Unpopular view, why own handguns?

[Ed Ames]

I'm going to revisit this in a slightly different way.

In judging a law you should look at the following:

1. Does it identify a real and widely accepted problem? E.g. Interpersonal violence is a real and near-universally recognized problem, the sale of red underwear is not. The sale of guns is not universally accepted as a problem (look around here) and the sale, as such, is not a real problem (though misuse may be).

2. Does it address the problem? Let's say we have accepted gun violence as a real and widely accepted problem; do restrictions on new sales address that problem? Not directly, because most newly sold guns are not used for crime and most crime guns were not newly sold. It is argued that indirect laws are appropriate in cases where the problem is difficult to address directly. E.g. you cannot stop people from choosing to drink or take narcotics so you regulate their production and distribution. Indirect laws come at immense cost because they must be expansive and limit legitimate behaviors... because some people choose to drink it is illegal for you to build a still to produce fuel alcohol to run your car (without licenses). Because someone else wants to take pep pills you can't buy a $3/100 bottle of nasal decongestant any more and for the $5/20 package you need to show ID.

3. Does it cause or enable harm? An example in the news a lot these days is the easing of lending standards in the 1990s. Lawmakers identified a problem: low social cohesion and success among urban dwellers. Lacking a direct solution they looked for some handle on the issue. What they found was that areas with more owner occupied dwellings did better. So they tried to bring greater uniformity there. Unfortunately homes in urban areas are more expensive and jobs aren't a bunch better so they had to change the lending standards. Fast forward to today.... that indirect approach to a real problem is looking pretty harmful. Another example is the violence that can be directly attributed to prohibition. Prohibition makes drug sales profitable and profit is worth fighting over - next thing you know, people are using that violence as a justification for new firearms laws that apply to Idaho.

So, how does your average gun law measure up by those standards?

 

[6_gunner]

Welcome to THR, Buildit. You will find a lot of friendly, helpful people here. However, you will find very few who agree that handguns should be banned.

As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back

That argument is based on the ridiculous and self-refuting idea that criminals obey laws. Criminals, by definition, break laws. It's already illegal to rob a convenience store. If someone is willing to break that law, what makes you think that he would obey a law that prohibits concealed carry?

 

[SaxonPig]

I think everyone needs to remember that the purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile. Period. No gun is "made for killing," it's made to launch a projectile. Therefore no type of gun is inherently better or worse than another since all are designed to simply launch a projectile.

Any determination as to the nature or purpose of launching the projectile is solely at the discretion of the operator. Guns don't kill, people do. Guns do not commit crimes, people do. No gun is evil, but some people are.

Handguns exist because there is a need to portable and concealable devices to launch projectiles, both for sporting purposes and for self-defense. The handgun is defensive in nature and the rifle is offensive. To eliminate the pistol is to eliminate self-defense with firearms.

Of course, that is exactly what Buildit and his friends have in mind.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Freedom is DANGEROUS and unpredictable !

There are no utopian illusions on this planet.............

 

[HoosierQ]

We maintain the right to own and carry handguns for personal protection. Sure a long gun is better...in some respects...in some situations. But the handgun is made for self defense and it is very good at it because it is much more likely to be at hand when defending one's self is necessary.

Banning handguns in the hope of stopping further gun bans is not a slippery slope...it is a precipice because once over that edge, the ability of the honest citizen to protect him/herself is going to be greatly diminished unless that person is inside their home. On the street, thugs will rule as we would be defenseless against them unless we become like Pakistan and each adult would carry an AK at all times.

Do you honestly think that banning handguns would do anything other than take them away from honest people? Do you honestly thing that a handgun ban would be complied with by criminals?

Come on man, thing this one through here!!!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Banning handguns would not utilize other methods of crime prevention that are constitutional and actually effective.

Handguns allow people to venture out without the burden of carrying a rifle and still have a means of self defense. A handy handgun also supplies a means for fighting your way to your stash of arms when necessary, or to cover when otherwise overwhelmed.

Handguns are quick to respond with. It has been shown that a person, being covered by someone with a gun, can draw and shoot before the adversary can realize what's going on and respond. It's basic physics. It takes time for a brain to see the action begin, process data, send a signal to the muscles, add the time it takes for the signal to reach those muscles, and the split second for the muscles to respond to the signals received. All this has to happen after you've already done the thinking, sending of the signals, and your muscles responding.

Bear in mind that the person holding you at gunpoint isn't anticipating you reacting in such a manner when they are stripping you of your wallet, or reaching for your purse. (An officer of the law whose only purpose is to hold you IS anticipating you to do something and is ready to nail you in less time than you can draw and shoot.)

So, practice, and don't allow any losses of your rights. Your life does depend upon those rights.

Woody

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back

If that's true, then Washington, DC should have a lower violent crime rate than a city like Nome, Alaska, where anyone can carry a gun, open or concealed, without a permit.

So post the statistics comparing the two cities.

 

[bikerdoc]

Son, you pose and interesting if somewhat unrealistic question. I applaud your inventive mind,and polite manner, but son, it aint gonna happen for a number of reasons.
The american gun owners are a strong political force.
Last time I checked the RKBA under the 2nd amendment is still in effect.
With all the problems facing congress To focus on banning laws would be viewed as a way to distract attention from the real problems we face.

And last of all anytime you lose a right you stand a bigger chance of losing more rights.

Wecome to THR. And thanks for reminding us why we exist.

 

[MT GUNNY]

Carrying a rifle Around During a normal Day Would be Very Unsafe, Mainly because you would be Handling it Often. You have to sit, You have to move the Rifle, Driving you have to move the Rifle, and so on. With a Pistol and its small size would be like having a cell Phone instead of a Home PC strapped to your back!

 

[reb27]

One of the O.P.s questions was how would a handgun ban effect you personally. Well, it would cause me to NOT be able to protect myself and loved ones because I happen to not be able to handle a rifle or shotgun effectively. I have been in a wheelchair for over twenty years. But I CAN use a handgun for my personal defense, and do, every day, as I have a CCW. So a handgun ban would have a huge impact on me and the people that my handgun(s) protect.

 

[damien]

Read this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=433867

 

[CapnMac]

Well, you could ask the Class III community what the '86 ban on any further production of full auto weapons has done to that market.

Registered MP-5 that had been about $5000 now goes for around $15-20K--prices are so high that they are attracting frauds & con artists.

Yet, AK in central america goes for about US$40, so hoodlums who want them can still get them.

Crime use of full-auto has remained about the same, despite the change in the law.

Except in one group: Formerly legal owners. Any error they commit, almost without regard to intentions, is now a felony.

"Oh, that can't happen with handguns", eh?
Well, gee, let's suppose after your HGB, a GP-35 with stock is legal. What happens if you remove the stock to clean the weapon?
When is a carbine a HG? Or vice versa. What about C&R? Walker's are banned? There's an outroar no one wants to hear.

 

[CapnMac]

As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while

Actually, that ban has not yet ended; DC made "Emergency" legislation keeping the full bans in place despite the SCUS ruling.
It's illegal in DC to own f/a for self-defence period. Certain weapons must be disassembled, and ammunition kept seperately--even in one's home.

Despite draconian laws, the crime rate in DC has never been reduced. Worse yet, it spawned similarly harsh laws in other places, to similar non-effect.

In fact, those laws only made more criminals, ordinary citizens who only wanted to protect themselves and their families.

 

[Bill_Rights]

Let's at least get the song reference right...

The song lyric the OP mentioned was from the band Lynyrd Skynyrd and the song was entitled "Saturday Night Special". The gun in question in the lyric was therefore a Saturday Night Special pistol. As most readers of THR would know, this kind of firearm carries with it an implied/assumed stigma of being cheap, of poor quality, inaccurate and probably illegally obtained. The holder of such a gun would likewise be thought to be some kind of criminal or, if not criminal, someone who is the opposite of a "gentleman" (or "gentlewoman"), whatever that is (Remember, this song was written by USA Southerners, of which I am one, so I know whereof I speak, and there are some cultural references and contexts assumed.). The song elsewhere implies that holders of Saturday Night Specials are somehow sloppy (not disciplined) and probably drunk.

So the song is as much or more a slam against a certain type of person, personality or behavior pattern as it is against a certain type of gun. The lyric naming of the type of gun is a kind of a "hook", an artistic technique.

All that being said for context, it still doesn't even come close to justifying the banning even Saturday Night Special pistols, much less any other kind of pistol. For ex., who gets to define what a Saturday Night Special is? The answer will be unfavorable to the 2A cause, we can presume.

I deliberately choose not to address the OP's question. Others have done well enough. I choose rather to undercut the OP's premise.

 

[BADUNAME27]

For personal protection there is nothing like a gun straped across your back! I have never seen people behaving as well as when confronted with someone carrying a rifle or shotgun on their back. Why have a handgun that is hard to see and easy to conceal unless you intend to use it for illegal purposes?
Second, by making a concession to the ability to own handguns we could add words to the extent that the right to bare arms is intended to give every citizen the right to protection provided by a firearm. Therefor it should and is totally leagal for anyone to carry a rifle or shotgun loaded for their self defense anywhere and anytime in public! Imagine the terrorm of criminals knowing everyone is armed and that their guns are bigger, more accurate and numerous than the .38 cal they have hidden in their pocket!

How many city blocks would you make it in a large city with an AK strapped to your back before someone thought to crack your skull and take it from you? Second. Being a former Marine who spent seven months in Somalia and presently as a Security Contractor in Iraq (for 3 consecutive years) I can promise you the last thing I want to do while home with Momma and my daughter/son is haul a fricken rifle with me everywhere I go. I do that here and it's a pain in the ass.

If it is inside my jacket or tucked in my pants its out of sight out of mind. It provides me an advantage because it offers options. Options I do not have when its at home or on my hip in plain sight. What I have on me is my business. I don't attach my bank statements to my shirt collars to advertise my income level so why should I advertise my capability to respond to a threat level? I'm not out to intimidate anyone. I'm out doing my thing just trying to get through life (it's taking forever) like the rest of us. When/if confronted and cornered, then look the Eff out cause it's draw, present, sight alignment, and controlled pairs baby. You'll of had plenty of time to vacate before it ever comes to that so you'll die knowing you earned it. (not talking to you specifically here so don't take offense)

So the end point is what difference does it make? What I do is my business and what you do is yours. If we all remembered that a little better things in this country of ours might be a little different.

 

[Brian Dale]

Chiming in:

How would this affect YOU personally?

I'd have more of my friends and acquaintances getting raped. Again.

Violent criminals would face even less risk in preying on the rest of us. They tend to act accordingly.

Legally and practically, I'd exist at the pleasure of others.

 

[chilie]

Look up the second ammendment. I can pontificate for about 38 pages as to why what you are saying flawed and indeed adverse to yourself. But I'll allow you to do the leg work. If you have to please just look up the definition of infringed (it'll be under infringe) and read backwards. That'll summon it up much clearer than I care to right now.

I'll take your handguns off of you, since apparently yours are "only good for killing"? What the ....? There are many among us who like to target shoot or hunt with a handgun as much as you like your rifle or shotgun.


I'm out...

 

[Buildit]

Well, to those of you who are now fully convinced I'm a left wing screaming liberal who wants your handuns outlawed, I got your goat. Some more than others.

Alright...I'll say it. Too much time has been wasted on this anti-gun troll disguising himself as a gun owner.

Try to sell your BS elsewhere, Buildit. Speaking only for me, I ain't buying.

Like Quigly said, "I don't shoot one, it doesn't mean I don't know how to." I prefer rifles and shotguns, it doesn't mean I don't own and use handguns.

To those who analyzed their thoughts and came up with responces stating a real need, THANK YOU. Your comments need to be ingrained into the US psychology about handguns and firearms.

This is a very real statement;

Any determination as to the nature or purpose of launching the projectile is solely at the discretion of the operator. Guns don't kill, people do. Guns do not commit crimes, people do. No gun is evil, but some people are.

I'd like to provide some thoughts of my own on the subject. Here is my answer to my own question:
As with most issues the government wants to treat us like children and remove the sharp objects from the room instead of asking for increased responsibility. Seat belt laws instead of harsher punishments for wreckless drivers. Remove cough medicines instead of harsher punishments for drug makers utilizing them. Take away your nail clippers instead of arming pilots or having armed guards on planes. So instead of increasing punishments for criminals using guns to commit crimes you want to remove guns from society.
Firearms provide recreational oportunities, are used in many competition oriented activities, and even my own uncle is involved in quick draw competitions and simulated rail road robery reinactments enjoyed by tourists from around the country. But how would the restriction of handguns effect me?
When traveling the country on my bike I am capable of carrying a handgun for defense from both wildlife in wilderness areas we camp in and assult from those who would wish me harm.
However, the greatest reason I can think of for NOT banning firearms is that to do so would not reduce the amount of firearms in the hands of criminals but would restrict them from the citizens who protect themselves from criminals or those wishing them harm.
There is no item on this planet which in the wrong hands can't be used to harm or kill another person. So the continued restrictions on items with sharp corners will not stop crime or injuries. Moreover it won't make people more responsible for their actions.

Just like my offroad motorcycling comunity gun owners better really analyze the why issue and have some real statements defending our rights. As so many threads are stating the restriction of the right to own and carry firearams is growing. I wonder if Obama will wait till 2010 to tackle the issue.

 

[chilie]

Lmao-----sneaky

 

[Leanwolf]

BUILDIT - "For personal protection there is nothing like a gun straped across your back! "

That has to be one of the most nonsensical ideas I have ever heard to justify the (eventual) banning and confiscation of handguns.

As for self defense in one's home, a long gun is not always the best weapon to do so. I know quite a few women, including my wife, who own and practice self defense shooting with their handguns, yet can't stand to shoot shotguns or rifles. They are useless, to them, in many home scenarios.

I also know three women personally who used handguns in self defense shootings, two in their homes and one in her car. In all three cases, if they had had access ONLY to a long gun, they'd never have been able to use it to shoot their attackers. Their handguns saved their lives.

But, as others have stated succinctly above, this O.P's. post seems to stem directly from the anti-guns/anti-self defense advocates, who try and worm their way into these discussions with that tired old opening of "I own a bunch of guns but think that we need a bunch more anti-gun laws."

I've debated far too many of the left wing neo liberal gun grabbers who pose the same questions steming from false premises, not to recognize it in this O.P.

And by the way, anyone who thinks that carrying long guns in window racks in pickups is wise, my uncle who lived in a very rural area and ran cattle, carried a shotgun and rifle in his pickup. One afternoon, after leaving his pickup, locked, at a grocery store parking lot, he came out and the window was broken and the guns were gun. He never got them back. A gun in a window rack really is an advertisement saying, "Steal Me!"

(That happened in the "good ol' days" about 25 years ago, in a "safe" rural area. Actually, about 45 or 50 miles northwest of where Vern Humphrey lives today. I'll bet Mr. Humphrey does not leave his long guns in a window rack in his vehicle.)

FWIW.

L.W.

 

[Brian Dale]

...gun owners better really analyze the why issue and have some real statements defending our rights.

Yup, and not just arguments from utility, either. Folks, it's good to be able to say clearly why it's wrong to put the physically weak at the mercy of the strong and the ruthless.

 

[Ala Dan]

First of all, we need to protect our 2nd Amendment rights for future
generations. The right too own firearms (particulary handguns) was
recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller vs. DC; but the
new administration with President Barry O at the helm threatens too
deny us that right. Being a retired LEO, I take a personal stance that
does not wavier from the 2nd Amendment rights. As for myself, I most
likely own all the handguns that I will ever need; but I want to preserve
those same rights for years too come~!

Private ownership of handguns is a RIGHT, not a priviledge. Priviledges
can be taken away at any time, RIGHTS can only be taken away under
certain conditions.

 

[liljohn]

Your premise is flawed

You imply a negative regarding handgun ownership. I do not accept this premise. All types of firearms have differences that make them suitable or unsuitable for various applications. So what?

Giving an inch on the restriction of any particular attribute and it will result in that attribute's elimination, This will only stimulate regulators to pursue the next attribute. For example, if one accepts that consealability is detrimental and concedes the point, the next attribute will be capacity. The next will be material. The next will be weight. The next will be power. The next will be accuracy.

As the list of attributes grows, available arms will become more generic. These generic arms will be used by perps (since there is nothing else)--thus enabling you to build an argument that these generic arms should be eliminated as well.

The fact is this--any arm can be misused, and eliminating one type will only guarantee the misuse of another. But an armed society is required to prevent tyranny. With an armed society come certain risks, one of those being that some citizens will misuse arms. It's inherent in the system, but it beats the alternative (tyranny).

The only choice we have is the right one--remove the individuals that misuse firearms from a society that accepts arms as necessary to ensure freedom. Our focus should be the efficient and just removal of dangerous individuals from society, instead of changing society to reduce the risk (not eliminate it) of bad individual behavior (why should law abiding citizens give up their freedom so a bad person will be less likely to get themselves in trouble? This never made any sense to me.)

There are only two choices--accept the risks of a free society and keep ALL firearms legal, OR accept that arms pose a larger risk than tyranny and ban and confiscate them all. I'd wager that the pseudo-principle that "an unarmed/lesser armed society is a safe one" is false--tyranny has killed more people in the last 100 years than privately-held arms.

Anything else is just sophistry, and we see the failure of this sophistry in the news every day.

 

[KBintheSLC]

handguns are made for killing they arn't much good for nothing else

Actually, I think handguns are the worst thing for killing. A rifle or shotgun will do a much better job. Handguns are meant for portability and concealability, and do so at the expense of power.

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment is about keeping and bearing arms... AKA weapons... AKA stuff that can be used to kill. That is the point.

Don't let your self be fooled into believing that you are required to have some sporting use for a gun. Some guns are weapons, plain and simple. And that is OK!

 

[gripper]

ANYTHING you can kill with , you can also fight with ...and fighting may be necessary to save a life-especially your own.
I ALSO favor rifles/carbines...or handguns that shoot like rifles.
Why train physically/study H2H/SD?It can help you stay alive long enough to arm yourself with something more decisive.Why carry /own a knife?To stay alive log enough to get to the handgun....and you know where TIS is going:the handgun can be what keeps you alive long enough to get to the longarm.