Again a handgun is only useful because it can be easily carried. Rifles are more accurate, carry more powerful ammo, and have higher capacity. Much better for self defense in a home than a handgun.
Because I'm not a crime fighter. I just like the ability to defend myself against people who intend to do me harm. Criminals are going to commit crime if they have a gun, knife, or baseball bat.
No, a tax is a restriction. From dictionary.com... ban 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime. ... 3. the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction. 4. informal denunciation or prohibition, as by public opinion: society's ban on racial discrimination. 5. Law. a. a proclamation. b. a public condemnation. ... For example, there is a large difference between banning abortion (which I am against) and restricting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy (which I am for). Similarly, Holland has restrictions on the sale and use of mar1juana where in America, we ban its sale and use. HUGE difference.
What if they passed a law making all abortions done in the US are taxed at a rate of 5 million per procedure. Their intention is just to restrict it right? All the criminals would not care because they break the law all the time. People who respect the law would be the only ones effected.
You have really been drinking the cool-aid. I would be every dollar I own that no "gun control" issues will be raised in the next two years. But you just hangon to that machine gun for when the "terrorists" walk down your block.
Thats because you think in terms of "good enough". When it comes to me and my family's safety I think in terms of best. Not what is "sufficient"
Look, the first example you came up with yourself was a knife-weilding crackhead, not a team of elite ninjas from guatemala. Assuming you don't live in the ghetto, or involve yourself with a terribly large amount crime, a handgun is sufficient. I dont think you should be restricted in owning said rifles, but to argue it based on a pressing need for protection is just a tad unrealisitc.
I rely on a handgun everyday. But when at home I am not restricted by size and weight so I choose a better tool. If its better than why not use it?
That's prefectly good rationale: "I have at my disposal something superior - therefore I choose it." I think that is much more honest than "I need it to properly protect myself". Still - I have to agree with other posters here that you are being a bit paranoid. Katrina made me glad to have guns as well, but I'm not preparing for the revolution either. I guess I think that there are other political issues more important than "they won't let me have the biggest gun!". My two cents.
Hope you are driving armoured vehicles, otherwise how can you be safe? Do you have guard dogs and barbed wires around your home?
Somehow my family and I have been able to protect ourselves fine with zero bullets. We haven't needed 11 or 16.
Do you support any level of regulation that limits the types of guns civilians can own? And if so, where do you draw the line?
Did Moore use it in BFC? I don’t remember it. Anyway, the way you are dodging the questions shows me that you know your position doesn’t stand up logically or ethically. Obviously it’s too dangerous to let someone have a nuclear bomb in their basement even if he is a law abiding good citizen. It poses to much of a threat to the neighbourhood. In other words, others’ rights to safety and security outweigh your neighbour’s right to own the bomb. It’s essentially the same principle in the car example. Others’ rights to safety and security outweigh your right to drive fast. Handguns in particular pose a threat to others people in society. Handgun owners fail to protect their weapons allowing them to be stolen. They sell them to the wrong people. They carelessly leave them around allowing their kids to find them and shoot themselves or others with them. They use them carelessly and shoot innocent people themselves. Handgun owners have proven that they are not responsible enough to be allowed to own and use guns in anything other than the most restricted of ways, like perhaps at a shooting club. It should be a crime to even have a loaded handgun in your possession or on your property outside of a gun club, other than in a few special circumstances. Make that a law and you will save lives and make your home and family safer, and you may well see your handgun crime levels fall to the levels seen in Canada, or perhaps even lower. Between 1/3 and ½ of the crimes committed with handguns in Canada are committed with guns illegally smuggled in from the US, so if you changed your handgun laws our crime rate would probably drop as well.
I agree with you on that the correlation among different statistics isn't very clear. That's why I would caution an argument regarding justifying ease of access to guns and ammo in regard to crime rates or justifying gun control. Your argument is that having easy access to guns makes a safer society that is not necessarily proven as there are many places with high rates of gun ownership with a lot of crime. At the same time though there are examples of places with high rate of gun ownership with little crime. I myself don't think anything conclusive can be drawn from either side.
hmmmmm...... a person ran a red light and wrecked into innocent bystander Deckard... a deer ran a deer crossing and wrecked into innocent bystander Deckard... one might become suspect of Deckard's driving!
Your making up stats. How are all handgun owners in one group? You are offering no info, no original thought and using tired old invalid comparisons. You offered no evidence why "handguns in particular posr a threat to others"
