I’d guessing that there are at least 50,000 rounds fired recreationally or as practice for every 1 round fired in anger. It’s hard to say it’s some obscure use.
Here’s the thing. “Guns are made for killing people!” is a simplistic argument made to register on emotion. In most cases, it’s true - but it doesn’t carry an inherent value judgement in it. Police shooting a criminal who’s about to shoot at them is good. An old lady taking out a burglar who wouldn’t hesistate to harm her is good. “IT’S ONLY GOOD FOR KILLING PEOPLE!” is meant to provoke an emotional reaction but it’s not an argument in itself.
Thank you. Your answer is a great reply to those who will argue that our current technology didn’t exist and then imply that since it didn’t, it is not covered. There are a lot of things that didn’t exist back then, and yet we take them for granted.
Are baseball bats made for playing baseball, or for assaulting people?
What makes you think bats are made for playing baseball?
That you see people on TV using them to play baseball?
That there are people in your local parks using them to play baseball?
That they are advertised with pictures of people playing baseball, and in magazines that are all about playing baseball?
That famous baseball players endorse certain brands?
That they are sold in sporting goods stores?
That there are summer camps you can go to where they teach you to use them to play baseball?
All these things are also true - and common - with respect to handguns and the shooting sports.
“The shooting sports?” As if any of these anti gun people even know what those are. They just see “gun” and think OMG OMG OMG. They don’t target shoot, they don’t hunt - I have never met a SINGLE hunter who was opposed to concealed carry. By and large the only experience that the anti gun crowd has to firearms is what they see on the boob toob.
Person Z (that’s me) doesn’t have any feelings on either of these people, having known courageous and fearful people in both categories. Keeping a gun (or car keys, or pocketknife, or boot knife, or cell phone) doesn’t really say much at all about your personality.
–Z (gun owner, Democrat, hunter, concealed-carry-permit holder who doesn’t even own a pistol right now)
First, you can’t schedule my time. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way.
Second, anecdote != data. Is a handgun never useful for self-defense? Of course not. Do the self-defense uses outweigh the cost to society of having vast numbers of handguns in private hands? That’s a question that can be debated, and discussed.
I believe that “original intent” is nonsense, if that wasn’t already clear. If the Constitution can’t be interpreted to account for changed conditions, we might as well toss in the dumpster.
Do you really believe that Susan Hupp shouldn’t have had a chance to save her parents from death? You speak of rare occassions not being enough to establish policy. How are you going to know who might need a gun for self defense?
First, why are you discounting suicides? “They’d find some other way to kill themselves.” Well maybe - but maybe not.
When it comes to other things that cause deaths, like cars, swimming pools, etc., you’re overlooking the fact that the primary purpose of a car or swimming pool is not to kill people. The deaths are an unfortunate side-effect, and we do everything we can to alleviate that problem. We don’t ban them outright because the benefits to society of having cars and swimming pools outweigh, at least in our current judgment, the cost in lost lives.
I propose that the same rationale be applied to handguns. We can examine the benefits to society and the costs, and decide where the balance lies. My own conclusion is that the costs are greater than the benefits, so we should do everything possible to get rid of the handguns. Your conclusion may be the opposite. But that’s what legislative hearings are for - to help lawmakers decide what makes sense, and what doesn’t.
We apply the same calculus to all sorts of things. It’s a big benefit to industry to be able to dump toxic sludge into our rivers. It’s a big detriment to society to have toxic sludge dumped into our rivers. So we decide that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that you can’t dump toxic sludge in the river any longer.
It’s not a theological debate, and it doesn’t rest on the notion that handguns are somehow “scary.” It’s a simple balancing act between cost and benefit.
Only if they fell prey to the “original intent” nonsense. As I’ve said in another post, I think that approach to the Constitution would lead to the death of the document. If it can’t be interpreted in light of current conditions, it’s useless.
No, there isn’t, but if you embrace “original intent,” it’s tough to argue that the FF meant to protect something they didn’t even know about. We’ve made the rational decision that the FF would not have extended the protection to all “arms,” either. All we’re arguing about now is what “arms” are protected, and what “arms” aren’t. The Amendment doesn’t say, “the right to keep and bear a Taurus ACP.” If it did, that would make things very simple. The FF left it vague - we have to decide how far they would have gone, if they had known what kinds of “arms” would be floating around today.
To all of the “what about target pistols” folks. OK, pistols are great for target shooting. But handguns were invented for shooting at people. If they hadn’t been, does anyone seriously believe that the target pistol would have arisen independently?
So, we’ve found another use for the basic device. That’s fine. When we craft our “no handguns” law, we’ll find a way to accommodate that use. Some kind of non-lethal ammo, perhaps? (No, I don’t know how that could be done, but you get the idea.) Tight restrictions on where the pistols can be kept, like locked up at a firing range? These are all just logistical problems.