re: Why are handguns legal?

quote:

---

Did they have small, concealable weapons back then?

---

Not only did they have them, they had them with the ability to fire multiple shots.

US Constitution was ratified with the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Late 16th century:



Late 17th century:

quote:

---

---

I'd like to know everything about this gun and why this is the only image a google search of "snaplock revolver" turns up.

Also, the image links to a troll blog about role playing games.

quote:

---

but I know a lot of people are afraid of guns and don't understand them other than that "they kill people".

---

For the record, I don't think most people are afraid of guns, they're afraid of the people holding the guns. Gun rights people like to throw the "law abiding citizens" and "responsible gun owners" memes around in these arguments, and I do think there are many examples of both. But I've been around long enough to see enough of these so-called law abiding citizens and responsible gun owners that are neither. Expanding laws that give the latter types more freedom with their guns is not something I'm comfortable with.

quote:

---

I won't address why they are legal, since others have already spoken to that.

---

No they haven't.


The rest of your post is just an appeal to fear.

What do you think would happen to violent crime if handguns were made illegal with, say, a mandatory 10 year prison sentence?

I actually know a guy that shot and killed a guy trying to break into his house while in college. He no longer keeps a gun in the house because he has kids.

That's smart.

I know a guy who shot and killed his own daughter because he thought she was an intruder.

quote:

---

See Bill of Rights.

---

quote:

---

The founding fathers understood that people have a fundamental right to defend their life and liberty and they realized that owning firearms was an efficient way to accomplish that. Self defense against a burglar or a tyrannical government was used as the reasoning for it. Many of the founders have spoken to this if you'd like some additional context to the Amendment, itself.

---

I'm not asking for all guns to be made illegal, just the ones that commit 85% of all violent crimes involving firearms.

You would still be free to defend your property with a large gun.

quote:

---

Not at all. My post was about the reality that evil exists and the necessity to protect yourself from it.

---

I'm all for it.

quote:

---

Criminals who obtain their guns illegally tend to be the ones doing most of the crime with guns, so nothing will change for them. They already face a pretty hefty sentence for crimes committed with firearms, and it is only compounded when said firearms are obtained illegally.

---

They are obtaining them illegally due to the huge supply of handguns in circulation. Cut off the supply, destroy existing handguns, and make being in possession of a handgun a 10 year jail stint.

quote:

---

Those law-abiding citizens who actually give up their handguns will need to resort to less efficient methods of self protection, such as knives, batons, tasers, and sprays.

---

By "less efficient" you really just mean "less than fatal."

because the people you need guns to protect yourself from (i.e. criminals) don't follow gun laws. Laws against owning guns only keep guns out of the hands of those responsible enough to not cause issues with them in the first place. The real reason governments try to push through gun control is not some kind of evil nazi scheme to mass murder a disarmed populous, it's so that law enforcement can peg weapons charges on defendants when trying to arrest them for other crimes that are harder to prove. That way, if they can't get them for the child porn, sex trafficing, drugs, and murder, they can get them for possession of illegal weapons, a charge easily proven by the police obtaining the weapon in question and twisting the interpretation of the law to mean any and every weapon they find.

quote:

---

I'm not asking for all guns to be made illegal, just the ones that commit 85% of all violent crimes involving firearms.

You would still be free to defend your property with a large gun.

---

Actually 0% of guns commit violent (or any) crimes, but guns don't do anything. They are mechanical objects that people use for various reasons, including for committing violent crimes. The problem is with people, not the guns. There are millions of guns out there that sit in a safe or holster that never get used except for range practice.

I like to have access to both a rifle and a pistol for home defense because rifles are longer and can be more easily manipulated by a hiding threat as I turn a corner or enter a room. They are more effective if I'm hunkered down behind a barrier, though with my sights trained on a bottleneck.

But that is only useful for the home. Mass murders don't happen in peoples' homes. Robberies and other violence happen outside of the home, too. And as has been said, the police are pretty much useless for stopping crime before it happens. They exist to arrest people after crimes have been committed and to put yellow tape around where the corpses are so that evidence isn't tainted.

quote:

---

They are obtaining them illegally due to the huge supply of handguns in circulation. Cut off the supply, destroy existing handguns, and make being in possession of a handgun a 10 year jail stint.

---

How well has that worked with marijuana use?

Criminals aren't criminals because they do everything by the book. Bad people who use guns for bad purposes won't willingly give up their guns. A 10-year jail sentence for ownership doesn't matter to a person who wants to murder someone else. It is already a felony to be in possession of a firearm as a felon.

It is 5 years minimum for use of a firearm in a federal crime of violence or drug-related crime. Up to 10 years for possession of a stolen firearm. That doesn't even include the crime, itself. Adding a mandatory 10 years for anyone (including criminals) to possess a handgun won't change anything for a criminal. It will only affect those who otherwise would lawfully possess a handgun, which don't tend to be the people who are the "problem".

quote:

---

By "less efficient" you really just mean "less than fatal."

---

Not at all. When speaking in terms of self defense, you have to base everything on "stopping the threat", not on "killing the attacker". You can stop the threat just by showing your firearm to an attacker. He may stop and run away and you have accomplished your goal of "stopping the threat".

You have the right to use lethal force to stop a threat of grave bodily harm or death to yourself or another. A firearm is typically more "efficient" in stopping a threat than other methods, especially when you are talking about force modifiers. Someone on drugs may not react to pepper spray; it may not stop them at all. A knife requires you to be up-close with a threat. If the attacker is bigger, stronger, and faster than you, you might not be able to defend yourself adequately with the knife and stop the threat. A hand-held taser won't be as effective against someone with thick clothing.

A firearm doesn't guarantee that the threat will be stopped, but anyone of any size or age can use one effectively and it gives someone a much better chance to stop a threat than a cane or a brick or a knife.