Clever retort.
Just not true.
Maybe you are thinking of someone else.
I normally avoid futile discussions with gun nuts, which I should have done this time as well.
So in answer to the OP again - handguns no.
Hunting rifles, don’t care one way or the other.
Both are banned in HK, as far as I know, but we have lots of the former and very little of the latter. Apples and oranges, I would suggest.
!. Read title of thread.
2. Respond if you are an American and you believe that citizens should not be allowed to own handguns.
If you disagree with, or have trouble following these simple instructions, you can either:
Without wishing to get caught in the crossfire of a mod shootout, I think **Veb ** (above) has already established the parameters for this thread, viz:
I appreciate your input, but could we run with that. It seems to be working well, given the incendiary nature of the topic.
And I repeat - I want a poll + pleasant chat here, rather than an OK Corral type situation in the Pit!
Happy Birthday! Your wish has been granted!
In 1968. :dubious:
BOO!
Did I scare you? :rolleyes:
Much better to practice so you can kill your target, and just your target, with one, maybe two shots.
Criminals, who are known to have a certain disdain for such niceties as “laws,” would not necessarily surrender their illegal firearms when all of the legal gun owners surrender their guns.
Millions of Americans supplement their meat pantry every year with the tens of millions of deer, elk, squirrel, duck, geese, etc., etc., that proliferate in our woodlands becuase there are damned few natural predators remaining to keep their population in check.
Besides, do you really think the hamburger or steak you eat was donated by a cow that was simply tired of living? Or that it magically appeared courtesy of the Magic-Meat Fairy? Morally, what’s the difference between “shoot-it-yourself-and-eat-it” and “kill-it-in-a-slaughterhouse-wrap-it-in-plastic-and ship-it-to-the-grocery-store?”
It sure will! The bad guys will be the ones sticking their illegal guns in your face while they rape you. Then your family. And then shoot you in the head.
When that happens, I’m sure you’ll be ever so happy (while you’re being anally raped by an AIDS-infested crack addict) there are no guns around except for those in the hands of the outlaws.
Oh, gee, and it was going so swimmingly. ExTank, I appreciate your input (especially in the other gun thread in the Pit), but could I ask you as OP please to tone it down here.
If people are ignorant, there are other ways to fight it rather than just a bludgeon. And, as far as I could tell, DesertGeezer wasn’t actually saying that such limitattions/restriuctions didn’t exist. He was saying that they should. Now, I could say that McDonald’s should have tight regulations for this and that, but I don’t mean to suggest they don’t currently have them, just to stress that they should continue to apply them.
And please be aware that some people may post here to wind you up a bit. So, if you get a funny old post that seems really whacky, bbear in mind it could be a decoy, count to 10, and then post.
Just suggesting and all. If you want to diss me, please open a thread in the you know where.
My responses weren’t directed at you; if they were, they’d have started something like this:
roger thornhill: <insert post>
As for the rest, well, I have a slightly dark and screwy sense of humor on occasion. Apologies all around, and all that.
It’s just too late for a ban in the U.S. Doing it now would be dangerous. The time to do it would have been in the late 19th century. As stated before, obviously only criminals would be left possessing guns. Since we were granted carry permits in Texas, violent crime has decreased. The bad guys know we’re ready for 'em.
But this doesn’t surprise me a jot. The Amendment talks of the right to own and bear arms, as I recall. One without the other is indeed like horse and carriage, or love and marriage. You can’t have one without the other.
What I and I think some others are advocating is that the aspiration, goal, aim, whatever, should be to have no private citizen owning handguns.
And, frankly, the “it’s too late now” argument is one of the weakest. Things change. Wrongs are righted. The USA is a living testimony to this.
I don’t have a dick.
I do own a handgun.
It occurs to me that folks who are opposed to handguns have never held one.
Never shot one.
It’s a tool, people. Just as dangerous as a car or chain saw.
Since I don’t fit the category of the OP, I will step aside now.
I don’t mind police carrying them, if they must. I have both held and shot a handgun - but very accurately into a compost heap in rural Kentucky. On second thoughts, most of its rural, but you know what I mean.
I did hit the compost heap, but missed the target - a piece of paper, as I recall, the first couple of times, from all of 5 yards.
I’m 5’5’’ and not terribly strong or adept at hand-to-hand combat. If someone like duffer breaks into my house with the intent to harm me, firearms are really the only chance I have of not winding up as hamburger meat. I suppose I could brandish a sword, but I wouldn’t want to risk my life trying out my (nonexistent) fencing skills, and a sword doesn’t really help me if my assailant has a gun of his own. I’ve never fired a gun, so someone else will have to comment on the practicality of quickly stopping someone with a rifle (for instance, can it be aimed quickly enough?); I imagine a shotgun would do pretty well, though.
That said, I do support restrictions on who can have guns, what they can have, and what they can do with them. Owners should be required to register their guns (they already are, aren’t they?), with stringent enough penalties for failing to do so that it’s taken seriously. Owners should be licensed to even own guns, let alone carry them in public; I know, I know, it’s an “inalienable” right, but only until it’s inalienable until we decide to alienate it with amendment. Presumably, anyone deemed fit to own a gun is fit to carry it, so a concealed weapons permit would probably be unnecessary. I suppose an owner could be licensed to own/carry only what they have training with, similar to how some countries distinguish between licensing to drive manual and automatic cars. Again, I’m not nearly well-versed enough in, um, gunology and gunonomy (nonce words are fun!) to know whether such a measure would be helpful or simply unnecessary complexity. As for waiting periods, the rationale I’ve always heard is that it’s intended to dissuade crimes of passion; if they provide a significant benefit as a deterrent against such crimes, then they’re worth keeping around.
Add me to the ranks of those who think that an immediate ban wouldn’t work too well. I think that if they were to be outlawed, the best way to go about it would be to ban the sale and distribution of firearms and ammunition. That way the scenario of helpless citizens and armed criminals is avoided, for the most part. Ignoring for the moment illegal imports, which I doubt are a source of guns for most common criminals, ownership of guns and, more importantly, ammunition, should dwindle on both sides at a comparable rate. Perhaps nonlethal rounds (well, less-lethal) could be made more accessible for sporting purposes. Mind you, I’m not convinced that handguns should be illegal, but this seems like a more plausible way to go about it.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Anyway, American citizen here. Have never owned a handgun and have no burning desire to (academic point anyway, since they’re illegal where I’m living now). I have, however, shot rifles competitively and wouldn’t mind taking a handgun for a test drive on a target range. I’d prefer not to keep one in my house, though.
I see no need to make handguns illegal, and have no desire to see them made so. However, I believe they should be registered in the same manner that cars are, and that owners should be required to demonstrate basic competence in handling and using them, as they are with cars.
Sublight, if I understand you correctly, handguns are illegal in Japan.
Has this created a situation whereby criminals and other undesirables have the advantage over other citizens insofar as they are armed (through their illicit contacts, for example) while law-abiding citizens are not armed?
Gun crimes are pretty rare, here. Though to be honest, non-gun crimes ain’t too common, either.
I didn’t really answer your question, did I?
In terms of “they have guns and we don’t,” no, I don’t think criminals have any big advantages over average citizens. There isn’t any place to get legal guns, and illegal ones are relatively difficult to smuggle onto an island (and so tend to be much more expensive than the average haul from a B&E or mugging), so the “average” criminal doesn’t have a gun, either. Most robberies are done with knives.
In terms of “the entire society has been raised to be passive, neutered robots that can’t stick up for themselves to save their own lives,” yes I do think criminals have an advantage here, but that’s not a gun issue.
Hell, even the police aren’t much use. We had a case a few weeks back of a guy who went berserk in his car and began smashing up the inside with a small bat before climbing out through the side window. The two police officers, who’d had a clear view of all of this and were armed with guns, clubs and pepper spray, screamed like little girls and ran away when the man approached them, abandoning their police car. Unfortunately, a TV cameraman was with them and taped the whole incident.
Allowed to? Heck, it should be compulsory!
It’s entertaining enough, watching the goons fire up at each semester’s carnage and announce, straight-faced, that there is no connection between the high rate of firearm ownership and the incidence of homicide.
See the BBQ Pit for current examples.
Imagine the quality of entertainment that will be available, as said goons attempt the same, should armed households and citizenry be made mandatory and the rivers flow red.
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
I miss one post in a thread… :smack:
Totallly missed my compatriot’s post in this thread, so please disregard my previous post. I still insist that people remember that this is just a poll and not a debate. Just post a simple answer to the OP-do not debate the other posters.
You would be wrong. Just like the “pro-gun” folks are wrong that every “gun control” supporter wants to take away ALL their guns.
There is a highly populated middle, filled with people who have some sort of relationship with guns, but aren’t comfortable with either a free for all or complete banning of private ownership. I’ve shot all sorts of guns (as have more “rabid” anti gun folks I know). At one time I was actually not a bad shot. And at one time I believed in banning private ownership of handguns.