Any gun owners support a gun ban?

Great Debates
61

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m certainly not an expert in constitutional law. That’s my disclaimer, and I’m stickin’ to it.

As I, an ordinary bluecollar guy, understand the government’s current position on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, the whole thing is squeezed through the lens of “a well-regulated militia.” That’s why states and cities are able to restrict the right to bear arms (and arm bears.) However, that’s being challenged by a case before the Supreme Court. It springs from a gun ban in Washinton, D.C. It is the first time the SC has considering reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment for decades. I dasn’t predict the outcome; even veteran court watchers won’t guess. The whole landscape could change with one case.

62

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
First off, I’ve already been through this with other posters above. I understand enough to clean and properly operate my personal firearm. Past that I have little to no interest in the technicalities of weaponry. As I also stated above, to me a gun is a tool. I only need to know how to operate MY miter saw or nail gun. I don’t need to know the intricacies of every other model out there to have a cogent conversation on the topic.
[/quote]

I disagree. You are correct in that you only need to know about your miter saw or nail gun, but if you are attempting to say that MY miter saw or nail gun should be outlawed for a particular reason, I think you should be able to articulate what is so evil about my miter saw and nail gun. If you call my nail gun “powerful” for instance, when it is equally as powerful as yours, it is a very important distinction for me to point out when you are trying to take mine away.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
I am aware that the criminal element will try hard to obtain illegal weaponry, but by simply limiting the amount of available firearms, it will limit the amount of illegal arms floating about.
[/quote]

Right, and instead of people like you and I, whose guns spend 99% of the time on a shelf, in a case, in a safe, or in the glove box, a limited supply of guns would probably increase the price enough that we wouldn’t buy one.

But a career criminal, who needs a gun as a tool of his trade, like a mechanic needs a wrench, would definitely have one, because it is gives a greatly INCREASED advantage since fewer people are armed.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Why have limits on any weaponry then? After all they may have uzis and rpgs right? after all it’s just as likely given that they don’t obey the current laws. Sorry, but this just results in direct escalation limited only by money and infastructure to support heavier weapons.
[/quote]

Now we are getting towards the absurdity, because rpgs are a bit hard to conceal. And yes, money is the upper limit for most of these things so we don’t need to worry about a society where every family has a Abrams tank in their garage for protection.

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
I’m pretty sure that one shot from a .38 ought to do the trick just as well as a whole bunch from a machine gun of my own. It’s a lot less likely that I’ll hit someone else, or do other collateral damage in the process too. Frankly, If some guy starts spraying bullets from a machine gun, I’m not afraid to admit that I’d probably hide and call the cops; or at minimum wait until I had a reasonable window to retaliate. Just having a machine gun of my own doesn’t make me any safer. My bullets are not a shield against his.
[/QUOTE]

Most of the time, the lock on the door will do the trick, or just having a really loud dog. I don’t believe in a once sized fits all approach to personal defense. If you live in a small apartment complex, an M-60 is probably not the best personal defense weapon. If you live on a farm where the nearest neighbor is two miles away, there is no reason to limit yourself to a handgun.

I don’t care if the guy is drunk and armed with a small pocket knife. I will also be hiding and calling the cops (with my pistol beside me just in case). I don’t want to kill anyone, but I don’t want me or my family to be harmed either

No your bullets are not a shield in a literal sense, but figuratively they are. If you shoot him first, then it is a “shield” in that you won’t have to face incoming fire.
So, on other line: What is the law on handguns in Canada? Completely banned? Permits?

63

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, clearly if a constitution says you can carry arms for self-protection, hand-guns are covered.

64

[QUOTE=jtgain]

So, on other line: What is the law on handguns in Canada? Completely banned? Permits?
[/QUOTE]

Basically, restricted to permit holders:

http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/guncontrol-en.asp

65

What about just keeping a handgun in your home. I know carry is a bit much, because it a lot of areas of the U.S. you can’t do that, but I’m talking about just having a handgun loaded in the nightstand…

66

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]

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! :))
[/QUOTE]

See, this is just the problem with the debate: it is a case of an individual right being impaired (or not) for a general good.

Several people have posted in this thread that they are good, careful firearms owners; that they would never use their firearms unwisely or in anger. I see no reason to disagree - I’m sure it is quite true. Millions of responsible firearms owners out there. They are right to see being deprived of an enjoyment and a useful tool as a deprivation that the have not earned and do not deserve, and one that interferes with their choices. There is no point in those advocating any form of control to deny it.

However … it is also true, and I’d say equally undeniable, that a society in which handgun ownership is widespread is a society that is a lot more dangerous for everyone (all things being equal) than one where it is not, with higher rates of dangerous violence - because violence is a lot easier, and has worse consequences, when large numbers of citizens are armed with deadly weapons which they can easily access.

So to my mind the issue is this: is the harm done by depriving the innocent of the possibility of accessing a certain class of weapons worse than the harm done by having these weapons widely available? The answer is not easy, because the harms are quite different - impairment to an individual’s freedom versus an increase in societal danger. It is difficult to weigh the one against the other. Overall, I favour a society without handguns, but I’m not doctrinare about it - it could well be that I just prefer what I’m used to.

67

[QUOTE=Malthus]
However … it is also true, and I’d say equally undeniable, that a society in which handgun ownership is widespread is a society that is a lot more dangerous for everyone (all things being equal) than one where it is not, with higher rates of dangerous violence - because violence is a lot easier, and has worse consequences, when large numbers of citizens are armed with deadly weapons which they can easily access.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely not, and I couldn’t disagree more. Why is Washington D.C, where handguns are banned, Murder Capital USA, whereas the state of Vermont which has no permits, rules, etc. regarding any type of weapon and allows concealed carry with no permit has a low crime rate?

According to your “undeniable” thought, D.C. should be peaceful, and Vermont should have neighbors having their disputes escalate into killings as each pulls his readily available pistol, etc…

68

[QUOTE=Malthus]
So to my mind the issue is this: is the harm done by depriving the innocent of the possibility of accessing a certain class of weapons worse than the harm done by having these weapons widely available?
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek a solution that doesn’t punish millions of innocent people for the wrongdoing of a few? The violent crime rate is dropping in spite of more lenient concealed carry laws, cities with restrictive firearms laws are frequently those with higher crime rates (even after the laws have been passed), and I don’t know that incidences of violent crime are directly linked to prevalence of handgun ownership.

Even if it was possible to confiscate all the legal handguns in this country, would the result be worth the effort? Forced searches of every dwelling would, I suspect, cost more than some decent social programs that give kids a glimmer of hope. A decent education and a chance to make something of themselves would lower the next generations inclination towards violence and create a self-perpetuating cycle that could make the banning of weapons a moot point.
Or so it seems to me.

69

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Absolutely not, and I couldn’t disagree more. Why is Washington D.C, where handguns are banned, Murder Capital USA, whereas the state of Vermont which has no permits, rules, etc. regarding any type of weapon and allows concealed carry with no permit has a low crime rate?

According to your “undeniable” thought, D.C. should be peaceful, and Vermont should have neighbors having their disputes escalate into killings as each pulls his readily available pistol, etc…
[/QUOTE]

Not at all. That is a very simplistic read of what I am saying.

All things are not equal between D.C. and Vermont. One is a state more thinly settled; the other, an urban nightmare. D.C. is a city bordered by a state - Virginia - where handguns are legal.

Obviously, legal availability of handguns are not the only or even a primary factor in the overall dangerousness of a place - that is a funtion of a lot of factors, such as the efficency of local government, the economy, race relations, etc. etc.. However, I believe it is pure obsurantism to insist that legal availability of handguns does not have an impact on making a place more dangerous than it otherwise would be; just as I believe it is pure obscurantism to insist that owners’ rights are not adversely impacted. The debate is better off with both points acknowledged IMHO.

70

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
Wouldn’t it make more sense to seek a solution that doesn’t punish millions of innocent people for the wrongdoing of a few? The violent crime rate is dropping in spite of more lenient concealed carry laws, cities with restrictive firearms laws are frequently those with higher crime rates (even after the laws have been passed), and I don’t know that incidences of violent crime are directly linked to prevalence of handgun ownership.

Even if it was possible to confiscate all the legal handguns in this country, would the result be worth the effort? Forced searches of every dwelling would, I suspect, cost more than some decent social programs that give kids a glimmer of hope. A decent education and a chance to make something of themselves would lower the next generations inclination towards violence and create a self-perpetuating cycle that could make the banning of weapons a moot point.
Or so it seems to me.
[/QUOTE]

I do not know. To me, as a Canadian, the issue is the opposite of what it is for you as Americans - not whether to take away existing rights, but whether to grant ones not in existance; that is, whether maintaining handgun control is a good idea or not.

It could well be that once that particular genie is out of the bottle, it is impossible to stuff it back in, and you just have to live with it however bad (or good) it may be.

To my mind, it would seem that, given a choice, it would be better to have gun control on handguns than not. The fact may be that there is no reasonable choice once handgun ownership is widespread.

71

[QUOTE=jtgain]
What about just keeping a handgun in your home. I know carry is a bit much, because it a lot of areas of the U.S. you can’t do that, but I’m talking about just having a handgun loaded in the nightstand…
[/QUOTE]

There aren’t really that many places where a person can’t carry. Of the 50 states, two have no restrictions on carry, 37 are “shall-issue” for concealed permits, and 9 are “may-issue”. Additionally, 44 of them have preemption laws on the books, meaning that localities cannot restrict the carrying of firearms in any way not already restricted by state law. Quite a few towns in my state have had carry bans overturned in recent years due to Washington’s preemption (RCW 9.41.290).

72

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
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! :))
[/QUOTE]

Stealth Potato – Regarding your request for a cite. You can start here:

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE VARIATIONS IN HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, AND UNINTENTIONAL FIREARM DEATHS
James H Price, Amy J Thompson, Joseph A Dake. Journal of Community Health. New York: Aug 2004. Vol. 29, Iss. 4; pg. 271

There are many other peer-reviewed studies that support the statement.

73

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
The ONLY and I mean ONLY advantage the AK has over the AR-15 is durability. That’s IT.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong. You forgot THE most important one. It’s cheaper. :stuck_out_tongue:

74

[QUOTE=puppygod]
Wrong. You forgot THE most important one. It’s cheaper. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

There are a few other advantages too, such as stopping power. AK round is .30 cal vs. .223 for the AR-15. Not that the AR-15 isn’t (maybe a lot) more accurate. There are many variants of both so YMMV.

75

Well, I would support a ban on all guns if it was worldwide and included military, police, and civilian alike.

Although I certainly enjoy shooting at the range, I can give it up. The notion of standing armies and organized warfare between countries is nonsense and creates the same problem it putatively solves - just as it was with some centuries ago in Europe with castles, knights, and catapults.

76

I think we can all get behind that, Thrasymachus. We’d have to include all weapons, of course, otherwise it wouldn’t do much good, but still, I think we could all agree a worldwide ban on weapons would be a wonderful thing.

Especially considering the feelings of brotherhood and community of man that would be needed to create such a thing.