The legality of handguns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your guide to winning any argument with a rational person who is anti-gun due to misinformation*:

http://gunfacts.info/

It covers a variety of topics and cites all its sources.

* if you're rational and have correct information, I don't believe you can be anti-gun

I lol'd at this: :D:D:D

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...
 
Let's say your friend gets his wish, and a law is passed outlawing the possession of handguns.

Ask him, how, exactly, would he go about enforcing such a ban?
 
Tell him to pretend that he is the manager of a small business and part of his job is to drop the night deposit at the bank on his way home, a deposit that on some good days may have well over $10,000 in cash. Now tell him the he hears the news that one of the local grocery store managers with a similar job was shot and killed at the night deposit drop of a nearby bank by two guys with shotguns. Finish up by telling him that the state has just passed a law that ordinary citizens can not own or carry a hand gun, and ask how he feels about doing his job?
 
Justin said:
Let's say your friend gets his wish, and a law is passed outlawing the possession of handguns.

Ask him, how, exactly, would he go about enforcing such a ban?

That is a good question Justin, you would have to have some sort of registration in place beforehand to know where to round up those lawfully possessed firearms.


You also won't likely get much compliance if people think it will lead to confiscation, so you will have to implement it many years in advance, with stiff penalties for not being registered and found with a firearm.
After enough years go by people relax and begin to comply feeling the serious felony risk of possession is greater than the chance it will lead to anything bad. You can likely get a high percentage of lawful guns on record, but it takes years to get there and for it to become the norm.
Of course all future lawfully purchased guns must be registered before or at the time of purchase to keep this from being an issue any further into the future with new guns.

Laws that require immediate reporting of lost or stolen firearms, and make it a crime not to also help, these are in place in a few states. Often requiring the report be made within 24 or 72 hours.

This means when you ban guns in the future anyone that claims to have lost a gun or several registered guns upon learning of the intended confiscation is highly suspicious.
'Probable cause' suspicious in the eyes of the right judges, helping with any search warrants in the future.
Those who claim it was some time in the past are also guilty of a crime for not reporting it then, a crime for each firearm.
This also means anyone that claims to have lost the firearm also must file a false police report and lie to police in an official manner if they have not in fact lost the firearm. So if the firearm is later found in their possession they can be charged with several additional charges, giving them a significant possible prison sentence indeed.



Then you have records of most lawful gun owners.
At that point you can take say the Australian confiscation method.
Telling people that they must surrender their firearms or face serious charges has traditionally caused the majority of people to comply.
They bring their guns in, and going door to door to round up most guns is unnecessary.
Put them in prison for a long time if they are ever found with a firearm not turned in.
Serve warrants on those who claim firearms were lost around the time it became common knowledge they would be confiscated.
Don't serve them immediately, but a few years down the road to give them time to relax and be less likely to have the gun hidden.

Since statistically most people turn in their registered guns, that removes most from circulation, and man power is only required for a small percentage of the population.

It is also helpful if you don't take all guns at once, like in targeting only handguns.
Since being found in possession of an illegal firearm will forfeit any legal ownership of legal firearms in the future, it creates incentive for people to comply so they can still retain the unbanned firearms and be 'law abiding' gun owners and not join the ranks of criminals. Providing a means for them to still feel they retained some sort of right and gain something through compliance.
 
Last edited:
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.
I live in East Belfast. The threat from the PIRA is a thing of the past now, and handguns are still legal (mostly for target-shooting, you CAN apply for a "personal protection" permit but there must be a real specific grave threat to your life)
 
If I had a friend who actually believed this-he would be a former friend. I surly would not waste my breath arguing with him.

On second thought I think that maybe the criminal element are the true practioners of the 2d Amendment. They "shall not be infringed".;)
 
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...

As I posted in another thread on this forum:

"The possession of a firearm is not a causal factor in the commission of a gun related crime, it is supplemental and incidental to it.

It is specifically a matter of choice of the perpetrator to commit the crime, the firearm only being a tool to assist in facilitating the crime. Removing the gun from a murderous individual still leaves society with a murderous individual who can easily move to knives, baseball bats, claw hammers, machetes or any other inanimate object to threaten, kill or injure the victim.

Gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens since by the very nature of the acts of criminals, far more serious laws are already at risk of being broken when lethal force is being applied or contemplated. How can a mere gun control law be any sort of a deterrent?

Gun control laws are indicators of the implicit mistrust by the government of law abiding citizenssince the lawless will not abide by them anyway.

It is impossible to control the actions of individuals by attempting to control inanimate objects that are incidental to the commission of lethal crimes. The result of draconian laws (such as those in Chicago or New York City) have the adverse effect of a disarmed law abiding populace providing a landscape of defenseless victims that cannot fight back in the face of lethal threats."

Dan
 
People who think more laws are the answer are dead-wrong. Burglars, thieves, rapists, murderers, felons, et al, all have one thing in common:
They don't abide by laws!

So, someone thinks it is a grand idea to remove handguns and all small guns from society. How do they propose to do that, if there are some who will not turn their guns in?

Of course, those of us who are LAW-ABIDING citizens end up complying with the laws, however those mentioned in the first two paragraphs are not going to abide and they will be the ones who will still have all the guns and all the ammo to do whatever they want to do with them - including trading and selling them to others!

This surely isn't ROCKET-SCIENCE, anyone with a bit of gray matter in their noggin can see and will tell you that there are those who believe they are above the law! There will always be people like that. So those who think the whole idea of mandating certain guns into extinction are fools, not that they would fool any of us~as we already know better!:scrutiny:
 
I'll drag out a couple of old chestnuts here

Criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang once declared "I hate guns" and said if he were dictator Mustpha Mond of "Brave New World" he would ban all guns. Yet he concluded after detailed study of 588 homicides: "...few homicides due to shootings could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present..."

"More than the availability of a shooting weapon is involved in homicide. .... The type of weapon used appears to be, in part, the culmination of assault intentions or events and is only superficially related to causality. To measure quantitatively the effect of the presence of firearms on the homicide rate would require knowing the number and type of homicides that would not have occurred had not the offender_ or, in some cases, the victim_ possessed a gun. Research would require determination of the number of shootings that would have been stabbings, beatings, or some other method of inflicting death had no gun been available. It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shootings could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. Probably only in those cases where a felon kills a police officer, or vice versa, would homicide be avoided in the absence of a firearm." M. WOLFGANG, PATTERNS IN CRIMINAL HOMICIDE 82-83 (1958).

The self-defense incidents I know about--one woman v four men, one woman v two men, and two women v two men--would not have turned out as they did if the women had not have had guns. But there are no statistics kept on assaults that did not occur because the attackers were chased off.

Brady Campaign gun laws as a predictor of crime rate.
Code:
State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern Old    New          2003              2006              2009             2010     
STATE        GRADE  POINT  CRIME  HOMICIDE   CRIME  HOMICIDE   CRIME  HOMICIDE  CRIME  HOMICIDE
Connecticut    A-    58    308.2    3.0      280.8    3.1      298.7    3.0     281.4    3.6   
Maine          D-     9    108.9    1.2      115.5    1.7      119.8    2.0     122.0    1.8   
Massachusetts  A-    65    469.4    2.2      447.0    2.9      457.1    2.6     466.6    3.2   
New Hampshire  D-     6    148.8    1.4      138.7    1.0      159.6    0.8     167.0    1.0   
Rhode Island   B-    44    285.6    2.3      227.5    2.6      252.6    2.9     256.6    2.8   
Vermont        D-     6    110.2    2.3      136.6    1.9      131.4    1.1     130.2    1.1
Brady gives high ratings (A and B grades, 44 to 65 points) to CT MA and RI for having restrictive gun laws, including discretionary "may-issue" permit laws. Brady gives ME NH VT bad ratings (D- grades, 6 to 9 points) for having lax gun laws, especially VT carry w/o permit. CRIME is violent crime: homicide, armed robbery, aggravated assault and rape and rates are per 100,000 population per year; HOMICIDE includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter.
 
he felt handguns should be illegal.
He is free to draft a constitutional amendment; or to live in a different country. This, however, is the United States, and handguns are constitutionally protected here.
Anyone know about crime rates in those countries similar to our's?
Who cares? The 2A isn't about crime rates, it is about our rights.

If your friend were contending that we have to make political speech or religion illegal in the US to decrease crime, would you bother looking for statistics to refute him?

It absolutely drives me bonkers: the idea that, unless we can "prove" that our "failure" to ban handguns hasn't "caused" increased crime, we are supposed to give up our guns. Not happening.
 
Last edited:
I live in East Belfast. The threat from the PIRA is a thing of the past now, and handguns are still legal (mostly for target-shooting, you CAN apply for a "personal protection" permit but there must be a real specific grave threat to your life)

I was over in 2004, so things have probably changed since then with the PIRA. I actually have a pound piece which has PIRA stamped across the queen's head. W/regard to firearms, I thought that handguns of all sorts were banned. I guess I thought wrong. :)
 
Many criminals also already have the advantage without guns.

They are frequently healthy strong young males. Some go to prison and work out half of the day, and get out stronger than most of society.
As young males, and/or gang members they are more likely to travel as groups of males than most of society. This means they will frequently have numerical superiority.

If you give the 200+lb gang member that just got out of prison, spent 6 hours a day working out, grew up fighting in some rough neighborhood, and has plenty of experience with using violence, a gun they are lethal.
If you give a 100lb woman that has lived a safe sheltered life a gun she is lethal.
If you put them both up against each other they are both lethal.
If you remove the guns, only one remains lethal.
Yes laws aimed at disarming the criminal and keeping the law abiding armed are failures, its not going to happen. But both being armed is a better alternative than what results if both are disarmed, and actually disarming the criminal is harder.
Even if guns are banned the strong healthy criminal can use all sorts of objects that rely on strength as very effective weapons, while many people in society wouldn't be very effective with them and wouldn't illegally possess them either.


Gun laws also don't stop the crime, and so the next step is always new knife laws, cane laws, stick laws, etc
In places like England now knives are restricted, only adults can buy them, many types cannot be sold, most cannot be carried, it is a crime to market any for defensive use, and there has been pushes to outlaw knives with points possessed even for food preparation in the home. They also say large knives are not needed for most preparation, and so should be illegal as well because they allow for deadly stabbings and are not necessary to prepare food.
Various swords since their gun ban have also been outlawed.
On and on it goes.
Even the use of glass mugs in pubs has been banned.
When guns are legal banning all the other stuff seems juvenile and silly. Once guns with their much stronger political support fall everything else topples over much more easily one by one.
Eventually you must walk around in a nerf society where only criminals and government forces have dangerous items.
Since the criminals already have the advantage over the majority of society (female half, elderly component, injured or disabled portion, and a good portion of the healthy men) without weapons, when they are the only ones with weapons they got an even stronger advantage.
 
Last edited:
I don't care about other countries and their 'data.' I don't know how the numbers were tabulated. What is the sample size? What constitutes a violent crime? How well do their law enforcement officers keep and tabulate records? Tell him to stop looking at the rest of the world. As far as his 'opinion' that handguns are not used for self-defense, point out this little gem- District of Columbia v. Heller. Or possibly this one- McDonald v. Chicago. Heller reaffirmed the fact that handguns are arms for the purpose of the second amendment.

I am sick to death of people still beating the drum on this issue. It is a dead issue. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that a handgun has a legitimate purpose as an instrument for self-defense and thus is protected by the constitution. The argument stops there.
 
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.

HSO said it the best. The object doesn't dictate behavior.

I suspect that your friend will not admit to being wrong.
 
Without guns, you compare my 5'6 150-lb frame to a potential 6'3 200-lb attacker. With guns, you compare my XDm .40 to whatever the attacker brought. Plain and simple.

As to "you don't have to justify it, it's the second ammendment"...if the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights is the only justification we have, then we will lose. When someone says "I want to change the fact that guns are legal", we can't say "they should be legal because they're legal." We have to say "they should be legal because (and list the scores of reasons why)."
 
i have read the thread from the top and honestly, i have to say...its an idiotic "argument" from the get go. What a bunch of needless wordmaking that wont change a thing. to thine own self be true. i live my life by principles and beliefs that i have determined to be true and moral. i cant "change" anyones mind about a dang thing and im too old to even try it for sport. to hell with them..go do your thing and leave it be..
 
I don't see why you need to look at other countries when you have restrictive areas right here in the states.

Also, keep in mind that most habitually armed criminals (in the US at least) do not carry guns specifically to use them against their victims (although I'm sure that's a neat secondary benefit for them); they carry guns to defend themselves from other criminals. A clear majority of murder in the US is criminals vs criminals, usually over drugs and/or territory. Do you really think a drug dealer or gang member will give up his guns when they could easily be the only thing standing between him and death at the hands of his rivals?
 
Or you can tell your friend you don't think he should have the right to free speech. Or religion. Afterall free speech/writing is very dangerous and religion has been responsible for more deaths than any other man-made construct in the history of the world. Stick that in his pipe and smoke it. Opinions are like.... well, you know.

But to turn the argument around to one of his "arbitrary" rights will shut him up right quick.
 
Thanks fellas. I spoke to him again today (he called me about it). It took much less time for me to get tired of the conversation. He said that he was surprised at some of the results, but he needs to look up more information (he's in grad school and thinks that his research approaches can be applied to every aspect of life). Anyway, he may or may not changes his mind, but I'm certainly tapped out on this subject with him. I've made, what I consider, more than enough valid points while he usually ends up repeating himself and offering nothing new to the discussion, so I'm finished. Thanks for all the information and references though, much obliged.
 
When you ban guns, but don't take enough of them out of circulation to make a difference, you get a situation where only criminals have guns. Case in point, Chicago.

When you ban guns, and somehow do manage to take enough of them out of circulation to make a difference, you get a situation where criminals resort to alternate means. Case in point, London.

Criminals don't need guns to commit crime. This woman was abducted, raped, and murdered with an aluminum baseball bat. However, if the victim in this case had been legally armed with a concealed handgun, then she would probably still be alive. A message that is sinking in for many women in the local community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top