So, I told one of my friends that I would post this question to, what I felt, was probably the best forum that I'm a member of for such a subject. I'll preface this with the fact that this particular person, I believe, has become a bit more liberal in his political views over the past several years. Anyway, he got started on why he felt handguns should be illegal. Not all guns, but only handguns, because he felt that they tended to lend themselves more to conceal-ability, and therefore, made it easier to use for criminal activity. He also states that this would leave long-guns and shotguns legal so that you could protect what he felt was most valuable: your home and the items in it (I disagreed). I've had this discussion multiple times with him, and ad nauseam. He said that if there were data in other countries, supporting the fact that crime is not lessened in areas that have banned handguns, he would then change his position. I already told him that if this were in a communist or socialist country, it wouldn't matter, because it's not a place that I'd want to live anyway; and he agreed. Anyway, I figured this was the best place to ask about such a thing. Anyone know about crime rates in those countries similar to our's? Also, even though I won't go into all the things that I've used in my argument, anyone have anything else I may be able to use in my defense? I believe I've used very good counter-arguments, but from what I understand, it seems that he is content with leaving himself vulnerable outside of his home (without the ability to carry a handgun).
The legality of handguns
- Thread starter T1gger
- Start date
- Status
dcarch
Member
Tell him to go to East Belfast and see how safe he feels there. I've been there before. The PIRA has no trouble getting whatever firearms they want/need. The average citizen, on the other hand, has to resort to cricket bats when attacked. Why? Public safety, of course.
Telekinesis
Member
That's odd. Most of the time people are willing to concede that life is more valuable than property. Here he is saying just the opposite (if those were his exact words).
If you challenge him on that and he replies that life is also worth protecting in that situation, ask him why a person should not have the ability to protect themselves while they are separated from that property (which he has already said deserves defending). Is it an all or nothing kinda thing (you can protect yourself and your property, or neither)? A rifle is not likely to be carried by someone just out and about their business, so that leaves us with handguns. Unless of course he'd rather see everyone walking around with assault rifles or something.
I did a little bit of research into this while I was in some arguments with friends a few years ago. If I recall correctly, when reporting international statistics, some countries have different reporting standards. For example, if someone in the US is found stabbed (and deceased) it is ruled a homicide and reported, and then the police go after the killer. In some countries, they don't officially report the crime until AFTER it is solved, so you can get very skewed statistics in regard to timing and unsolved cases.
I think at a certain point, you'll have to agree with him that because pistols are easier to transport and conceal, they have a better likelihood of being used outside of the home no matter the intentions of the user. Whether good or evil.
Ask him to look at crime stats of places like Chicago, NYC, and DC. I know its domestic, but it proves the point.
Also, what does he think will happen if hand guns are banned in the US right now? We have several hundred years worth of pistol manufacturing behind us, just in this country alone. Does he think that they are all going to just disappear? I know quite a few people who wouldn't be very keen on turning them in...
flatlander937
Member
I think the main problem is that criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW.
Look at the Chicago news some time... see how many shootings regularly occur there... none of the handguns are being used legally because CCW is not allowed in Indiana.
I wish I could remember what country it was... but I recall seeing a clip of a documentary and/or interview about gun laws in somewhere like Sweden/Finland/something where having firearms in the home is REQUIRED, as was military service for a few years, after which the weapons they got in the service were to be kept and maintained in the home. I think the crime rate there was silly-low.
edit: It is Switzerland!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
Look at the Chicago news some time... see how many shootings regularly occur there... none of the handguns are being used legally because CCW is not allowed in Indiana.
I wish I could remember what country it was... but I recall seeing a clip of a documentary and/or interview about gun laws in somewhere like Sweden/Finland/something where having firearms in the home is REQUIRED, as was military service for a few years, after which the weapons they got in the service were to be kept and maintained in the home. I think the crime rate there was silly-low.
edit: It is Switzerland!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
ScottRiqui
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 9
I don't think the CCW laws in Indiana have much to do with the number of shootings in Chicago... (I know, I know - it was a typo, I'm just having fun.)
As for the low crime rate in Switzerland, that's the result of a lot of factors beyond just their gun laws. I'm sure there are countries with both strict gun laws and absurdly-low crime rates as well. When comparing crime rates, you also have to look at things like total population, population density, the general economic health of the country, how well the government is fulfilling its basic functions, etcetera. It would be nice if the correlation between criminal shootings and gun laws were nice and tight, but that's just not the case.
As for the low crime rate in Switzerland, that's the result of a lot of factors beyond just their gun laws. I'm sure there are countries with both strict gun laws and absurdly-low crime rates as well. When comparing crime rates, you also have to look at things like total population, population density, the general economic health of the country, how well the government is fulfilling its basic functions, etcetera. It would be nice if the correlation between criminal shootings and gun laws were nice and tight, but that's just not the case.
BeerSleeper
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 688
flatlander937 said:
Beg pardon?!
Actually, this is far from the truth.
Mexicans have the right to keep and bear arms written into their constitution and it has not been challenged.
However, Mexico does limit ownership of firearms to non-military calibers (added in 2002 IIRC), and they do limit firearms ownership to only 10 guns maximum. Anyone purchasing firearms that fall within these guidelines are not hampered in any way.
1857 Constitution
Article 10: Every man has the right to have and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those that will carry prohibited arms.
Amended Constitution of 1917
Article 10: The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.
So long as the Supreme Court holds that there is no expectation of any government at any level, or any agency thus of to protect anyone from criminals or persons of insanity, I don't see how they can morally restrict ones right to do so themself. Government has the duty to protect society as a whole, but not you or me or anyone else. That is why you can't sue NYC when you get mugged in Brooklyn. Pose that to your friend and see how he responds. If he stands by his belief that we don't need handguns, then ask him how he would feel seeing me walk down the street with my Bushmaster slung across my back to ward off felons!
Why are you trying to prove the legality of handguns when they are already legal through the Second Amendment? Also, you're accepting his definition of the purpose of a handgun.
I would not accept his definition of handgun usage and explain to him the other uses like sport, protection against bears, and some people use handguns to hunt.
He also should come up with statistics where crime went down after a handgun ban.
I would not accept his definition of handgun usage and explain to him the other uses like sport, protection against bears, and some people use handguns to hunt.
He also should come up with statistics where crime went down after a handgun ban.
doubleh
Member
Tell him to check out the crime figures for the United Kingdom to see what happens when handguns are disallowed.
I went through several things with him. He said that the government is supposed to protect society as a whole, and he believes that handgun bans would do this. Why? Because he is sure that if handguns are made more difficult to obtain, it would lower their availability and thus lower the chances that they would be used in criminal activity. I also mentioned to him that you can't directly link handgun bans to the low crime rate, because, just as mentioned earlier, many factors are involved.
He made the point that guns are misused by people, so I asked him: What about dogs? Dogs attack people every year. Hell, dogs kill people. Matter of fact, I'm from a very small town and a young boy was killed by 2 dogs a few years ago. He thinks dogs are ok though...
He made the point that guns are misused by people, so I asked him: What about dogs? Dogs attack people every year. Hell, dogs kill people. Matter of fact, I'm from a very small town and a young boy was killed by 2 dogs a few years ago. He thinks dogs are ok though...
Certainly others have shared his view at various times in history.
While others against guns in general have supported it as a means to an end, the ban on whatever firearm they could get, to go after others later.
It of course does not work. Criminals as a result tend to simply cut down shotguns and rifles into suitable concealable replacements for handguns. The sawn-off shotgun became associated with criminals for this very reason, shotguns being easier to acquire than handguns many places and the criminals making something they could conceal from the shotguns.
The NFA was going to ban handguns and that is why it originally added all the restrictions on shortening long guns, but the handgun ban was removed from it near the end without removing the restrictions on altering long guns that was added to keep people from replacing the banned handguns with suitably altered long guns.
(The NFA was a ban at a time when the government believed it had no authority to actually ban anything, so instead put a prohibitive tax on it instead, which at the time was still believed would be overturned when Constitutionally challenged, and almost was in Miller.)
It is certainly true that most crime is committed with handguns because they are concealable and portable. It is likewise true that most self-defense involves handguns for the exact same reason, the gun available is a lot more useful than the one put away or someplace else because it is big and cumbersome.
While others against guns in general have supported it as a means to an end, the ban on whatever firearm they could get, to go after others later.
It of course does not work. Criminals as a result tend to simply cut down shotguns and rifles into suitable concealable replacements for handguns. The sawn-off shotgun became associated with criminals for this very reason, shotguns being easier to acquire than handguns many places and the criminals making something they could conceal from the shotguns.
The NFA was going to ban handguns and that is why it originally added all the restrictions on shortening long guns, but the handgun ban was removed from it near the end without removing the restrictions on altering long guns that was added to keep people from replacing the banned handguns with suitably altered long guns.
(The NFA was a ban at a time when the government believed it had no authority to actually ban anything, so instead put a prohibitive tax on it instead, which at the time was still believed would be overturned when Constitutionally challenged, and almost was in Miller.)
It is certainly true that most crime is committed with handguns because they are concealable and portable. It is likewise true that most self-defense involves handguns for the exact same reason, the gun available is a lot more useful than the one put away or someplace else because it is big and cumbersome.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
First, the obvious one, it's not possible to get all guns away from criminals. So making them illegal only hurts the good guys. Duh.
Second, and at least as important, is that even if gun violence could be eliminated, what about other crimes? Rape certainly isn't going to go down. A gun is one of the few tools a woman could use to successfully defend against an attacker twice her size. Guns are the best defensive equalizer known to man. Without them, size and strength become that much more important for self defense. Too bad for the women, the handicapped, and the aged of the world.
And of course, the logic of getting rid of guns really starts to crumble when you ask "what next?" To be clear, even if you could successfully remove all guns from the hands of criminals, that won't stop them from committing crimes using other methods. So you must also ban all knives, tire irons, baseball bats, and knitting needles.
So stop looking at other country's gun violence without looking at the whole picture. Look at all crime. I think you'll see that we're not so different overall.
Second, and at least as important, is that even if gun violence could be eliminated, what about other crimes? Rape certainly isn't going to go down. A gun is one of the few tools a woman could use to successfully defend against an attacker twice her size. Guns are the best defensive equalizer known to man. Without them, size and strength become that much more important for self defense. Too bad for the women, the handicapped, and the aged of the world.
And of course, the logic of getting rid of guns really starts to crumble when you ask "what next?" To be clear, even if you could successfully remove all guns from the hands of criminals, that won't stop them from committing crimes using other methods. So you must also ban all knives, tire irons, baseball bats, and knitting needles.
So stop looking at other country's gun violence without looking at the whole picture. Look at all crime. I think you'll see that we're not so different overall.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
What about the vast majority of people who have concealable handguns and don't use them in crimes? Should they all be lumped in with the criminals and locked up for having the potential to commit a crime?
Being young, Black and male makes you statistically much more likely to commit a crime than just having access to a pistol does. Should all Black men under 40 be kept off the streets to prevent crime? What about Hispanics and people with low incomes and low I.Q.'s? Should they be locked up also? Those are major contributing factors to crime. Access to handguns is way down on the list.
Your friend is wrong about your home and the items in it being your most valuable most possession. They can be replaced. Your body is your most valuable possession and the best way to protect it is by carrying a concealed handgun.
Crime is an action not a tool.
Being young, Black and male makes you statistically much more likely to commit a crime than just having access to a pistol does. Should all Black men under 40 be kept off the streets to prevent crime? What about Hispanics and people with low incomes and low I.Q.'s? Should they be locked up also? Those are major contributing factors to crime. Access to handguns is way down on the list.
Your friend is wrong about your home and the items in it being your most valuable most possession. They can be replaced. Your body is your most valuable possession and the best way to protect it is by carrying a concealed handgun.
Crime is an action not a tool.
PedalBiker
Member
"What's in it" isn't always in it.
If you can't carry protection with you, then you're not protected. How much time do you spend in your house?
Long guns, generally, are for offense in which I don't engage (unless you count elk). Hand guns, generally, are for defense because that's about all you can really carry around. Therefore, if it's defense of your home and what's "in it" handguns are really the best option.
Even cops leave the NFA long gun in the car 99% of the time, but they have a plain, regular, pistol on their belt all the time.
If you can't carry protection with you, then you're not protected. How much time do you spend in your house?
Long guns, generally, are for offense in which I don't engage (unless you count elk). Hand guns, generally, are for defense because that's about all you can really carry around. Therefore, if it's defense of your home and what's "in it" handguns are really the best option.
Even cops leave the NFA long gun in the car 99% of the time, but they have a plain, regular, pistol on their belt all the time.
Definitely agree with everything you guys are saying, and I brought much of what is being said up to him. One thing that I believe is relevant is that this is a single, young male. I told him that he may very well feel different if he were married and had kids. Again, he can't really grasp that as he isn't and he doesn't.
Carl N. Brown
Member
If you outlaw guns....
Researcher Georgina Sanchez (Collective for Security with Democracy and Human Rights) quoted a "conservative estimate" of 15 million illegal weapons in Mexico. Another more liberal breakdown by Georgina Sanchez for a Mexican agency estimated 12 to 15 million miltary type weapons and 40 million conventional civilian rifles, shotguns and handguns. The estimates of illegal weapons (unregistered with the Mexican givernment) is thus a range of 15 to 55 million.
http://mexidata.info/id2684.html
Barnard R. Thompson, “An Inside Look at Mexican Guns and Arms Trafficking”, Mexidata.Info, 31 May 2010.
On the illegal gun market in the Tepito barrio: “A percentage of the weapons, the seller said, come from Mexico via Ministry of Defense personnel who provide [them] in part from weapons seized in raids, or stolen from the ministry’s own arsenal. Researchers note that points of sale of illegal weapons exist nationwide. ... Mario Arroyo, of the Citizen’s Institute for Studies on Insecurity, says that given the easy availability and insecurity, people are choosing to have a gun for their protection, ‘which raises the levels of violence.’”
In Mexico, the otherwise lawabiding have chosen to become outlaws in self defense. That is the natural fallout of prohibitory gun control.
Researcher Georgina Sanchez (Collective for Security with Democracy and Human Rights) quoted a "conservative estimate" of 15 million illegal weapons in Mexico. Another more liberal breakdown by Georgina Sanchez for a Mexican agency estimated 12 to 15 million miltary type weapons and 40 million conventional civilian rifles, shotguns and handguns. The estimates of illegal weapons (unregistered with the Mexican givernment) is thus a range of 15 to 55 million.
http://mexidata.info/id2684.html
Barnard R. Thompson, “An Inside Look at Mexican Guns and Arms Trafficking”, Mexidata.Info, 31 May 2010.
On the illegal gun market in the Tepito barrio: “A percentage of the weapons, the seller said, come from Mexico via Ministry of Defense personnel who provide [them] in part from weapons seized in raids, or stolen from the ministry’s own arsenal. Researchers note that points of sale of illegal weapons exist nationwide. ... Mario Arroyo, of the Citizen’s Institute for Studies on Insecurity, says that given the easy availability and insecurity, people are choosing to have a gun for their protection, ‘which raises the levels of violence.’”
In Mexico, the otherwise lawabiding have chosen to become outlaws in self defense. That is the natural fallout of prohibitory gun control.
leadcounsel
member
Your acquantiance is naive and wrong on so many levels it's hard to begin...
But someone that naive isn't going to be convinced with argument or facts - offer to take him to the range for an afternoon of shooting. Most people come around after that if they are at all open minded.
But someone that naive isn't going to be convinced with argument or facts - offer to take him to the range for an afternoon of shooting. Most people come around after that if they are at all open minded.
Monsterbishi
Member
There are plenty of firearms that should be illegal, ie:
Anything in .25ACP
Mossberg 464 SPX
Anything made by Mahely
Any S&W Semi auto pistol
I'm sure there's more...
Anything in .25ACP
Mossberg 464 SPX
Anything made by Mahely
Any S&W Semi auto pistol
I'm sure there's more...
leadcounsel
member
The reason I say that is I've had many anti-gun classmates (college and lawschool) and co-workers in many varied environments over the years. I tired of arguing with them, as stats don't change minds. I've found that it's all about emotion and irrational fear. Once they go shooting, most change and become more open minded. The ones that don't are hopeless.
T1gger,
Countries with restrictive firearms ownership laws have both higher and lower crime rates compared to countries with liberal firearms ownership laws. The converse is true as well.
Within this country, states with restrictive firearms ownership laws have both higher and lower violent crime rates than some states with liberal firearms ownership laws. There's no direct correlation between violent crime rates and liberal firearms ownership laws. None.
The result of any logical interpretation is that handguns, and firearms in general, have no magical mystical way to cause violence or crime. Only people do and people are the one constant in whether a state or country has a higher rates of crime or violence than another. Your "friend" is making the absurd assumption that somehow an inanimate object has power over people's behavior.
Countries with restrictive firearms ownership laws have both higher and lower crime rates compared to countries with liberal firearms ownership laws. The converse is true as well.
Within this country, states with restrictive firearms ownership laws have both higher and lower violent crime rates than some states with liberal firearms ownership laws. There's no direct correlation between violent crime rates and liberal firearms ownership laws. None.
The result of any logical interpretation is that handguns, and firearms in general, have no magical mystical way to cause violence or crime. Only people do and people are the one constant in whether a state or country has a higher rates of crime or violence than another. Your "friend" is making the absurd assumption that somehow an inanimate object has power over people's behavior.
Resist Evil
Member
Some crackpots might be reasoned with in order to change their minds about senseless 'gun control efforts.' Other crackpots, like I was (am?), require a gun placed against their heads to change their minds. I was converted in a dark parking lot. What can I say? I needed the heads up.
- Status
