2007-12-29 00:37:23 · 41 answers · asked by April 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Jesus! What kind of society do you live in at all? To even ask that question even seems half mad! I presume it is to Americans you are referring? Aren't they readily available there already? That does so much for your country. Maybe they should legalize Cocaine in Columbia too! That would solve everything wouldn't it?
2007-12-29 00:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by michael m 2 · 1⤊ 9⤋
There is no simple yes or no answer to this question.
In the United States, the basic law, the Constitution, of the land addresses the individual's right to bear arms. There is a range of opinion about what the Constitution means. My point is that your question, in the US, raises basic questions of law and rights.
Personally, I am a little concerned about lightly giving up the right to have firearms, handguns or otherwise. There is self protection; there is also the ability of the individual to be a force, a check, against collective authority. This is a very dangerous right and responsibility.
Having said that, I have chosen not to own firearms. I feel like I do not have the training or the judgment to use them wisely or effectively. It is best for me to rely on other protections.
Edit: The question boils down to this: Is it safe, or is there a safe way, to give government an absolute monopoly on deadly force? The law should give government very wide discretion on the use of deadly force, but not an absolute monopoly. How should the competition be structured? I do not know
2007-12-29 00:52:32 · answer #2 · answered by Darrol P 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, criminals have said they wouldn't perpetrate a crime against some one they thought would be armed.
If everyone had free access to hand guns the VT, the missionary school, the church in Colorado, Columbine, the Utah mall, Edinboro PA all wouldn't have happened. People, who became victims, would have been armed and able to stop the crime.
Police don't have some magic mojo over the hand gun that the general public doesn't. Most officers don't even rack up as much range time as recreational users.
2007-12-29 03:58:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, they are available to citizens, over the age of twenty one, who are law abiding, are of sound mind, and are willing to come up with the money to make a purchase.
In some states, they can actually carry concealed weapons, with the proper license to do so. The problem is that all states do not allow this practice. In those states, the crimes against citizens are sure to dissipate, if their foolish politicians were to wake up and realize this. In those states too, the politicians have body guards to protect them, but not the average citizen. Where's the equality in that ?
2007-12-29 02:42:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Handguns are available now, and should remain available to the public.
2007-12-29 00:46:43 · answer #5 · answered by Mike W 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It is a right in America for a person to own a gun. I agree with that and own a few myself. But, I do not believe that handguns are the best gun to own when so much bad can be done with it. Guns don't kill people, people do. For safety purposes I say no but for my own right I say not all guns are bad. It is the person that is the problem.
2007-12-29 05:55:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If decent, law-abiding people carried handguns it would rob the criminals of their superior firepower. There have been a lot of instances of a loser with a handgun walking into a store or restaurant and shooting people. Everyone is at his mercy because they have no way to defend themselves or stop the person. If decent people were armed we would have a fighting chance instead of being vulnerable like sheep. The police show up after people are dead to draw chalk lines around the bodies on the floor. They can't be there to prevent the carnage.
2007-12-29 00:43:28 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff A 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The general public has proved they're not responsible with firearms? What do you classify as the general public? Criminals and gangstas with social deficiencies? Are you an idiot? Do you think most of them obtain their firearm legally?
Although unlike long rifles and shotguns, handguns were made for one sole purpose, to kill another human being, why should it not be available to the public? How often is a deer going to rob your house and rape your children?
I hope you'll never encounter a situation where if you have had a handgun at home, you could have saved your life/spouse's life/children's life.
2007-12-29 00:53:34 · answer #8 · answered by anonymousryu 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
This is interesting. I notice from your profile that you're in Russia, and a quick web search shows that Russia's murder rate (handguns illegal), is over twice that of the U.S. (handguns legal). I don't know what to make of it yet, but it puts an interesting twist to the gun debate in the U.S.
2007-12-29 00:49:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
If you are in America, then you can purchase a handgun at age 21.
Provided you don't live in one of the overly oppressive cities.
The 2nd Amendment garauntees the right to keep and bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
2007-12-29 00:49:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every household in Iraq is allowed an AK-47 assault rifle. Here in the US automatic weapons are not allowed in the hands of the general public. It seems to me that since we have the right to have guns that they should at the very least be the equal of our "enemy" (at least Bush thinks they are our enemy)
So even hand guns fall short of the intent of the second amendment.
If push came to shove here we would be trying to defend our homes and nation with a bunch of old bolt action deer rifles.
2007-12-29 03:08:06 · answer #11 · answered by tom l 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋