Unpopular view, why own handguns?

[Buildit]

First, to be fair I own handguns but favor rifles for shooting, home defense and hunting. But I understand the "slippery slope" about if we allow govn't to take away our rights to own any gun soon it will lead to laws prohibiting all weapons.
But IMHO as a novice and as the song says, "handguns are made for killing they arn't much good for nothing else." So give me the other reasons as to why prohibiting further sales of handguns made after 2010 would be a bad thing? If only rifles and shotguns (ie. firearms with non folding stocks over 18 inches) were all that was allowed to be produced and sold for public consumption in the US. The law would NOT prohibit sale or purchase of handguns already in existance through the end of 2009. How would this effect YOU personally?
I know this is a touchy subject, so please don't just flame me and say I'm an idiot or unamerican. Give me some real reasons that such a law would adversly effect the US in a negative way.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Hoxviii]

Handguns are designed to diffuse a situation instigated by someone else. Therefore, being able to have in your possession a handgun is a very effective means of defense outside the home.

Now, what happens if the sale and manufacture of new hand guns is banned? Prices of the currently available stock skyrocket, putting them out of the reach of the typical person. Just because every person now that can legally own a handgun owns one (Not really, but for the sake of argument), doesn't mean that someone that is not yet old enough won't want to own one one day. Why make it prohibitively expensive for him to own a handgun if that's what he wants to own, just because all you want is a rifle.

It's a matter of choice and freedom, and outside the home I choose to have the freedom to carry a handgun.

 

[JohnKSa]

Since you admit that handguns are good for killing and since killing is perfectly legal, sometimes absolutely necessary and even beneficial in many instances your starting premise (that since they're only good for killing we should get rid of them) is baseless.

Some instances when killing is legal, often necessary and perhaps even beneficial.

• Self defense against animals or persons.
• Legal hunting.
• Law enforcement use.
• Military use.

The idea that they're only good for killing is also flawed. There are many competitions and sporting activities which involve handguns, they're good for that.

 

[feudalson]

it effects my right to feel like i live in a free country...

 

[little miss]

freemen own guns, slaves don't

 

[feudalson]

free men and women i see little miss love seeing girls have intrerest in firearms

 

[TRGRHPY]

There is not one single reason why they should be banned.

For personal protection, it is hard to conceal a rifle or shotgun.

The reason FOR their use could take days to list, but the number one reason is that this is a free country and owning a handgun is specifically listed in the BOR as something that the government cannot take away.

Comparitively, you could say that no citizen can make a statement, vocally or in print, about the government or its officials. Since you have the right to vote, there is no need to speak about it.

 

[Bill of Ojai]

1. Banning all handguns after 2010 would give rise to some of the biggest black market operations in history. Handguns continue to be manufactured daily in most industrialized countries.

2. Handgun target shooting is a legitimate sport (Olympics). It involves using mind and hand/eye coordination to direct an object to a predetermined target, just like golf, bowling, baseball, etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

For an honest person, a gun is a rescue/safety tool. Yes, rifles and shotguns can be used for such purpose, but they are cumbersome. One can not make an appointment for an emergency. The value of a handgun is that it may easily be carried and thus readily available in the event of an emergency. In many ways a handgun is a less desirable rescue/safety tool, but it may be the only such tool that you can reasonably expect to have with you in an emergency.

It's unfortunately true that there are still a few states that severally limit or prohibit honest private citizens from carry handguns about. But in the majority of states, an honest citizen may either lawfully carry a handgun or at least readily qualify for a permit to do so.

People lawfully carrying handguns have effective and properly used them in self defense, saved themselves or others from injury or death and prevented serious violent crime in circumstances in which they would have been unlikely to have ready access to a rifle or shotgun.

 

[Ed Ames]

If it was just and only what you said....

Your proposal concentrates a specific form of power within a necessarily shrinking (even if the quantity of guns is fixed, the population is growing) subset of the population. Concentrations of power ALWAYS lead to abuse. The fact that those with weapons know they are less and less likely to encounter others with weapons makes it more likely some will try to used them to impose... actions, ideas, whatever.

Of course it wouldn't be only what you proposed. Such "fix the supply" laws are a form of gerrymandering. Think of it this way: Assume 75 million people own handguns when this law goes into effect, and the population is 300 million. In 2050 there will be 400 million people... and something less than 75 million handgun owners because many of those handguns will have failed, been lost, or been concentrated into fewer hands by wealthy collectors. That means going from 25% of the electorate to maybe 15-18%. That smaller pool of interested parties have a harder time overcoming the votes of the non-handgun-owning majority, so they lose representation disproportionately.

So you have an increasing inequity... a minority that is more likely to be ignored in the political debate because you have arbitrarily capped their population, AND at the same time has better access to the most practical form of weapon...which will scare the people who don't. So the disarmed will legitimately change the game--try to force the destruction of existing weapons--and it is very possible that at least some of the armed will be angry enough to fight back.

Add to that the increase of strong-against-weak violence that will be present in society due to the lack of available practical weapons and you have reduced everyone's quality of life.

 

[Harpo]

Why should it be against the law to own something that can be used to kill?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Its mighty hard to conceal an AR15...and to my knowledge, they don't make holsters for them.

 

[Prince Yamato]

...because I CCW and I don't want to sling a rifle over my shoulder like Wild Bill Hickok. I'm guessing you don't have a CCW permit as you clearly are of the mindset that guns are not meant to be carried.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Why should it be against the law to own something that can be used to kill?

You mean cars???

 

[evan price]

Let me go the other way with it- why should it be OK to ban them? In this country we are free (to most degrees.)
Our Founding Fathers put forth on paper their beliefs in the universal truth that all men are entitled to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness. I have those natural God-Given Rights as much as you or anyone else does and as long as you or I choose to do something that does not directly affect YOUR Natural Rights then why should anyone else bother or care in any way?

So you ask why we should not ban handguns- I ask you, why should we ban handguns- where is my posession of a handgun in any way going to affect YOUR natural Rights?

I can say that my posession of a handgun is what I use to ensure that my Rights to Life & Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness is not deprived from me by force of violence by those who would do me wrong.

Some of those potential wrongdoers are bigger, stronger, faster, and possibly aided by pharmaceuticals to make them better predators and inflicters of mayhem, and I want to have every advantage I can.

I say that guns are machines and they DO wear out and like it or not, there will be a time when the last gun has irreperably cracked its frame or some other damage which renders it inoperable, and where are you?

God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. A handgun is able to be carried near to hand and ready for use, a handgun can be comfortably holstered in case of need, and brought into action quickly. Try that with a long gun against an attacker at HTH range- not gonna happen.

You sound quite the same philosophically as a close friend of mine who feels that any "concealable" firearm should be banned, but swords and knives and long guns should be legal, because a pistol is a "coward's weapon" and men should defend themselves with weapons that can't be hidden and require you to look into an enemy's eyes if you have to fight/kill them.

He's hopelessly lost on this "romantic" notion that battles in the age of muzzle loaders and swords was somehow cool, swashbuckling, and clean.

I blame Hollywood.

 

[Howser87]

If you take the ability to readily procure a firearm out of the hands of the law abiding citizens of the country then the only ones who will have them will be the ones who do not abide by the laws.

Basically Ed Ames summed it up in his post, it would only start with not allowing sale of firearm manufactured after 2010, next it would be limiting supply, then it would be a ban.

I personally don't currently own a handgun, but I do know that I have enjoyed shooting them in the past a target ranges. I will therefore buy one within the next year, maybe more after that first one. Not because I plan to kill someone with it, but because I plan to shoot it for recreational purposes and if God forbid it ever came to that then use it in HD.

The second amendment is the backbone of our country, take it away and we wont stand upright for very long.

 

[Davek1977]

Why should it be against the law to own something that can be used to kill?

You mean cars???

Or asprin, alcohol, tobacco, baseball bats, knives, rope, wire, hammers and nearly any other item you can pull off the shelf at Walmart. Witha bit of ingenuity and imagination, you can koll with almost anything. By the OP's logic, that means we shouldn't produce ANYHTING after 2010, because someone might be killed with one of the items produced.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

The main reason such laws are a bad thing is that they are based in bigotry. Also, laws limiting or banning firearms assume guilt which is contrary to the basic tenets of our legal system that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

There are millions of handguns that are manufactured for non lethal purposes--target or competition match shooting--so that bromide about their being only for killing is pretty feeble.

There are millions of handguns that have been made with the possible use for self defense (killing) that shoot only targets. Another strike against that idiot "wisdom". My revolvers have fired somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 rounds and still no kills.

As a libertarian I would say that the reason such laws are a bad thing is that individuals should be judged on their own actions and have a right to do anything they please as long as it does not harm others or limit their right to do the same.

 

[model67a]

rights

I use my handguns for the same things as you say you use your long guns for . I started out using long guns but progressed to being efficient enough to use handguns for hunting and gave my long guns away. Handguns present more of a challenge(just as bow hunting) and it is my preference to increase the challenge. Also if the anti-guns get their way, they seem to want more. How long would it be before they see that your 12gauge is really more effective at killing than my 357. If a person is intent on killing someone and had both available he would be a fool to opt for the 357 over the 12 gauge. It has really always amazed me that the anti's want to strictly regulate handguns but have no such restrictions on a weapon that has the potential to be more of a threat. Anyone can have a shotgun and thus are more of a potential threat. All said what it boils down to is you have your preference for exercising your rights and I have mine. stay safe

 

[Glockman17366]

Give me some real reasons that such a law would adversly effect the US in a negative way.

The Bill of Rights guarantee individual and states rights. The federal government has no legal input whatsoever, as no state has authorized that power to the feds.
So, right off the bat, any "law" banning handguns would diminish individual freedoms as well as states' rights.

The more immediate impact would be citizens would be less able to protect themselves. And, anyone naive enough to think the evil doers would be limited by any such ban is foolish.

 

[BADUNAME27]

Unpopular view, why own handguns?
First, to be fair I own handguns but favor rifles for shooting, home defense and hunting. But I understand the "slippery slope" about if we allow govn't to take away our rights to own any gun soon it will lead to laws prohibiting all weapons.
But IMHO as a novice and as the song says, "handguns are made for killing they arn't much good for nothing else." So give me the other reasons as to why prohibiting further sales of handguns made after 2010 would be a bad thing? If only rifles and shotguns (ie. firearms with non folding stocks over 18 inches) were all that was allowed to be produced and sold for public consumption in the US. The law would NOT prohibit sale or purchase of handguns already in existance through the end of 2009. How would this effect YOU personally?
I know this is a touchy subject, so please don't just flame me and say I'm an idiot or unamerican. Give me some real reasons that such a law would adversly effect the US in a negative way.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Well, every competitive pistol shooter I know might have something to say about it.

 

[John E.]

Because you might need to defend yourself outside of your home.

 

[Deanimator]

I carry a handgun nearly every time I leave the house.

Why exactly should this be either impossible or punishingly expensive for people farther down the road?

Or do you think that women should just carry Kalashnikovs or ARs for self-defense against rapists? You DO believe that people have a right to defend themselves when they're outside their homes, DON'T you?

 

[mbt2001]

We keep getting told that is we sacrifice our rights, then society will be safer. Ban machine guns, ban shot barreled rifles and shotguns, do background checks, have a licensed seller system...

Has anything changed? No. Will it ever change. No. If things were to change, I seriously doubt us sacrificing our rights would have caused it.

 

[Master Blaster]

By your logic Rifles are only good for killing as well.
So all guns should be banned, that way there will be no threat to your Glorious leader who is busy destroying what is left of our economy and our freedom.