Apparently you’ve never done much stress shooting. It can be nearly impossible to reload a magazine fed handgun when you’re adrenaline is pumping at full tilt boogie. Your hands shake, your gun shakes, and the magazine seems to refuse to seat properly no matter how calm you try to make yourself. Both revolvers and automatics take a great deal of practice and time to be able to use beyond the normal single loading in a stress situation.
See, the issue I have is one of overall public safety: having a machine gun in every house strikes me as a worse idea than not having any, anywhere.
However, there is no need to escalate to machine guns, to me the real issue is over ordinary hand-guns. I am not insensitive to the feeling of safety one may have, carrying around a hand-gun. However, to my mind this safety is mostly illusory, in that a society in which carrying around a hand-gun is acceptable is one which is likely on average to be more dangerous than one where it is not.
The issue is not only hardened criminals (who could presumably get hand-guns whatever the laws), but stupid teenagers, violent spouses, or just everyday average citizens. Having easy access to deadly weapons that can easily be concealed and carried around on the person (like a hand-gun) poses a certain level of hazard in the form of impulsive violence, suicide, and accidents. The question to my mind is - is this freedom worth the potential risks?
To my mind, it is not. However, guns do have benefits as well as risks, so I’m not in favour of banning then totally - just in favour of banning those which are easily portable and concealable.
I was discussing this very topic yesterday with my brother, who is an avid shooter, hunter and gun collector. He is in a constant state of high dither over the prospect of someone trying to take his guns away from him. Here are two questions I asked him:
-
Of the five men in our family (him, myself, our two brothers and our father), how many are NRA-card-carrying shooting enthusiasts? (Answer: One.)
-
Of the five of us, how many would support abolition of the Second Amendment? (Answer: None.)
My point: While the majority of Americans aren’t avid shooters or even gun owners, only a very small minority actually believe the nation would be a better place with no guns at all. I put the mater in the context of our family because I wanted him to understand that most of us know someone who is a gun hobbyist of some kind and, while they may be somewhat tiresome with their constant talk about muzzle velocity, recoil factors and so on, they’re actually good people who would never cause anyone harm.
One other point: Can you imagine the enforcement nightmare if semi-automatic rifles and handguns were banned outright? Think about the worst crime wave in American history (hint: Prohibition) and multiply that times ten. This country couldn’t successfully outlaw booze, and it loses the “war on drugs” every day. I can’t even imagine enforcing a law that would instantly turn hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding Americans into criminals.
You raise an interesting point. Anyone know the “straight dope” on how hand-gun prohibition got started in Canada? I get the impression from reading books set in the 19th century that in the past there was no restriction on hand-guns; obviously now there is, and without terrible consequences. How did that happen?
[Note: not trying to claim it would not have terrible consequences in the US, which has somewhat different historical and constitutional imperatives, just curious]
There’s probably enough info there for another entire thread, but I would expect that many people “accidentally” kept a gun or two. Same with the UK and Australia.
Sorry officer, I’m afraid all of the semi-auto’s that I purchased through an FFL were sold to a collector… “John” something. I gave him a receipt but didn’t memorize his drivers license. Thanks for stopping by.
Not to imply that I have any that weren’t purchased through an FFL, you understand. Nope, all I got left is this lever action .22.
I think one big disconnect between the pro-ban and anti-ban sides comes down to one issue: you’re talking about safety, I’m talking about rights. We don’t abrogate civil rights just because someone can show there is a safety interest in doing so. (But even still I challenge the idea that banning handguns would make anybody safer - just look at the trends of violent crime as more and more states became “shall-issue” for concealed weapons permits. Same goes for the mythical “assault weapon” - it’s just a small-caliber semiautomatic rifle decked out in black plastic.)
People keep saying they don’t want violent criminals to have powerful, quickly reloadable weapons. I fully agree - I don’t want violent criminals to have anything more dangerous than a tube of toothpaste. However, that’s not a justification for impairing the rights of everyone else to have as many powerful, quickly reloadable weapons as they like. It’s difficult to punish criminals and keep their ability to inflict harm to a minimum without infringing the rights of citizens, but we have to do our best, and take what risks must be taken so that liberty may be preserved. That’s one of our founding principles.
I don’t think anybody will deny that alcohol is dangerous - it kills tens of thousands every year, and contributes to untold numbers of crimes and other injuries. In the hands of irresponsible people, the consequences can be devastating, but even responsible drinkers are not immune. Yet alcohol is not illegal (though we’ve tried that before) - hell, you don’t even need a license to buy it! Surely this is an outrage!
What kind of gear are you talking about? Semi-automatic rifles? That sounds like a highly-effective military weapon to me. Would a militia armed with only rifles be at a disadvantage against a force armed with tanks and missiles? Yes, but that’s not an argument for banning guns - that’s an argument for either abolishing standing armies, or making it possible for the citizen militia to have access to such weapons. Times do change, after all.
But the second amendment says “arms,” not “ordnance,” so personally, I just have to be content with the fact that the citizen militia would need to raid a guard armory or three in the event of a civil uprising. Heck, the folks of McMinn county, Tennessee had to raid an armory to gain sufficient arms to overthrow their corrupt local officials in the Battle of Athens. Nothing’s perfect.
There’s a little something I can’t understand, here. One or two posters in this thread would like to limit handguns to revolvers. One of the best-loved semi-auto pistols now and in the past is the Colt .45 1911, and all its variations. If you carry it with a full magazine and one more in the chamber, that’s what, five or six rounds? (You can tell, I am not a full fledged gun maven.) Most revolvers hold six rounds, but I’ve seen some models with 7 and even 8. Most of today’s revolvers are double-action. That is, one trigger pull cocks the hammer, advances the cylinder, and fires one shot. When you’ve fired your 6 to 8 shots, you can pop out the empties and hand load another bunch. Or, if you like, you can drop out the whole cylinder and pop in another fully loaded cylinder. You’ve seen this in the Harry Callahan movies, but it’s real.
So, why is a criminal with a revolver and a pocketful of fresh cylinders less dangerous than a criminal with a semi-auto pistol and a pocketful of magazines? 
Because to some people semi-automatic handguns (and other semi-automatic weapons seemingly) are scary. Sort of like the ban on guns that LOOK scary because…well, they look scary. To people who have either never fired a gun before or have only limited experience with guns the ‘scary’ factor is very real.
I agree…a .45 cal revolver is going to essentially blow the same sized hole in you as a .45 cal semi-automatic pistol. And with speed loaders and such you can probably reload your .45 cal revolver as fast…and pretty much fire it as fast to if it’s a double action.
But a Colt 1911 LOOKS much more scary than, say, a Colt Peacemaker (which most people maybe associate with cowboy movies and the like). The older revolver technology I guess looks less scary since it’s been around so long…or something.
(BTW, I’ve seen 7 and 12 round clips for the 1911…FWIW)
-XT
a) 7+1, for a standard Colt .45.
b) For a modern revolver, you would use a speed-loader, not swap out cylinders.
c) Real good question.
I disagree. Firearms can make it very difficult for a modern war machine to safely operate. We see this with snipers in the West Bank and gaza, the Muj in Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, and some of the early action in Iraq before the Iranians started exporting IED material. We can look at Vietnam’s experience with the VC in the cities prior to Tet for more examples.
A rifle in the hands of locals forces the military to keep the tank closed (a miserable experience over the long haul). A handgun means that every cute girl that walks by with a purse is a threat. Add in that US military forces will have issues with firing on civilians, and you make the personal possession of firearms a credible threat. Most hunters I know sight in their deer rifle at 300 yards. That is a LONG way away, and makes it tough to operate in a city if those hunters are shooting at you.
Well, to my mind the concealability and ease of carry of a weapon are much more significant factors in the decision as to whether or not they should be legal than the exact details of how it is loaded, so I would agree with you.
I have no dog in this fight, not being an American; but could not an argument be made that a “militia” would be better armed with rifles than with hand-guns, so the purpose of the Constitution could still be fulfilled if one was legally allowed to own the one and not the other?
Nope, since both are effective militia tools. After all, US officers are issued handguns.
Well, yes, a hand-gun is useful for a militia to own, admittedly. However, a militia could still operate if it was allowed rifles and non hand-guns, with only marginal impairment to its functioning - the reverse not being true (that is, a militia with only hand-guns and no rifles would be much more severely impaired).
Thus, it seems to me that an argument could be made that one could have an effective militia without hand-guns - not having 'em would not prevent or even really interfere much with the proposed militia; people could still “bear arms” and form part of “a well regulated militia”.
In fact, it seems to me that owning a machine gun or the like should be more protected than owning a hand-gun, since a machine gun is more useful for militia purposes!
If the right to bear arms “not being infringed” is absolute, seems to me no logical reason to not allow machine guns; if it is not absolute, seems to me that a limitation on hand-guns, as not really being all that essential to militia-dom, makes sense.
You know, it seems to me reasonable to include possession of a fire arm during the commission of a felony to be a separate crime, with a mandated consecutive sentence, and additional weapons possessed during the same act have also mandated consecutive sentences, and all such sentences be at least equivalent to the sentence for the felony in question.
It seems to me to be reasonable to consider a misdemeanor committed while in possession of a fire arm to incur the same sort of schedule of sentences, although perhaps in extenuation allow misdemeanor sentences for the fire arm violations. (By extenuation, I mean if the use of the weapon was not a reasonable expectation, the weapons sentences would be reduced. i.e. Disorderly conduct while in possession would not require felony sentencing, unless the fire arm was actually used in the disorderly conduct.)
We need to control violence with fire arms, not lawful possession.
I have a Colt 1911a1 .45 caliber semi-automatic hand gun. I have multiple magazines for it, and one of them actually holds 8 rounds. That’s nine with one in the pipe, cocked and locked when I wear it. Which I don’t, mostly. I have a concealed carry permit. I am not a dangerous person. It is a dangerous weapon, though.
My pistol was my Grandfather’s and is a genuine historic piece, that he carried around during World War II. As far as I know, he never shot anyone with it, or even shot at anyone. He was a General, and they don’t do a lot of shooting. I see no reason for the Government to interfere in my ownership or use of it, unless that involves breaking a law.
Tris
I’ve owned guns pretty much all my life. I’ve enjoyed shooting sports and hunting. A gun ban wouldn’t bother me all that much. I lived in South Korea for five years. One can legally own guns there, but they are kept at the local police station. One checks out the weapon when hunting, shooting, etc. The police then pretty much knew who had a firearm checked out whenever someone was shot. Look up Korea’s murder rate, and look at the gun deaths per year. They are so rare as to be almost, if not actually, zero. About the only time someone gets shot there is when a recruit goes around the bend and walks off a military installation with a weapon, usually to shoot his girlfriend’s lover. Amazingly, when no one had ready access to guns, pretty much no one got shot. And note also that Koreans are some of the most volatile people I’ve known anywhere. I saw more fist fights there over minor things than any place else I’ve lived. I always said that if they had ready access to weapons, there would be blood in the streets.
People talk about rights. Someone’s “right” to do something ends where it comes into conflict with others’ rights. I would gladly give up my “right” to go shooting occasionally or to hunt, if that were the case, to better enjoy the “right” to not be shot at by someone I’ve accidently cut off on the local highway (which is a relatively common occurence int the U.S.), or by some other idiot for similarly pointless reasons. People who keep guns at home for “protection” are statistically much more likely to be shot, often with their own weapons.
I love to hunt pheasants and ducks. I last shot wobbles and sporting clays just last year. Some of the best times of my life were shooting and hunting with my dad. I got an engraved .22 as a First Communion gift from one of my uncles, who was a shooting champion in a variety of disciplines. I asked my folks if I could just take the cash instead of getting a class ring in high school because I wanted to by a Colt Woodsman (which they discontinued the next year and which immediately quadrupled in value!) All that said, I would support a similar system to the one I lived with in Korea, or even a ban, in the U.S. Having lived in other places around the world, I believe that things are just out of hand with guns in the U.S.
This is certainly a valid point to weigh, considering the clear intent of the Second Amendment. This argument has been made before, usually in reference to the SCOTUS decision in United States v. Miller. (Essentially, they said that the Second Amendment’s purpose was to ensure the possible effectiveness of a militia, so only firearms suitable for military application were explicitly protected.) Of course, handguns are suitable for military use, and are present in the armed forces of every nation I’m aware of, so they are certainly covered under the opinion in Miller.
So much for federal law. Then there’s the fact that many state constitutions have even stronger guarantees of the right to bear arms. For example, Washington’s constitution says: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…” which clearly authorizes firearms for self-defense. Rifles would be impractical and unsafe for defensive carry, so handguns are the only viable option.
I generally try to avoid the “rights” question because that leads to militia definitions and etc. The way I see it - 60,000,000+ US gun owners did not commit a crime with their estimated 300,000,000 firearms. If one of those gun owners does commit a crime (of which there are many committed every day, I don’t live in fairyworld), it doesn’t make any sense to me to punish the other 60 million. Taking the guns out of the hands of all those people who have never done anything just to stop drug dealers from popping each other seems to be the wrong way to go about things.
I have several guns, none of which have been used in a crime nor to injure a human since I’ve acquired them (the WWI & WWII rifles I can’t vouch for before I got them).
I can demonstrate that my owning multiple firearms, several of which are semi-auto, poses no danger to you. The FBI, CBI, and local sheriff all agree and have certified me a law abiding citizen that can be trusted.
Yet some people wish to take away my AR-15 that I use to teach my children firearm safety (it’s a perfect gun for 11 year olds, kind of wimpy for an adult) because it has a comfortable grip, can have a bayonet, and has a removable magazine. It looks scary to some people, so no one ever talks about confiscating a 1000 yard gun that looks just like a hunting rifle.
My right to own a gun does not conflict with your right to not be shot: I’m not going to shoot you. Simple enough, right?
Got a cite for that? Accidental gun deaths number in the few hundreds a year, IIRC, and they are usually due to gross irresponsibility and a failure to follow Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules. I am quite capable of handling my guns safely - neither I nor any of the gun owners I know personally have ever experienced a negligent discharge. Just more anti-gun propaganda.
In any case, my safety is my responsibility, and nobody else’s. It’s my choice to take the risks involved with owning and using firearms, just as it’s your choice to take the risk involved with driving a car or putting a swimming pool in your backyard. (ETA: I also drive a car and use a swimming pool. I like to live dangerously! :))