http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Interesting.
Weve talked about drunk driving, drugs and such since Ive been here, but I havent heard views of gun ownership, or even as this pretains to, handgun ownership.
Ill get back to this, I have to run all of a sudden.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I hope the current law is upheld. Handguns need to be outlawed everywhere.
Really? Hm.
I disagree. Of course....I own a few. ;)
The ban has been active since 1976, the homicide rate peaked in the 1990s and Washington D.C. still has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.
Gee...Looks like a successful initiative.
For a handgun ban to be even near effective, it would have to be federal, it would have to be enforced fervently and we'd have to successfully secure the southern border. If between 400,000 and 700,000 illegals can jump that border every year...Just imagine the vehicle for a black market that could become.
That being said, obviously, I don't support hand gun bans.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post
Yet, ending the ban will change those figures? Oh wait...I forgot...If it was wild wild west style no one would ever pull a gun because you never know who is packing. Then the crime rate would surely go down.Originally Posted by Athena
The ban has been active since 1976, the homicide rate peaked in the 1990s and Washington D.C. still has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.
Gee...Looks like a successful initiative.
I obviously don't see the need for anyone other than an officer of the law/security personnel to own, let alone carry, a handgun. Home protection? Get a shotgun. Hunting? A shotgun or high powered rifle will do, and no, there is NOT a need for semi automatic/fully automatic weapons. I also don't see the need for police officers/security personnel to carry a gun that holds more than 6 bullets either.
Yet, ending the ban will change those figures? Oh wait...I forgot...If it was wild wild west style no one would ever pull a gun because you never know who is packing. Then the crime rate would surely go down.
I obviously don't see the need for anyone other than an officer of the law/security personnel to own, let alone carry, a handgun. Home protection? Get a shotgun. Hunting? A shotgun or high powered rifle will do, and no, there is NOT a need for semi automatic/fully automatic weapons. I also don't see the need for police officers/security personnel to carry a gun that holds more than 6 bullets either.
Home protection--a shotgun? Sure, Ive heard that a bazillion times. Have you ever fired a shotgun? They got KICK, son.
Hows a 5'6" housewife going to gratb a shotgun and defend her home from baddies....
Im not going to sit here and go all NRA and say guns SHOULD be in every household, because I dont believe that. I used to be in the market for guns, selling them illegaly, and dealing with fully automatics even, so I personally KNOW how dangerous they are, and in irresponsible hands, obviously deadly. But Ive never quite gotten the ban on handguns.
Only in the hands of authorities? No way. No fucking way. Youre dealing with response time, youre dealing with comptetency issues. Again, I used to be on the OTHER side of it, so I know first hand, how EASY it is to not get caught by these fools that are the police. :D THEYRE restricted by all kinds of laws too.
True story, and its going to sound like bullshit, but it goes to the point Im trying to make. Me and a friend went into someone's HOME while the mother and father to this chap were there, because he owed money. We stayed for OVER AN HOUR, and hurt these people badly. Its NOT something Im proud of, and thats not the issue here, but if those dudes had a GUN!? I wouldnt be posting this, Ill tell ya that.
I have fired a shotgun as a matter of fact, son. They do indeed have kick. A 5'6" housewife could squeeze off a shot at an burglar. Sure it might put her on her ass, but all she needs to do is get one good shot off. There is a much broader margin of error than with a handgun. Besides, if you own a gun, you should go to some training courses and probably go to the firing range and keep up with it. I don't think it would do any good to own a gun and not know how to use it.
What does that have to do with police having guns? I understand that there are wrongfull shootings all the time, I am just saying that if anybody should have them it should be the authorities. So you are advocating the "Bad guys" having handguns? I don't understand this point.
They could not have accomplished that with a shotgun or hunting rifle?
I am not arguing against guns, I just don't see the purpose of handguns.
:o
THats just silly. What if there were two? Or more? Its technically true, she could "Squeeze off a shot". But she could also miss. Its just not as viable an option as having a smaller handgun with her.They do indeed have kick. A 5'6" housewife could squeeze off a shot at an burglar. Sure it might put her on her ass, but all she needs to do is get one good shot off.
Were also talking about just home defense. What about the nurse who walks to her car in a parking garage? Is she going to have a purse and a hunting rifle strapped her her back? Or is she only allowed to own a taser for heaven's sake? What about women who are stalked by obsessive pieces of shit? Walk into the grocery store with her baby and a Mossberg .590?
Eh...that really depends. I guess if youre saying a shotgun has a blast radius, sure. If theyre carrying buckshot, and not birdshot or something....slugs is the same as a handgun though. A single projectory. And what about rifles? Fuck....no way are they as feasible a defense in a house with small hallways...There is a much broader margin of error than with a handgun.
Makes good sense, yes, and this is why I dont advocate guns. There are too many stupid people who own them. I just dont advocate the banning of them either.Besides, if you own a gun, you should go to some training courses and probably go to the firing range and keep up with it. I don't think it would do any good to own a gun and not know how to use it.
My apologies, I worded that terribly. You had said you only think authorities should own handguns. I just disagreed with that point. You had also mentioned that you didnt think they (police, security, ect.) needed anything with more than 6 bullets either, which in it's self, I think is morbidly absurd.What does that have to do with police having guns? I understand that there are wrongfull shootings all the time, I am just saying that if anybody should have them it should be the authorities. So you are advocating the "Bad guys" having handguns? I don't understand this point.
I suppose, yes. However, if we saw them going for a big stick with a barrel and a trigger, weda known they were getting out the guns. Had they simply been able to comply with us at every point, and slip open a drawer or something without us noticing, pull out a pea shooter and pop our faces a time or two, they'd be explaining our dead asses to the police.They could not have accomplished that with a shotgun or hunting rifle?
Understood. But I do.I am not arguing against guns, I just don't see the purpose of handguns.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks