Would you bother owning a handgun under these conditions?

[Gallstones]

To the OP: Yes, of course.

 

[David E]

A question like this reveals quite a bit about the responders:

1) Guns are hobby toys. Fun to play with, but not worth excessive hassle.

2) Guns are Freedom tools, so any obstacle will be overcome to own them.

 

[Ed Ames]

You are missing at least one option there Dave.

3) Widespread gun ownership fosters freedom, so it is more important to make structural changes that encourage gun ownership than to personally own a gun. You will gain more freedom per dollar spent inducing structural changes than per dollar spent on personal handgun ownership. Especially if you consider that owning a long gun is easier and gives you most of the individual advantages of a handgun.

 

[justice06rr]

Think about getting on a commercial passenger jet. It's a major hassle: you get probed, you have your bags searched, you can't bring the things you really need...

But we do it.

Flying is not quite the same as owning firearms as the OP stated. There are plenty of alternatives to flying (like driving or train) if you needed to take things with you like firearms. Even with flying, as long as you obey the laws you can easily bring firearms with you if you check them and make sure its legal in your destination.

To the OP, its hard to say what is best because we don't know you. I still suggest owning a firearm of some sort and going up to the larger calibers and rifles if that is possible for you. Do not give in so easily to your government; I feel bad for countries like UK and AUS that have very limited 2A rights, if none at all.

 

[David E]

You are missing at least one option there Dave.

3) Widespread gun ownership fosters freedom, so spending it is more important to make structural changes that encourage gun ownership than to personally own a gun.

I agree with the first part, disagree with second part.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yeah, but does your agreement with a particular point of view really matter when it comes to cataloging the various views expressed in a thread?

 

[David E]

Yeah, but does your agreement with a particular point of view really matter when it comes to cataloging the various views expressed in a thread?

I didn't attempt to catalog each and every view out there.

I simply assessed and recognized the two main views _I_ observed. In this context, yes, my agreement matters.

If you'd like to catalog ALL the various views, have at it.

 

[Ed Ames]

And I was simply pointing out that what you observed missed at least a third of what was observable.

Contrary to popular opinion, 2 out of 3 is pretty bad.

 

[David E]

And I was simply pointing out that what you observed missed at least a third of what was observable.

Contrary to popular opinion, 2 out of 3 is pretty bad.

You fail to see the point: I don't care about your third observation! This is why I didn't include with the two I do care about. Reread Post #82

Instead of knocking my observations, why don't you go make your own? (also in Post #82....).

 

[Ed Ames]

You fail to see my point: You are committing an error, a form of Selection Bias. You appear to be doing this deliberately in order to draw specific conclusions that are not supported by the full facts. However, any conclusion drawn from a deliberately skewed analysis is worthless. It's exactly like anti-gun people who don't care about the views of people who own guns.

And when you start using anti-gunner tactics against people on a pro-gun form, that leads me to think you are an anti-gun provocateur.

 

[Blackstone]

I feel bad for countries like UK and AUS that have very limited 2A rights, if none at all.

We have no gun rights, only privileges. And like all privileges, they can be withdrawn at any time.

 

[David E]

You fail to see my point:

No, I am discarding it.

You are committing an error, a form of Selection Bias.

I'm not cataloging all views, as I said in Post #82. Only presenting the two _I_ find most interesting....as I said in Post #82. Have you reread Post #82 yet?

[qiote]And when you start using anti-gunner tactics against people on a pro-gun form, that leads me to think you are an anti-gun provocateur.[/QUOTE]

Wow. It leads me to believe:

1) You simply are not paying attention.
2) You have a personal ax to grind with me and inexplicably chose this molehill to die on.
3) You refuse to reread Post #82, or cannot understand it.

There are other options to catalog, but I'll stop at three. (is that skewing the results?)

 

[Ed Ames]

I read post 82 the first time. No need to reread it.

Here's the basic problem. You said this reveals something about the responders. However, it wasn't complete. It revealed a distorted picture. Then, when someone attempted to flesh things out and remove some of the distortion, you resisted that addition on the basis of how much you personally agreed with the view.

That would imply that either A) you agree with both views expressed in post 77, or B) you were trying to use your distortion to make a specific point, and painting a more accurate picture interfered with that agenda.

I have nothing against you personally. I don't know you. I do have a problem with certain forms of dishonesty.

 

[David E]

I read post 82 the first time. No need to reread it.

Clearly, there is.

Here's the basic problem. You said this reveals something about the responders.

No, the basic problem is your refusal to understand I wasn't attempting to "catalog" all viewpoints, nor was I pretending that only two views existed.

You purposely mischaracterized my post to imply that was the case. Further, you intentionally mistake personal conclusions to represent hard, unassailable fact, as if I were writing a research paper, and you were the substitute Shop teacher inadvertently assigned to the literature class out to prove himself. Talk about dishonesty.

I simply expressed two of my observations and you have a cow about it!

 

[Radagast]

And you are both right.

When registration, 'genuine need', permit to acquire, etc, etc were introduced, half of the licenses shooters in my state did not renew their licenses. It was too difficult and they had other interests.

The half that did keep their licenses stuck at it, even when more difficulties were added by the bureaucrats. Those are the ones who will not give up personal firearms ownership.

Then there are the tiny minority who became politically active and active in the administration of clubs, training, organized hunts and shooting competitions; not to keep their own guns but to ensure the ability to own firearms would be available for the next generation. We have had some successes.

If I could reach through this series of intertubes and bang your heads together I would. You are on the same side!

 

[rookorami]

As long as I have the means to keep guns I will. I also try to get other people into it and clear out as much misinformation as possible. It may be a bit of a hassle but keep at it.

 

[Pointshoot]

Of course the effort is worth it.

How did nations whose founders were rough individualists, such as America and Australia, get into such a sorry state ?

All the best to the OP.

 

[larry_minn]

Maybe you should bring some ammo. Or at least $$ to pay for ammo costs.
I have shot many guns. Often I offer to use my (factory) ammo. If they decline I offer to let them fire what I have.