Originally Posted by Snowolf
You are in error here. A hand gun has a place and is a tool just like a rifle is. I backpack in the wilderness in Grizzly Bear habitat. I carry a Ruger Super Black Hawk .44 Magnum revolver. In 1983 while hiking in the Bob Marshal Wilderness of Montana I and a friend were attacked by a Grizzly. I fired 3 shots and killed the bear. Had I not had that hand gun, I and my friend would very likely have been killed. This bear had been tagged and when we reported the incident to the Montana Fish and Game, their records showed that this was a transplanted park bear from Glacier who had shown aggressive behavior towards humans.
So, you will never ever in a million years convince me that handgun does not have a legitimate place in the back country as a tool for personal protection. Could a hunting rifle done the same or even better job? in this case yes it could have but there are cases where it would not. In a tent attack at night for example. In another case in Alaska, a Grizzly attacked a family in a tent. One family member with a handgun in the tent mortally wounded the bear and while it did not die immediately, it stopped the attack and saved the life of the family. In the confines of the tent, a rifle could not be wielded effectively.
Another very legitimate case for handguns can be made in the realm of personal protection from criminals. Do you even have any clue how many women have used a small handgun in a purse to protect themselves from rape, assault and murder? Its actually quite a lot. Cops cannot always be at your side or respond fast enough to prevent an attack. Citizens should have the means to protect themselves and a handgun is an appropriate tool for this.
Now having said that, I am not an NRA type gun nut and while yes I do own guns and generally support a person`s ability to own a firearm including a handgun, I also think that gun lobby has totally driven the crazy train off of the fucking track!
I do not support all out gun bans and confiscation but I am also of the opinion that gun ownership needs to be a privilege not an unquestioned right. This fruitcake was obviously mental yet he legally purchased these weapons. That is bullshit and it is time to implement some serious gun control regulation in this country.
Now, unlike the utility uses for a handgun like I mentioned, I cannot come up with a valid, logical use for these Ar-15`s AK-47`s and other semiautomatic high magazine capacity weapons. They are not effective hunting weapons, unlike a handgun they are not ideal home defense weapons. The "because I want one and its my right" argument is just too weak in light of recent events. It is time to get these things off of our streets, period.
Now for those who cite crime rates in places like Chicago as proof that gun control does not work, consider this. Acquiring a gun 50 miles away in a neighboring state or even county is easy and negates the effectiveness of a gun restriction like this. A nut job can easily acquire a gun this way. A national gun restriction makes acquiring a prohibited firearm a whole hell of lot harder to acquire and this is going to have an impact on these types of crimes. The average nutjob like this piece of shit is not nearly as likely to acquire a gun like this from an international black market but if all he has to do is drive to another county, it becomes pointless. The effectiveness of any gun regulation must be national.
So, while I do think there is a legitimate utility purpose (including self defense from criminals) for gun ownership including handguns, I think we need to seriously regulate that privilege better. There is no reason on earth this freak should have been allowed to poses a firearm based on his know personality disorders. We do not need 50 round clips for any gun and I could argue that a 15 round magazine is plenty adequate for any legitimate use of a firearm.
As a gun owner myself, I accept and welcome sensible gun regulation and even from a Constitutional standpoint I believe the government has the right to regulate guns. The first part of the amended reads "A well regulate militia.." It`s pretty clear in my book that the second amendment itself has language that allows the government to regulate firearms.
And I am sorry but the people who think gun ownership keeps the government from being tyrannical is in my opinion delusional. One company of US special forces can wipe out every so called militia with ease. What is Barney Buttfuck in Alabama going to do with his AR-15 against 1 Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt. Keep the government from becoming tyrannical? Really? Give me a fucking break!
I typed a long response and suddenly I wasn't logged in and it all got deleted. I'll try again...
You're correct about Chicago. You can buy a gun the next county over and sign a promisary note not to bring it to Chicago. Of course the only people that obey this are the law abiding citizens. A national gun ban goes against what this country was founded on. What this country needs is accountability
. Everyone plays the blame game. Crazy is crazy and needs to be identified. Shootings like this never happen in Chicago because people are more prepared and expect violence. Think about the airliner that crashed on 9/11. They hijacked that plane with BOX CUTTERS because people weren't prepared. Do you think that would be allowed today? If someone pulled a box cutter on a plane tomorrow do you think he would be beaten into a bloody pulp or do you think the same result as 9/11 would occur? What is the difference? People would be prepared.