Gun Ownership Rights

[The Leaper]

Big case up before the Supreme Court today on gun rights. I'm interested in hearing where people stand.

One interesting note from the case...the girl from Virginia Tech who was nearly killed in the tragedy there is the one opposing gun rights. However, in the CNN bit last night about the case, she was never questioned why she believes banning guns is a solution...when guns WERE banned on the campus of Virginia Tech, and by most accounts that ban was a large reason why the massacre was as sizeable as it was. By the time law enforcement WITH guns were able to adequately combat a law breaker looking to kill the innocent, 32 had died.

"No one here is trying to fight against your right to have a gun," she said in a soft voice. "What we want is for dangerous people not to get access to one, and today it is just too easy. We cannot keep sacrificing innocent people because you have a fear that you're not going to have your right to own a gun."

The bottom line is that criminals don't care about laws...and will have guns regardless. Believing that a law preventing gun ownership will stop dangerous people from having guns is foolishly naive. Dangerous people are dangerous because they have no respect for the law.

Personally, I'm in favor of strict regulations on gun ownership...including background checks and mandatory training on how to use a firearm properly. I'm also in favor of restricting powerful weapons...I see no need for individuals to have automatic weapons.

However, the DC law restricting the ownership of all handguns is stupidity IMO.

[hoosier]

One interesting note from the case...the girl from Virginia Tech who was nearly killed in the tragedy there is the one opposing gun rights. However, in the CNN bit last night about the case, she was never questioned why she believes banning guns is a solution...when guns WERE banned on the campus of Virginia Tech, and by most accounts that ban was a large reason why the massacre was as sizeable as it was. By the time law enforcement WITH guns were able to adequately combat a law breaker looking to kill the innocent, 32 had died.

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

Two thoughts: First, free access to guns on campus is never going to be allowed by most universities, not in a thousand years (at least outside of Texas). Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

[hoosier]

The bottom line is that criminals don't care about laws...and will have guns regardless. Believing that a law preventing gun ownership will stop dangerous people from having guns is foolishly naive. Dangerous people are dangerous because they have no respect for the law.

Personally, I'm in favor of strict regulations on gun ownership...including background checks and mandatory training on how to use a firearm properly. I'm also in favor of restricting powerful weapons...I see no need for individuals to have automatic weapons.

However, the DC law restricting the ownership of all handguns is stupidity IMO.

DC law doesn't prevent gun ownership, it restricts it--you can't own a handgun or carry a concealed weapon. That still leaves rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of home, while making it more difficult to carry a concealed weapon on the street. That was DC's attempt to reach a compromise between public good and individual liberties. What's interesting to me is that the Right, which is ordinarily all about states' rights, here decides that the Federal gov should step in to overturn local legislation--the Republicans have been doing that to DC for years, and in many other areas that have nothing to do with gun control.

[The Leaper]

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

At Virginia Tech, I'm not talking about students packing heat. I'm talking about the college security detail...which also could not carry weapons because of the ban.

32 people DIED because 10-15 minutes had to go by before actual law enforcement individuals with the firepower to stop an armed madman arrived.

That is inexcusable. The reason places of education are where these massacres take place is because the crazies doing the shooting KNOW they will face the least amount of resistance there.

[Zool]

Maybe its time to ramp down production of handguns? Does anyone really need a Desert Eagle or a .50cal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqOeDW5wu_E

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

[The Leaper]

That still leaves rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of home

Rifles and Shotguns can only be owned if they are maintained in a condition where it is impossible to use them in self defense...meaning dismantled and/or locked by safety devices.

In terms of home defense, if an intruder invades your home, you don't have time to sit there and assemble your rifle or fumble with a trigger lock to protect yourself.

There is no reason to make handguns illegal...providing strict regulations are placed on who can own and register them and that proper training is mandated. Do you really think criminals in DC really aren't packing heat anymore because of this law? Only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are impacted by this kind of a law.

[The Leaper]

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

Any gun is designed with 1 purpose.

It is pretty difficult to kill 32 people with a single shot handgun Zool. Even Dirty Harry would have to spend a good amount of time on that one.

It is pretty easy to kill 32 people with an automatic weapon. Those are the weapons that have no logical bearing on society. Why does anyone need an automatic weapon to protect their family?

[Partial]

I think Chris Rock had it right when he said:

Don't go to parties with metal detectors
Sure it feels safe inside; but what about
all those niggaz waitin outside with guns?
They know you ain't got one..

Same principal applies to most situations. Regardless of the presence of metal detectors.

[The Leaper]

Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

Perhaps.

However, there is also no real evidence you can point to that not allowing concealed carry will reduce gun violence or protect innocent citizens.

The availability of handguns is not the issue. While DC bans handguns, guns are readily available in either Virginia or Maryland...a mere stones throw away. Yet the suburban areas of DC in Virginia and Maryland do not face the same rate of gun crime that DC has...DESPITE the easier access to weapons.

The issue is having people not respect the law...mostly due to economic conditions where young people see crime as a better way to escape poverty than being a law abiding citizen. It has very little to do with access to guns. Criminals will find access to guns...regardless of how long it takes.

[Partial]

I have read countless studies that crime goes down big time when concealed weapons are allowed. I would think this would be the case, though I don't exactly have the "criminal" mindset.

IMO, most people don't commit crimes out of necessity but out of greed. In that case, I would certainly hope that they'd be smart enough to realize it's not worth getting blasted away over.

[hoosier]

I have no idea what kind of restrictions were in place against guns or handguns at Virginia Tech, but I'm assuming guns weren't allowed at all. If that was the case, are you really suggesting that if a ban hadn't been in place, this kind of massacre could have been prevented? How? Would students show up at class packing heat?

At Virginia Tech, I'm not talking about students packing heat. I'm talking about the college security detail...which also could not carry weapons because of the ban.

32 people DIED because 10-15 minutes had to go by before actual law enforcement individuals with the firepower to stop an armed madman arrived.

That is inexcusable. The reason places of education are where these massacres take place is because the crazies doing the shooting KNOW they will face the least amount of resistance there.

Yeah, clearly the rent-a-cops should be armed. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

[Zool]

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

Any gun is designed with 1 purpose.

It is pretty difficult to kill 32 people with a single shot handgun Zool. Even Dirty Harry would have to spend a good amount of time on that one.

It is pretty easy to kill 32 people with an automatic weapon. Those are the weapons that have no logical bearing on society. Why does anyone need an automatic weapon to protect their family?

So we should only protect people in groups? If people are by themselves without a pistol of their own, fuck em. They get what they get.

All guns are designed to put holes in meaty substances, but pistols are designed to do it discreetly.

Shit, I gotta go. The Redcoats are coming and my right to bear arms is still coming in handy 230 years later.

[hoosier]

Second, the idea that allowing civilians to carry concealed weapons is going to reduce gun violence is, IMO, absolutely absurd and not supported by any study that I'm aware of.

Perhaps.

However, there is also no real evidence you can point to that not allowing concealed carry will reduce gun violence or protect innocent citizens.

The availability of handguns is not the issue. While DC bans handguns, guns are readily available in either Virginia or Maryland...a mere stones throw away. Yet the suburban areas of DC in Virginia and Maryland do not face the same rate of gun crime that DC has...DESPITE the easier access to weapons.

The issue is having people not respect the law...mostly due to economic conditions where young people see crime as a better way to escape poverty than being a law abiding citizen. It has very little to do with access to guns. Criminals will find access to guns...regardless of how long it takes.

I agree completely with your assessment of the social and economic context in which gun violence happens. And I also agree that it's hard to find objective evidence to form an argument for or against gun restriction--hard, but maybe not impossible. When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence. Gun-related violence went up again in the 1980's due to crack--but it might well have been much worse if there hadn't been a ban. NYC, which banned handguns in the early 20th century, ranked among the lowest in gun related deaths for most of the past century. These two examples aren't conclusive proof that handgun bans work, but I think they suggest that handgun bans in urban areas are promising and should be tested further.

[The Leaper]

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

[3irty1]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.

[Harlan Huckleby]

guns don't kill people, it's the bullets

[Partial]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.

I agree. In addition to this, imagine how many lives could have been saved if just one of those students had a weapon on them.

If everyone can have a gun, they become much less of a threat imo.

Are you anywhere near blacksburg?

[3irty1]

I think the Tech situation has more to do with the confusion. You can blame the campus for handling it poorly but that's just not something a college should have to worry about. Wasn't it like 20 minutes before anyone even knew what was going on? I don't know that it would have made much difference having armed people on campus.

Still I feel that it is already illegal to do illegal to commit violent crimes with guns... what good does it do to make owning guns illegal? So criminals have to break two laws instead of just one?

I don't want to see any more gun control laws. Try enforcing the ones we already have instead. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything except slowly taking away people's rights. People seem to be stuck in an anti-gun mentality but guns are not a bad thing. They are not just for criminals and they are not just for wackos who go to weekly militia meetings.

I agree. In addition to this, imagine how many lives could have been saved if just one of those students had a weapon on them.

If everyone can have a gun, they become much less of a threat imo.

Are you anywhere near blacksburg?

I'm like 2 hours East. Most of the other engineers I work with went to Tech.

[hoosier]

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

[3irty1]

When DC passed its handgun ban in 1976 it did experience a 25% decline in gun-related violence (but not other violent crimes), which suggests that the ban did have a positive effect on reducing violence.

Which is why I'm absolutely in favor of firm restrictions on who can own and register a handgun. In essence, what those bans did was make it harder for criminals to access guns...which is why you saw a brief decline in crime, then eventually saw it rise back up again as criminals ADJUSTED. Did this really protect innocent civilians long term? I don't think so. It took guns away from them LONG term...while it only took guns away from criminals SHORT term.

There are just as many studys and examples where INCREASING the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry guns also curtailed violence and crime in a community. The thugs aren't entirely stupid...they will target those they know don't have the ability to defend themselves.

I'm all in favor of making it damn near impossible for someone with a criminal record or history of mental illness to own a gun. I also find the need to possess automatic weapons illogical and a danger to society when they fall into the hands of those who wish to kill dozens of innocent people.

However, I do not believe that taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens looking to have a way to defend themselves and their family against those who will disregard the law at all costs is part of the answer to reducing violence.

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

[swede]

Your plan to limit handgun ownership to "law abiding citizens" sounds great, but there's one problem: according to a 1992 Dept of Justice report, two-thirds of people arrested for using guns in violent crimes had no prior felony convictions--in other words, they would be legally able to own a handgun under your system.

Yes, until they actually became a felon.

[hoosier]

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

[The Leaper]

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

So, if handguns and concealed carry laws are bad and produce more crime and worse crime, then why are most of the states that have the lowest percentage of gun crimes in the nation ones which tend toward offering more gun rights to their citizens?

Certainly, there is no dismissing that handguns are the primary weapon used in gun violence. My point is simply that creating a law that only good citizens will abide by will do nothing to deter criminals from possessing handguns. The goal should be to reduce the number of handguns available on the secondary street market, which is where the vast majority of guns are purchased that are used in crimes. A greater emphasis by the society at large, as well as the black community in particular, needs to be made toward the fact that 50% of gun crime and victims relate to the black community, which is less than 15% of the population. Gun rights have nothing to do with that discrepancy.

[hoosier]

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

So, if handguns and concealed carry laws are bad and produce more crime and worse crime, then why are most of the states that have the lowest percentage of gun crimes in the nation ones which tend toward offering more gun rights to their citizens?

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

[Partial]

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

I disagree with that. If the person being robbed has a gun or if the robber thinks he has a gun, he might think twice. Also, if this robber is going around causing mayhem, maybe he deserves to get shot.

I think if anything it makes the world safer. Criminals are going to have guns regardless.

[The Leaper]

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

[Zool]

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

Rappers aren't citizens?

[3irty1]

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

Well I'll agree that committing a crime using a gun makes the crime worse... what kind of point is that?

I'm saying that it is unfair to treat anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun and is legally able as if they were all going to one of the first time offenders who commit 2/3 of gun crimes. At least not on a national level.

[hoosier]

I think you answered your own question in your earlier post. Gun violence tends to be most common in urban areas that have concentrated pockets of poverty and desparation. If that's true, it also follows that rural areas (where gun laws tend to be less popular) also happen to see less gun related crime--not necessarily because the criminals know law abiding citizens are packing but because there's less concentrated poverty and therefore less violent crime in general.

Exactly.

In other words...legislating gun rights will have no real impact on gun violence if the social conditions causing the gun violence remain. The only REAL way to solve the issue of gun violence is to address the conditions in society that contribute to it.

I'm not seeing how laws restricting handguns do anything in this regard. Where are the efforts to combat the glorification of guns and violence in rap music and pop culture? Instead, we make a law to take rights away from citizens...which I think is a dangerous precident.

I agree that gun bans alone aren't the answer, and I'm sympathetic to a degree with your position against viewing legislation and government as cures for social problems. But while addressing the societal causes instead of the effects is necessary, it's also a long-term strategy that isn't going to bear fruit immediately, assuming we could ever agree on what the root of the problem is. What happens in the mean time? I don't think it's clear cut that restrictions and bans have no real effect. In fact, I think the evidence we do have suggests the contrary.

[hoosier]

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

Well I'll agree that committing a crime using a gun makes the crime worse... what kind of point is that?

I'm saying that it is unfair to treat anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun and is legally able as if they were all going to one of the first time offenders who commit 2/3 of gun crimes. At least not on a national level.

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns. The issue was whether the constitution allows a single locality (aka the crime capital of the US) to ban handguns.

You think it's "unfair" that the law labels all handgun owners as potential criminals, but that's really not the point. The law has to weigh individual liberty against collective good. The rationale for the handgun ban is that individual liberty (the right to own guns) is in this case outweighed by the public good (the right to be free from gun violence). If gun violence in DC weren't so ubiquitous (like in much of the rest of the country), individual rights might well outweigh the concern for public safety.

[BallHawk]

How often are people robbed in their home and saved by a gun?

How often is a person and/or their family killed by their own gun?

FYI, it's more numerous in the latter.

[The Leaper]

How often are people robbed in their home and saved by a gun?

How often is a person and/or their family killed by their own gun?

FYI, it's more numerous in the latter.

We have no idea how often guns might prevent a home from a violent attack. How many times has a criminal decided to not rob a specific home because they KNOW a gun is present? There is no statistic that tracks that...but it is a very real deterrent in some cases.

Sure, people are harmed by their own guns in suicides/accidents all the time. So we should legislate away the right of anyone to own a handgun because of the stupidity/ignorance of a few?

With that logic, you better be campaigning hard to ban alcohol consumption.

[3irty1]

It looks like its not going to happen.

[Partial]

In my opinion, everyone man women and child should have a gun. OK, maybe not women or children. Women because my sexist jokes would then be too risky and children for the obvious reasons.

But for realsies, i bet my risk of getting mugged shrinks massively if I can legally be packing heat and said mugger has no idea if I do or don't have a gun.

I don't think I could ever shoot a person unless the situation was truly dire, but it certainly would make me feel much safer.

[MJZiggy]

How often are people robbed in their home and saved by a gun?

How often is a person and/or their family killed by their own gun?

FYI, it's more numerous in the latter.

We have no idea how often guns might prevent a home from a violent attack. How many times has a criminal decided to not rob a specific home because they KNOW a gun is present? There is no statistic that tracks that...but it is a very real deterrent in some cases.

Sure, people are harmed by their own guns in suicides/accidents all the time. So we should legislate away the right of anyone to own a handgun because of the stupidity/ignorance of a few?

With that logic, you better be campaigning hard to ban alcohol consumption.

Actually you do have an idea of how often guns might prevent a home from violent attack. You look at the number of attempted home invasions (every police dept. keeps records of these--and by the way, last I read about this, they're pretty damn rare compared to the population at large) then look at the number of criminals who get shot trying to invade the home (rarer still). My question to you is, how does the crackhead know before he busts your door down whether you have a gun inside or not? It is a FAR bigger deterrent to robbery and home invasion to have a dog, it barks and lets criminals know it's there. And the criminal isn't gonna shoot the dog because then the whole neighborhood calls the cops and there's no way he gets out of there without getting busted--and no one can accidentally be shot by the dog (unless you feed him too many table scraps but that's a different discussion).

And to the legalize it/don't legalize it debate, Florida many years ago, made it legal to carry and gun violence went down. England never allowed them in the first place and they don't have gun violence at all. Choose your poison.

[3irty1]

And what fraction of legal gun owners commit violent crimes with a gun?

I don't think that really matters. The argument against handguns isn't that gun owners are likely or unlikely to commit crimes, it's that handguns are guaranteed to make any crime committed much worse.

Well I'll agree that committing a crime using a gun makes the crime worse... what kind of point is that?

I'm saying that it is unfair to treat anyone who owns a gun or wants to own a gun and is legally able as if they were all going to one of the first time offenders who commit 2/3 of gun crimes. At least not on a national level.

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns. The issue was whether the constitution allows a single locality (aka the crime capital of the US) to ban handguns.

You think it's "unfair" that the law labels all handgun owners as potential criminals, but that's really not the point. The law has to weigh individual liberty against collective good. The rationale for the handgun ban is that individual liberty (the right to own guns) is in this case outweighed by the public good (the right to be free from gun violence). If gun violence in DC weren't so ubiquitous (like in much of the rest of the country), individual rights might well outweigh the concern for public safety.

Lets not forget that these are the same people who a few years ago were wearing bulletproof vests to pump gas. I'm glad the supreme court didn't tell them how much/what kind of protection was ok. What is enough for me or you might not let some in DC sleep at night.

[The Leaper]

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns.

Not yet.

You give them an opening, and the anti-gun crowd won't pass it up. That is basically my entire argument. Allow the government to start infringing on individual rights at your own risk.

[Zool]

So if everyone carries a gun, doesn't the risk of getting shot go up not down? Its simple math really.

More guns+stupid people=more people getting shot

You cant police stupid. How I wish it was possible. Some sort of yearly common sense quiz, and those deemed unfit for the gene pool are neutered or spayed.

[The Leaper]

So if everyone carries a gun, doesn't the risk of getting shot go up not down? Its simple math really.

Not really.

The US and USSR each continually upped their number of nukes...it didn't mean the chances of them being shot off was going up.

Ask the people at Virginia Tech what their chances were in front of a gunman when they had no weapons of their own.

Criminals are going to have guns regardless...they don't care about laws or the innocent. Making laws that illegalize guns only penalizes the law abiding. I favor tighter restrictions on all weapons, but not making ownership of them illegal altogether.

[pacfan]

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns.

Not yet.

You give them an opening, and the anti-gun crowd won't pass it up. That is basically my entire argument. Allow the government to start infringing on individual rights at your own risk.

BINGO!!! This is what makes me nervous about the whole issue. Its not like the gov't ever needs a reason to interfere in your life, but when the "collective good" is invoked all sorts of shit can be changed, for the common good.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am a huge fan of guns, but I have no use for a hand gun. I believe they cause more grief than protection. I have even less need for the tactical assault weapons and military rifles that they sell at Gander Mountain and all other arm dealerships. It would be cool to own, to go shoot up some targets out at the farm but, I still have no need for one and I can't see any other private citizens having a need for such weapon. Sure neat to have, but where is the need? Again more grief than protection.

I am for all gun rights at this point regardless of my feelings on the topic above. The reason is, the commonly used phrase, "Slippery Slope". Once certain rights are taken away, then more of your gun rights start to disappear to where you can't even have a Browning A-bolt to go hunting with.

[Tarlam!]

I am glad I don't have a gun. I know I would have shot my ex-wife.

Maybe it's different if you grow up with guns (like money), but I would not be prepared to take responsibility for a gun these days.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am glad I don't have a gun. I know I would have shot my ex-wife.

Maybe it's different if you grow up with guns (like money), but I would not be prepared to take responsibility for a gun these days.

I wish more people where like you. Some think that they have a right to bear arms that it means that they need a gun. Don't bother with being a responsible gun owner, or learning how to be one, they just rush out and buy one because their neighbor's car got broken into.

Funny how you just have to wait 7 days for a hand gun approval, but you have to take a hunters safety course which is quite long to be able to go into the woods with a loaded weapon.

[3irty1]

Nobody's talking about a national ban on handguns.

Not yet.

You give them an opening, and the anti-gun crowd won't pass it up. That is basically my entire argument. Allow the government to start infringing on individual rights at your own risk.

This sounds like something my grandpa said once. I remember him warning me that we wouldn't lose our gun rights overnight, they'd be taken from us slowly.

This is the same grandpa that for my 10th birthday gave me a Ruger 10/22 and a NRA membership.

[Little Whiskey]

Maybe its time to ramp down production of handguns? Does anyone really need a Desert Eagle or a .50cal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqOeDW5wu_E

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

I've gotta get one of these! ......for pest control and such

[the_idle_threat]

Maybe its time to ramp down production of handguns? Does anyone really need a Desert Eagle or a .50cal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqOeDW5wu_E

I agree with Leap that you're never going to eliminate guns, but handguns are pretty much designed with 1 purpose and its not target practice.

Does anyone really need a Lamborghini or an H2? There is nothing more impotent than the "really need" argument.

In any case, these big bores are designed for one purpose, and it's hunting. They really aren't used much if at all in crimes because they're expensive, heavy, hard to handle and relatively difficult to conceal. But I know people who have used Desert Eagles and large-caliber revolvers for deer hunting. And some are used for even larger game hunting, as well as for protection from large predators in very wild places.

If you have a problem with handguns, you're wasting your time worrying about the big bore guns. It's the cheap little .25 cal plinkers that are easily concealed and have the one purpose that you're implying. And I own a couple of this kind, because they're easy to conceal for self-defense purposes. They're not only used by criminals.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's the cheap little .25 cal plinkers that are easily concealed and have the one purpose that you're implying. And I own a couple of this kind, because they're easy to conceal

:shock: Idle threat?