Handguns. Ban or not ban?

Answer 1

I think the second amendment is pretty clear. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". I believe ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. Gun control laws have not had any positive impact on crime rates.

If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

Answer 2

Depends...

I used to camp a lot... you know... backpacking...

I carried a single action .22 revolver with a long rifle cylinder, I loaded it alternating with bird-shot and .22 LR Weapon was light, visible, and would shoot accurately as I could hold it for upwards of 50 yards. The first round would knock a shake down and the second would take kill it. It was accurate enough to hunt with if the need arose. The other features of that weapon were that it was pretty loud so it could be used for signaling, and the ammunition was inexpensive.

In my home I kept a .380 semiautomatic. I loaded it with hollow-point. I figured that it it hit anything it would dissipate the energy into the thing hit and not leave the room. The advantages of that weapon were that it could be stored without a round in the chamber and the safety on so firing it required that I be awake enough to fire it. And it wouldn't be ready to be used against me.

I know a guy who lives in a high crime area who has a 12ga shotgun to protect his home.

BUT... Nobody has any use for a magnum .357 or .44 unless they're hunting elephants, rhinos, or bear. And nobody needs an automatic... of any kind.

And, unless you're a complete moron... who shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon.... or even a sharp object... you don't need an assault weapon with which to hunt. If you're that bad a shot, you need to learn how to use a weapon before he's allowed to own one.

Some whimper and whine about the second amendment right to own a firearm. The text of the Amendment is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those who can stand on their hind legs and read, and understand context can see that the intent is not that any idiot with the money can and should own a firearm. Back when the constitution was written, there was no formally organized army. Each man was sort of on his own for the regulated Militia what was deemed necessary for a free state. That's the reason people owned weapons. They also hunted with them because they didn't have a local grocery store. But, back then, every man was tacitly a member of the Militia.

Things have changed. A man now works for a living and buys his meat from the market. He has police and an organized "Militia" (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force) to protect his land.

So why do some men think they NEED some high-powered automatic weapon with a scope and laser sight? Maybe because he's not certain of his manhood? Perhaps basically he's a wimp in moron's clothing. Perhaps they think that the ability to kill somehow makes them more of a man.

I have a buddy who's an ex-SEAL. If you sneak into his house when he's there, you will likely not get out alive... and he won't fire a shot... and you won't have time to. That's a "man." If you catch his wife alone, she said, "I'd do exactly what my husband taught me. I'd point the .45 at the guy, pull the trigger until the action clicked on empty, and then I'd go to the kitchen and get the largest knife I can find and put it in the guy's hand."

I believe a man has the right to defend his family and property. But suppose the guy next door has the same idea. And suppose he has a .357 magnum, or a .270 ("for hunting") or some automatic weapon... remember he's only exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. And suppose, "in fear of his life," he rips off a few rounds. He might hit the intruder. But but the bullet isn't going to stop there.. or at the wall. Your life is in danger too... and so are the lives of your family.

Hunting is a sport? How so? The hunter gets lucky and stumbles on a prey a quarter of a mile away. He sights with a scope that makes the critter look like it's 50 yards way. He pulls the trigger and the bullet gets to the target before the sound does. How is that sport? The best one of the players can hope for is to escape with it's life. The worst the other player can hope for is to get out in the forest, get some healthy exercise, and to have a good time with his friends. How is it sport if the only outcome is a win or a draw? The only thing killing something is good for is bragging rights. Want sport? Hunt bear.... with a pocket knife. Sure the bear is stronger, but you're supposed to be smarter. Now he stakes are even. The best both players can hope for is to escape with their lives... now there's sport. Either player can lose.

But the whiners and whimperers wail that criminals have weapons. Oh, so, it's okay for a moron who can't shoot to own a weapon, but it's not okay for another moron who wants to use the weapon for his own purposes? If it were a capital offense to own any automatic weapon, or one that could be made to be automatic, and to possess (not necessarily use) any kind of weapon in the commission of any kind of crime, I dare say criminals would be on the losing end of the hunt.

I had a house burgled. I asked the investigating officer it I had been there and had killed the guy, what would have happened to me. He didn't answer the question, but told me not to get macho with him. I told him calmly that i was not "getting macho with him." I told him that I felt violated and angry. He said that the guy who broke in was probably some teenage kid trying to score some drug money. He asked me if I thought my stereo set was worth a kid's life. I looked him right in the eye and said, "I think that's a question the kid needs to ask himself before he breaks into my house."

Answer 3

No ban. Handguns can save lives if used responsibly. When citizens are not allowed to protect themselves crime rates go up.

Edge: Your statement proves the point...you have a ban on handguns, but CRIMINALS still have them. So what good is the ban?

Answer 4

In what country? I will assume you`re talking about the United States because gun laws in my country are already very strict.

I say that you should ban them. Since guns (and especially handguns) are used to kill, anybody who thinks murder is wrong should be for a ban on handguns.

Americans must realize that their constitution was written a heck of a long time ago. Now, the British re-invasion plan has been cancelled and outlaws no longer roam the streets. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was for a time when guns took 2 minutes to reload. I`m sure your forefathers would have thought about it twice if they knew that guns would one day have the capacity to shoot 2000 rounds a minute.

Answer 5

Not Ban.Forget the Constitution for a moment.On a more base level,I REFUSE to be a victim.If a criminal is stupid enough to break into my home while I'm there,I am willing to open fire to protect my life and property.Nice thing about living in Texas,we don't have rampant home invasions because the "smart" criminals know that more often than not,the homeowner is armed.Same reason we don't have to tolerate Freeway shootings(can you say California).1/2 of the truck owners carry a weapon in the truck.
So PLEASE,will you bleeding heart Liberals stop trying to take my lawfully purchased and owned weapons from me!!!

Answer 6

Not Ban... citizens with handguns are the biggest deterrent to crime there is... who would try to hold up a bank if there was a possibility that half the customers were armed?

Answer 7

Hand guns cannot be baned. First there are to many out in circulation. Do you suggest that law enforcement go door to door and confiscate them. Second they are too easy to make, any good machinist with low tech equipment can make one. Third they can be smuggled into this country, look how well we are doing to stop the flow of cocaine into this country if you don't think so. Fourth, the majority of Americans oppose it, it is a political loser.

Answer 8

NO BAN!, the criminals get their guns illegally, banning guns succeeds in suppressing freedom and peoples right to defence.

Answer 9

Consider all the other things in our society that are supposedly ban and we still do, use and take them anyway. Banning guns will not alter the sick human behavior of our world.

Answer 10

Ban them. There is no reason why anyone should carry a concealed weapon in their car or on their person - unless they are in law enforcement or security. A rifle or shotgun at home is ample protection against burglars or rapists.

Answer 11

Not ban. Because if you ban them the criminals will still be able to get them and all we'll have is harsh language and rude gestures, or maybe even not that much.