Guns : A simple solution

[TheMann]

Okay, first off:

Personally, I'm more perplexed by the idea of banning rifles, but not handguns. And, the usual "clips are not magazines".

Yes! Thank you! You know, call me pedantic but this grates on my nerves so much for some weird reason. Movies, TV shows and games get this wrong all the freaking time. That metal box thingy filled with rounds that's slapped into a firearm to load it? That's a magazine!!! [http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/sacil/4-Magazine-for-n30-shot-5.jpg] A clip [http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/AMM-249.jpg] is a metal strip used to bind ammunition in order to make loading magazines easier, so you don't have to insert one round at a time, which is a pain in the ass.[footnote]Okay, well there are some exceptions, like the M1 Garand, where the entire clip is completely inserted into an internal en bloc magazine, but you get the idea.[/footnote] Ugh, anyway...

And you might not think there is any reason for the "gun nut" to own an arsenal, but thankfully that's not how America works -- we don't outlaw things because we don't see a reason for people to have them. If that "gun nut" isn't doing anything wrong with those weapons (that is, nearly all "gun nuts") then the law has no business telling him he "doesn't need it."

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It seems like some people don't seem to grasp the concept of how personal freedoms work in the U.S., especially with things like firearm ownership. While someone else might not be able to fathom why I would possibly need an AR-15 rifle with a 30 rd., or hell even an 100 rd. magazine, that isn't nor should it be the business of others. As a person who has no record of violent crime, my reasons for why I feel I need such a weapon are my own and I don't have to justify that to anyone else or even the government to an extent. Laws restricting firearms have never reduced violence here. The states with the strictest firearm regulation still have the highest violent crime rates. These things may work in other nations but have been completely ineffectual here (there's a fairly logical reason for this), and the majority of Americans are rightfully unwilling accept false promises of safety in exchange for their personal liberties.

 

[senordesol]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

 

[uberDoward]

If it doesn't trouble one too terribly much, might I suggest looking into the history of the United States, specifically HOW WE GOT STARTED?

We, the people, overthrew our (then) legal government. We didn't do it by filing forms, we didn't do it via chain emails, we didn't do it by requesting a formal split.

We did it with fire and steel.

That's why the Founding Fathers put in the Second Amendment - "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."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the citizens of the United States are armed to keep the government in check, and if necessary to replace the government should that need ever (and pray it never needs) be replaced.

Also, while it may be misattributed, the quote still rings true - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

You want good gun control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Kennesaw, GA REQUIRES every household to own a gun. Is it the wild west? No, Kennesaw has had their crime rate drop over 50% since passing that ordinance.

How do you explain that?

 

[LetalisK]

I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a handgun unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.

My point being : Banning all guns just like banning all drugs and all alcohol only leads to people obtaining them illegaly and overpowering people with ease who wouldn't ever dream of stepping into that world.
Gun sales to civilians should be limited to handguns. Well documented,Well registered and fairly supplied.

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

Sure you may love guns but even you mister gun nut should be able to accept the fact that there is no god damn good reason for you to be harboring an arsenal unless the zombie apocalypse breaks out, and that'd be a damn shoddy argument in court.

The bolded part is where this argument, and similar arguments like it, come to a screeching halt and become a 10 car pile up on the free way. So-called "assault weapons" have never been the problem. They make up an incredibly small minority of gun-related deaths. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths come from handguns. Those are the problem and it is handguns that should be heavily regulated first.

 

[Benni88]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

I didn't say it was a contract, but I did say that it was reasonable to expect them to intervene/help if you were under attack in your own home. "The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders." I'm pretty sure that under this is also, prevent criminals who're in the act.

As to the number of guns in your statistic, that's downright scary. First and foremost, GunSafe is not a recognized educational establishment. It's hardly research from a respected source is it? "(Gunsafe: Connecticut residents committed to the preservation of the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense.)". Also, it not the recorded loss of life that most worries me, it's what the guns can go on to do if they leave the possession of the purchaser.

From a personal angle, I perceive that the legality of guns in America is responsible for tragedies such as the one the week before last. I can remember 4 or 5 massacres off the top of my head that occurred in the U.S., whereas I can only remember one of a similar scale in my home country (UK). And its not a matter of population size, as the UK has a much denser population than the states. The only difference I can see is that guns are legal to own in America.

 

[senordesol]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

I didn't say it was a contract, but I did say that it was reasonable to expect them to intervene/help if you were under attack in your own home. "The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders." I'm pretty sure that under this is also, prevent criminals who're in the act.

As to the number of guns in your statistic, that's downright scary. First and foremost, GunSafe is not a recognized educational establishment. It's hardly research from a respected source is it? "(Gunsafe: Connecticut residents committed to the preservation of the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense.)". Also, it not the recorded loss of life that most worries me, it's what the guns can go on to do if they leave the possession of the purchaser.

From a personal angle, I perceive that the legality of guns in America is responsible for tragedies such as the one the week before last. I can remember 4 or 5 massacres off the top of my head that occurred in the U.S., whereas I can only remember one of a similar scale in my home country (UK). And its not a matter of population size, as the UK has a much denser population than the states. The only difference I can see is that guns are legal to own in America.

Think of it this way: if you report a crime in progress it is their duty to investigate and apprehend the offender. The man has still committed a crime and they're arresting him. Whereas if you report that a crime MAY occur, whether or not they investigate is up to their own discretion.

Guns are illegal to own in Mexico, yet the death toll thanks to JUST the cartels has topped 40,000 there. The Swiss has an assault rifle in every home, yet their murder rate is almost non-existent.

Statistically, American neighborhoods with high rates of legal gun ownership have lower over-all crime whereas neighborhoods with lower rates of legal gun ownership have higher. Chicago and DC (contenders for the top spot for the nations deadliest cities) saw their murder rates via pistols skyrocket as high as 100% after their respective pistol bans.

On the DC/Chicago pistol ban: http://weblaw.usc.edu/news/article.cfm?newsID=3830
On legal gun ownership: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

I didn't say it was a contract, but I did say that it was reasonable to expect them to intervene/help if you were under attack in your own home. "The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders." I'm pretty sure that under this is also, prevent criminals who're in the act.

As to the number of guns in your statistic, that's downright scary. First and foremost, GunSafe is not a recognized educational establishment. It's hardly research from a respected source is it? "(Gunsafe: Connecticut residents committed to the preservation of the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense.)". Also, it not the recorded loss of life that most worries me, it's what the guns can go on to do if they leave the possession of the purchaser.

From a personal angle, I perceive that the legality of guns in America is responsible for tragedies such as the one the week before last. I can remember 4 or 5 massacres off the top of my head that occurred in the U.S., whereas I can only remember one of a similar scale in my home country (UK). And its not a matter of population size, as the UK has a much denser population than the states. The only difference I can see is that guns are legal to own in America.

Think of it this way: if you report a crime in progress it is their duty to investigate and apprehend the offender. The man has still committed a crime and they're arresting him. Whereas if you report that a crime MAY occur, whether or not they investigate is up to their own discretion.

Guns are illegal to own in Mexico, yet the death toll thanks to JUST the cartels has topped 40,000 there. The Swiss has an assault rifle in every home, yet their murder rate is almost non-existent.

Statistically, American neighborhoods with high rates of legal gun ownership have lower over-all crime whereas neighborhoods with lower rates of legal gun ownership have higher. Chicago and DC (contenders for the top spot for the nations deadliest cities) saw their murder rates via pistols skyrocket as high as 100% after their respective pistol bans.

On the DC/Chicago pistol ban: http://weblaw.usc.edu/news/article.cfm?newsID=3830
On legal gun ownership: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

Can I just point out that before everyone starts yelling at me again that I was going for this? I'm not pro-ban I'm pro being mindful and accepting that a handgun should be what a man should be able to own BUT nothing more and that we should look at it more carefully.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

You can't ban guns in America at this point. There are just too many out there already circulating and banning them will do very little. Also, if you intend to ban them AND try to take the ones already out there away, I am personally convinced that THIS would cause a new civil war in America.

I recommend offering a no-questions-asked trade of firearms for about five grams of good quality heroin. It exchanges a durable product for a consumable one, and anyone that wants to hang onto a firearm starts being VERY CAREFUL of it.

I'm not asking to ban handguns though, I'm voting to keep it to a legislated well documented sale of handguns and handguns alone.

The point being sir that it's not why should you not be allowed to have that firearm but why should it be allowed?

What good reason is there for you to have anything other than a handgun.

Let's pretend we're on the same page here, you think my solution is like banning Ibruprofen to counter drug-use.

You assume that's what I'm after but it isn't.

My question to you on a same note is :
Good sir what possible reason could you have to hold a Minigun or a rocket launcher in your possesion? as it's apparently the same thing and we're doing absurd comparisons here now.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.

I never said ban all guns I voted for restrictions to satisfy both sides

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Anyway, why are automatic weapons such a big deal anyway? I don't get it why semi-auto is okay and auto isn't. I don't see the difference and actually I think automatic weapons would be more effective for defense - no burglar will approach you if you first shoot 10 rounds in the (soft) ground.

Besides anyone who really wants to can make the alterations to the gun.

I'm not talking about machine guns here, but I don't see why Glock 18 should be considered more dangerous than a semi-auto big-ass rifle.

Mind you I'm not from a country where gun-ownership reaches that far so my arguments have stuff in mind that I sometimes don't know how to explain.

My idea here was that anything automatic or semi-automatic should be banned

Allowing these remaining handguns for self-defense/shooting range.
And Allowing rifles for Hunting/Shooting range.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Gun sales to civilians should be limited to handguns. Well documented,Well registered and fairly supplied.

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

Sure you may love guns but even you mister gun nut should be able to accept the fact that there is no god damn good reason for you to be harboring an arsenal unless the zombie apocalypse breaks out, and that'd be a damn shoddy argument in court.

When you consider that the insanely overwhelming majority of gun crimes exclusively involve handguns... congratulations, you've just fixed absolutely nothing. It's like saying, "Everyone's doing cocaine, and it's a problem: Outlaw ibuprofen!"

And you might not think there is any reason for the "gun nut" to own an arsenal, but thankfully that's not how America works -- we don't outlaw things because we don't see a reason for people to have them. If that "gun nut" isn't doing anything wrong with those weapons (that is, nearly all "gun nuts") then the law has no business telling him he "doesn't need it."

Also, please tell us specifically why you feel the "AK74" (I'll assume you mean AK-47) should be banned.

There is no specific here it was an example........

Okay I'll ask again sir : Why SHOULD you be allowed to own anything other than a handgun for self defense or a rifle for hunting?

What good sensible reason is there to put such a gun in the hands of the public.
Sure it may look pretty but a gun is a gun.

Or do you tell me you think everyone should have nukes too? I mean we're constantly telling Iran they shouldn't ever dare to get nuclear weaponry but hey when they have nukes it doesn't mean they intent to use them right?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

The simple way I'd put it would be: If it's military-surplus, you really don't need it.

Thats kind of deceiving. For instance, the two guns I want to own, a handgun and a rifle, are both military surplus.....but the rifle is 60 years old and the handgun is almost 90 years old.

Meet the M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]. US service rifle from WW2 and the beginning of Korea (where it was replaced by the M14 assualt rifle).
Rate of Fire: 56 rpm
Clip size: 8
Bullet size: .30-06 (a very common and VERY! powerful hunting round)
First built: 1940

And the handgun, A classic Colt .45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911]
Rate of Fire: Over 200 rpm (I cant find an exact number)
Clip size: 7
Bullet size: .45 ACP (again, very common and very powerful round)
First Built: 1911

So according to you, I cant own either of those because they are military surplus.

OT: I actually used to be in the crowd that said "Ban full-autos", but not anymore. I found out that no legally owned full autos have been used in crime in the US since the 1930s, and the people who have the money to afford them today are not the people who would be robbing banks or sticking up houses. Also, For amount of guns, most of the Arsonal laws I have seen have to do with the amount of ammunition, not guns. For instance, you could own 10,000 guns with 1 bullet for each of them and not even get any second looks from the gov't. But if you own 1 gun with 10,000 bullets, that is going to set off warning bells. Which that personally makes much more sense to me.

Okay sir can you help me out?

You are exactly the type of person that in my idea would be allowed to have what they want.

Call me stupid but the M1 garand was what I thought of when I was thinking about guns that could be used for hunting (Although I'm assuming it absolutely isn't anything in that category but it's an example)


Please don't kill me for making the M1 Garand=Hunting rifle argument I just simply have no clue what all these other guns are called I'm simply looking at the weapon type that works in this particular way.

 

[Skratt]

there is no god damn good reason for you to be harboring an arsenal

Sport.

A responsible gun owner that keeps all of their guns under lock and key should be allowed to harbor any amount of weapons they so desire. A responsible gun owner secures all of their weapons to the extent that would be considered reasonable. A giant safe in the basement for example.

If this is not a good reason to be able to have a weapon, please explain in your own words why I can't own an AK-47.

(I'm only using the Ak-47 as an example - substitute any fully automatic weapon as you wish)

 

[LetalisK]

Okay I'll ask again sir : Why SHOULD you be allowed to own anything other than a handgun for self defense or a rifle for hunting?

What good sensible reason is there to put such a gun in the hands of the public.
Sure it may look pretty but a gun is a gun.

Or do you tell me you think everyone should have nukes too? I mean we're constantly telling Iran they shouldn't ever dare to get nuclear weaponry but hey when they have nukes it doesn't mean they intent to use them right?

Why should you be allowed to own a handgun? The only case where a handgun is a better alternative is in the case of concealed carry. For home defense a shotgun is much better. For pest control on something like a farm, a shotgun or small caliber rifle is much better. There is literally nothing a handgun does better than any other gun besides be compact enough to be concealable when walking around. Why shouldn't handguns be the heavily regulated weapon? They're plausible use : abuse ratio is much worse than other weapons.

 

[senordesol]

Can I just point out that before everyone starts yelling at me again that I was going for this? I'm not pro-ban I'm pro being mindful and accepting that a handgun should be what a man should be able to own BUT nothing more and that we should look at it more carefully.

When it comes to home defense, nothing tops a shotgun in my opinion. High chance of hitting in close quarters, excellent stopping power, terrifyingly demoralizing noise when the action racks.

If I had the choice between shotgun or pistol for home defense; shotgun every time.

 

[loc978]

I feel like I need to post this in every gun control thread that pops up...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides]

The ability to legally obtain rifles, assault or otherwise, is not the problem. More murders are committed with knives in the US than assault rifles... and handgun murders make 'em both look like a drop in the ol' murder bucket. If that psychopath in Colorado hadn't been able to get ahold of an AR-15, he just would have used a different gun (or multiple handguns, which I think probably would have netted him a higher kill count... they're much faster to swap than an AR-15 is to reload), and the result would have been very similar.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

And besides, since when is a handgun not enough to stop someone else, regardless of their weapon? Bullets don't wither and die because they're approaching a superior gunman.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Can I just point out that before everyone starts yelling at me again that I was going for this? I'm not pro-ban I'm pro being mindful and accepting that a handgun should be what a man should be able to own BUT nothing more and that we should look at it more carefully.

When it comes to home defense, nothing tops a shotgun in my opinion. High chance of hitting in close quarters, excellent stopping power, terrifyingly demoralizing noise when the action racks.

If I had the choice between shotgun or pistol for home defense; shotgun every time.

Okay I'll ask again sir : Why SHOULD you be allowed to own anything other than a handgun for self defense or a rifle for hunting?

What good sensible reason is there to put such a gun in the hands of the public.
Sure it may look pretty but a gun is a gun.

Or do you tell me you think everyone should have nukes too? I mean we're constantly telling Iran they shouldn't ever dare to get nuclear weaponry but hey when they have nukes it doesn't mean they intent to use them right?

Why should you be allowed to own a handgun? The only case where a handgun is a better alternative is in the case of concealed carry. For home defense a shotgun is much better. For pest control on something like a farm, a shotgun or small caliber rifle is much better. There is literally nothing a handgun does better than any other gun besides be compact enough to be concealable when walking around. Why shouldn't handguns be the heavily regulated weapon? They're plausible use : abuse ratio is much worse than other weapons.

I feel like I need to post this in every gun control thread that pops up...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides]

The ability to legally obtain rifles, assault or otherwise, is not the problem. More murders are committed with knives in the US than assault rifles... and handgun murders make 'em both look like a drop in the ol' murder bucket. If that psychopath in Colorado hadn't been able to get ahold of an AR-15, he just would have used a different gun (or multiple handguns, which I think probably would have netted him a higher kill count... they're much faster to swap than an AR-15 is to reload), and the result would have been very similar.

Okay you to have won me over I'm alterring my OP, however that changes the idea then from solely handguns for self defense and rifles for hunting to Shotguns and Rifles.