DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[LuvDuke]

And Wyatt Earp went on a vigilante style witch huht against all the Clantons and their associates, acting outside the law and becoming wanted by the authorities.

Wyatt Earp shot an unarmed man, Tom McLaury, that day and was charged with his murder.

http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/wyatt_earp/wyatt_earp_ch1.htm

Regardless, since when do we base public policy in the 21st century on tall tales from the 19th century?

There's too many "all hat and no cattle" cowboys around here.

 

[BuckNaked]

Wyatt Earp shot an unarmed man, Tom McLaury, that day and was charged with his murder.

http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/wyatt_earp/wyatt_earp_ch1.htm

Regardless, since when do we base public policy in the 21st century on tall tales from the 19th century?

There's too many "all hat and no cattle" cowboys around here.

I agree with you 100% on the not basing current law on Wyatt Earp et al.

However, I also agree with the repeal of the ban on handguns in DC, first on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, and secondly on the basis that every person should have a right to protect and defend themselves in their own homes. It isn't the people that are obeying the current law that are the problem in DC - it's the criminals that aren't obeying the laws. I don't see how allowing law abiding citizens to keep a gun in their home is going to result in the crime explosion that DC city officials are now screaming about in response to the court's decision.

Will there be more deaths? Probably, because citizens will now be able to shoot the people that are breaking into their homes and endangering their families.

 

[eclectics]

Will there be more deaths? Probably, because citizens will now be able to shoot the people that are breaking into their homes and endangering their families.

Would it really be that terrible if they did it with a shotgun or rifle? Unless you want to carry it around with you, I really don't see the purpose of a handgun.

 

[BuckNaked]

Would it really be that terrible if they did it with a shotgun or rifle? Unless you want to carry it around with you, I really don't see the purpose of a handgun.

How do you propose that people do that with shotguns and rifles, seeing as part of the law that was just overturned mandated that those weapons must be disassembled and locked at all times?

And it is easier to defend yourself with a handgun than it is with a rifle or shotgun. Easier to grab, easier to aim, easier to fire.

 

[sha_lyn]

And it is easier to defend yourself with a handgun than it is with a rifle or shotgun. Easier to grab, easier to aim, easier to fire

ITA... also a handgun is easier to keep secure yet nearby (ie a headboard mounted safe, lock box/safe in a nighstand etc)

 

[eclectics]

How do you propose that people do that with shotguns and rifles, seeing as part of the law that was just overturned mandated that those weapons must be disassembled and locked at all times?

And it is easier to defend yourself with a handgun than it is with a rifle or shotgun. Easier to grab, easier to aim, easier to fire.

I meant in general, not this specific case. Criminals love handguns because they are so mobile. If a law was formulated in which they were outlawed but citizens would be able to keep shotguns in their home for protection, I think it's a good compromise. A handgun is easier to grab and use at home only if it kept with the safety off, and is left within reach and ready to go. Keeping it secured in a locked box and up on a shelf etc. kind of defeats it's advantages.

 

[BuckNaked]

I meant in general, not this specific case. Criminals love handguns because they are so mobile. If a law was formulated in which they were outlawed but citizens would be able to keep shotguns in their home for protection, I think it's a good compromise. A handgun is easier to grab and use at home only if it kept with the safety off, and is left within reach and ready to go. Keeping it secured in a locked box and up on a shelf etc. kind of defeats it's advantages.

Sorry, but I would only use a rifle or shotgun as a last resort, meaning that I had no handgun available.

I'm hoping that someone on the anti-gun side will take the time to explain why they think allowing law-abiding citizens to legally keep handguns in their homes will result in more homicides by criminals.

Anyone?

 

[Andy B]

As someone from the UK I come to this discussionas someone who has an instinctive wariness of guns in society.

It seems there are two basic elements to this subject. People want protection from the armed criminal, I can understand this thought however the reasoning seems to be that the 2nd amendment gives the right to keep and carry arms incase the government needs overthowing or the most powerfull armed forces in the world can't stop an invasion from a foreign power.

It doesn't seem to be an argument which has a logical base.

I know that the constitution is an almost sacred document but it was written for a society over 230 years ago, do you think that it would ever be acceptable to have a debate about changing fundamental elements of the constitution?

 

[sha_lyn]

A handgun is easier to grab and use at home only if it kept with the safety off, and is left within reach and ready to go. Keeping it secured in a locked box and up on a shelf etc. kind of defeats it's advantages.

How much experience do you have with firearms of any kind?
It isn't hard at all the switch off a safety
There are safety locks that are very easy to disengaged without looking.

There are headboard, wall and nightstand mounted safes that are very easily opened with one hand in the dark. A rifle or shotgun can not be as easily secured and accessible at the same time.

A shotgun hits a wider path than a handgun or rifle. Not something I want to be shooting in a home with my kids and pets present. Rifles imho are harder to aim quickly.

Criminals love handguns because they are so mobile. If a law was formulated in which they were outlawed but citizens would be able to keep shotguns in their home for protection, I think it's a good compromise

Do you really believe that if handguns were outlawed, that the criminals would turn their in, care about it being against the law etc. If someone is planning to commit a crime with a gun, they aren't going to care that possessing the gun is a crime. Handgun laws will only take handguns away from law abiding citizens. It will not take them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[BuckNaked]

I know that the constitution is an almost sacred document but it was written for a society over 230 years ago, do you think that it would ever be acceptable to have a debate about changing fundamental elements of the constitution?

I have no problem whatsoever with discussions about changing the Constitution, but if it's going to be done, i.e., if we as a society are going to determine that the Second Amendment is no longer necessary or relevant, then let's change it by following the amendment process rather than simply trying to ignore that the right exists in the Constitution.

 

[Andy B]

I have no problem whatsoever with discussions about changing the Constitution, but if it's going to be done, i.e., if we as a society are going to determine that the Second Amendment is no longer necessary or relevant, then let's change it by following the amendment process rather than simply trying to ignore that the right exists in the Constitution.

But isn't the right of the constitution to carry arms as a state militia not for individual personal protection.

 

[BuckNaked]

Do you really believe that if handguns were outlawed, that the criminals would turn their in, care about it being against the law etc.

Exactly. If that were the case, DC would have one of the lowest crime rates in the country as opposed to one of the highest.

If someone is planning to commit a crime with a gun, they aren't going to care that possessing the gun is a crime. Handgun laws will only take handguns away from law abiding citizens. It will not take them out of the hands of criminals.

Again, I agree 100%.

When I lived in DC, I was on a military base, so I didn't need to worry about having a handgun for protection. But I had lived off-base, in DC, that's the one law I would have been breaking. No way would I live in the city of DC without a handgun for protection in my home. Being caught and prosecuted would have been a chance I was willing to take...better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[BuckNaked]

But isn't the right of the constitution to carry arms as a state militia not for individual personal protection.

It's open to interpretation, as is much of the Constitution. The three judge panel of the federal appeals court interpreted it, 2-1, that the right extends to individuals.

This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't specify that only militias may possess arms, and it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can't be infringed upon.

 

[sha_lyn]

Just had to add that DH DS and several others spent 3 hours together on the range today. Not a one of them shot/killed anyone, nor did any of the guns spontaneously decided to kill/shoot anyone either. If I had a sitter for DD, I would have been right there along side them.

 

[eclectics]

It will not take them out of the hands of criminals.

If being caught with one was a non-negotionable felony, it would.

 

[BuckNaked]

If being caught with one was a non-negotionable felony, it would.

How can you say that with a straight face? Being caught with a gun in DC IS a felony, yet they are all over the streets, in the hands of criminals.

So no, making it a felony to have a handgun does not keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[BuckNaked]

Could one or more of the anti-gun people here tell me why they are so against law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves in their own homes?

TIA!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And it is easier to defend yourself with a handgun than it is with a rifle or shotgun. Easier to grab, easier to aim, easier to fire.

I'm not sure if you own a gun, but you're wrong. I own a Taurus 9mm handgun and and a Ruger Shotgun and if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family, I'm going for the shotgun. A shotgun has much better stopping power at short range and is much easier to aim because of it wide spread of shot. That being said, I keep the 9mm for sport and am considering selling it now that I have a 2 year old daughter and one on the way. The shotgun, however, I'm keeping.

 

[BuckNaked]

I'm not sure if you own a gun, but you're wrong.

You are certainly free to disagree in your case, but in my case, no, I'm not wrong. We own a number of rifles and shotguns, and three handguns, any one of which I could get to, aim, and fire quicker and more accurately than I could with either a rifle or a shotgun.

 

[Andy B]

It's open to interpretation, as is much of the Constitution. The three judge panel of the federal appeals court interpreted it, 2-1, that the right extends to individuals.

This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment:



It doesn't specify that only militias may possess arms, and it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can't be infringed upon.

By being in the same amendment and separated by only commas I would have thought that the implication is that being armed is required to achieve the militia.

Unfortunately I can't see a way to an unarmed society in the USA. Would you think that if starting afresh with a well armed army and state reserve force that it would be better for no one else to bear arms at all?

I think it is the possibility of accidents which happen, and the associated perception of the cheapness of life are worrying to me.

I understand the feeling of if the bad guys are armed I want to be armed but could this lead to everyone being armed and the gun being the ultimate way to settle a dispute?