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!
On paper that sounds great, but in practice its not worth it. If it means allowing hand guns for everyone in order to protect 1 or 2 (2 in north america last year) people killed by bears a year i say let the bears win.
We have Bears in canada too, and its never a problem here for people to carry bear riffles and not hand guns.
I agree with everything else you wrote.
BTW the news is reporting that the kid didnt buy a gun, but rather took his mothers. Mind you the news sux and that could be wrong. I havent read an update since yesterday. Either way hand guns are not a must, and my point still stands. They are simply not needed outside military use.