such a thing during most of the history of the Soviet Union.)
Another snide but serious answer to "Who needs a gun designed to kill people?" is, "Well, the Swiss seem to think that they do, and they don't get invaded very often." Also, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, when they were being rounded up for extermination camps and -- bravely but ultimately unsuccessfully -- fought back with what weapons they *did* have. I don't mean to activate Godwin's Law here, I hope I've stayed just shy of it
To further tread that line; the question is not whether governments ever grow tyrannical and oppress the people they're supposed to be serving (at least when they make the gesture of claiming to be a servant in the first place), it's how often, to what degree, and under what circumstances. The Third Reich is only one of many such in the last 100 years. Stalin and others killed either more in absolute numbers or as a percentage of their country's / dominion's population.
Cheers (uh, if that is the right closing note),
Tim
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
"You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period."
And how would that citizen having an assault weapon affect his decision?
Is it easier for an American soldier to fire at an unarmed (and disobedient) civilian, than at an armed (and disobedient) civilian.
Well, I've got an "assault rifle". It has two 30-round clips jungle-clipped together sticking out the bottom. Ever hear of a hurricane? How about looters? That's one reason to own such a weapon. The other, of course, would be to prevent tyranny by the government (whose soldiers are quite well armed with similar but even faster-cycling weapons). The assault weapons ban was a dumb-ass law anyway. They banned guns based on how they look, not how they function. As an example, I have an AK that was imported from a former soviet bloc country. The factory that exported it just left the muzzle brake off. The US company that imported it swapped out some pins, screws, other small parts, and changed the pistol grip. Perfectly legal, now it's a "US made" gun under the law. The only thing the "assault weapons" ban ever did was drive up the price for "pre-ban" guns with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Now collectors pay more, but nothing else ever came of it. Stupid laws should be repealed.
Look buddy,
It's people like you that make everyone else who is literate on the planet look bad. I hate to break this to you, but the soldiers you talk about....they're your friends and family ass hole. If you seriously think average Americans, most of which just joined the military for college money, are just going to suddenly turn on everyone they know and support a stalanistic lifestyle because some idiot who knows how to kiss babies told them to, then you need to check yourself into a psych ward.
The situation that existed when the second amendment was written was during a colonial period where your "government" was a monarchy that was 4000 miles away. If you seriously beleive that anyone is capable of reverting America back to a monarchy or dictatorship, once again, seek professional help.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
First point: the 1994 "ban" didn't do anything. Since there's no "core technical difference" between a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like this Remington:
http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400w d.htm
and this "AR Pattern" rifle available in one of the *weaker* calibers Remington supports on the 7400 (the 308 Nato):
http://armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10b.htm
The Remington is pictured with a 5rd magazine but 10rd that poke out of the bottom of the gun are available now and with the ban on 10+ magazines gone, they'll be available there soon.
Both guns are semi-auto, magazine fed. After midnight tonight, it will be possible to sell either with such accessories as bayonette lugs, flash dohickey on the end of the barrel, etc...none of which affect lethality.
Because the guns that "look scary" aren't technically different from those that look more "sporting" like that Remington (one of many examples I could show), back in '94 Congress banned certain "evil features" that were purely cosmetic, in an attempt to home in on the "evil looking guns" and leave the deer rifles alone.
Which made the law arbitrary and stupid, and is what's really causing it's death tonight.
Which leaves two questions:
1) Why would anybody want a "military pattern rifle" in the first place?
A: first, parts are widespread and cheap. They usually share at least some components and accessories with the full-auto military versions which are banned; as long as the parts in question don't add full-auto capability, they're legal.
Second, when rifles are engineered to be able to handle full-auto stresses and battlefield conditions via rigorous testing, they're tough as nails. Once the full-auto capability is stripped for the civilian market, they're even tougher as they don't need to cope with that. (Full-auto fire can wear out a barrel in just a few hundred shots in some cases, which is why real military machine gunners keep extra barrels with them for quick swaps.)
Why have a tough gun?
Because competitive shooters must practice a lot - practice levels beyond what hunting rifles can cope with. The vast majority of full-power rifle competition happens not with deer rifles or even high-accuracy target rifles, but with AR-pattern critters distantly related to the US military M16 family, hot-rodded for accuracy.
The Remington probably has a total lifespan of a couple thousand rounds. Less in the hotter calibers like 30-06 or 270Winchester.
AR-pattern rifle owners can sign up for a three-day class in riflework by nationally known instructors such as John Farnham, and shoot 1500 rounds in a three day weekend...and the gun will *probably* hold up. He has loaner spares just in case they don't, as that's one hell of a duty cycle...one that no "pure civilian origin" rifle could even hope to survive.
-----------
Which leaves the other, more controversial issue: the full-capacity magazines of 20 to 30 rounds, or the truly high-cap mags like the Beta-C drums of 75 - 150.
Who needs that?
Slashdotters of all people should know a critical thing: the majority isn't always right. If you thought otherwise, why don't we format all our Linux partitions and run Windoze? I mean, the market has spoken, right?
Spoken in favor of rank idiocy. "The market" is made up of the same technoturnips that try and find the "any key" when the screen says "press any key to continue".
That particular kind of idiocy is harmless. But every once in a while, the sheeple masses get violently stupid all at once. They riot in LA because of a court decision, or a bunch of morons decide to loot after a hurricane or other natural disaster.
Those are recent examples; in both, homeowners and business owners often sto
The answer to that depends on who you are, obviously. Barring all of the Anti/Pro-Gun rhetoric, break it down to history.
If you're a regular Joe Citizen, arming everyone is in your best interests. For every asshat who goes postal, there'll be thousands who are JUST as armed and capable of stopping him.
If you're George Government (name chosen for the King of England, before anyone starts in on that) then it's in your best interests to only allow those YOU control(i.e. the military) to have weapons.
There will never be a time when NO ONE has weapons. Human nature centers around conflict. Even if the entire country, police, military and all, are disarmed, external forces will be armed. If they don't attack an obviously helpless target, then they will certainly find ways of making those arms available to the criminals within the disarmed societies, and you're back to the same lose-lose situation.