DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[Laugh O. Grams]

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.

Sorry. In your statement, I though you were talking in general terms, not about yourself specifically. It fairly common knowledge that your average shooter can aim a shotgun much easier than a handgun.

 

[Andy B]

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.

Can I ask if you need a gun for self protection why do you have so many?

 

[eclectics]

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.

I think you'll find the cases that are actually prosecuted and appropriate jail time given is quite lacking. I said "non-negotiable" with a pre set jail time. No judicial discretion and no plea bargains, even for first timers. Believe me, you will see a difference.

 

[sha_lyn]

Sorry. In your statement, I though you were talking in general terms, not about yourself specifically. It fairly common knowledge that your average shooter can aim a shotgun much easier than a handgun.

Easier to AIM you bet. It is also a lot easier to hit things (children, pets etc) that you are not aiming at.

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

As BuckNaked said... How can you say that with a straight face?
Murder is a felony, however laws against murder has not stopped it.
Bank robbery is a felony, but laws against it have not stopped it.
Prisons would be empty using your logic. Could you explain whyprisons are over crowded and more are being built if making something a felony makes criminals stop doing it.

 

[sha_lyn]

Can I ask if you need a gun for self protection why do you have so many?

She never said she owned them solely for self protection.

 

[eclectics]

As BuckNaked said... How can you say that with a straight face?
Murder is a felony, however laws against murder has not stopped it.
Bank robbery is a felony, but laws against it have not stopped it.
Prisons would be empty using your logic. Could you explain whyprisons are over crowded and more are being built if making something a felony makes criminals stop doing it.

I guess we can get rid of the death penalty then, right? Doesn't seem to be working. If you would read my posts again, I emphasised twice the "non-negotiable" part. Felonys can be plea bargained down to a slap on the wrist. Criminals are well aware of this. No law is worth the paper it is written on if it isn't prosecuted correctly.

 

[BuckNaked]

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.

It certainly can be interpreted that way, and it can just as easily be interpreted as saying that individuals have the right to bear arms, militia or no 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?

No, I don't think it would be better. No army and no militia (or national guard) is going to be able to protect my family in my home as well as my husband or I can do with our own weapons. I hope it never comes to having to shoot someone, but I wouldn't hesitate if it came to my family or an intruder.

Can I ask if you need a gun for self protection why do you have so many?

We have them because most of them were either ours as children or were handed down to us from fathers and grandfathers.

I think you'll find the cases that are actually prosecuted and appropriate jail time given is quite lacking. I said "non-negotiable" with a pre set jail time. No judicial discretion and no plea bargains, even for first timers. Believe me, you will see a difference.

While I see your point, I still don't agree with your conclusion. There aren't enough police on the streets in DC or in any major city to catch all of the criminals with guns.

 

[BuckNaked]

I guess we can get rid of the death penalty then, right? Doesn't seem to be working.

It works on the one particular person that is executed. And I agree with your suggestion that strict prosecution would work on the criminal that is caught with a gun. But just as the death penalty is not a great deterrent to murder, I don't believe that strict punishment for gun possession will stop that either.

No law is worth the paper it is written on if it isn't prosecuted correctly.

On this we agree completely.

 

[eclectics]

It works on the one particular person that is executed. And I agree with your suggestion that strict prosecution would work on the criminal that is caught with a gun. But just as the death penalty is not a great deterrent to murder, I don't believe that strict punishment for gun possession will stop that either.



On this we agree completely.

Then I'm curious as to what you believe will get guns out of criminals hands. In the countries where handguns are not the norm or they are outlawed, their crime rate is not nearly as staggering as ours is. Surely there must be an answer other than every American carrying a handgun with them 24/7.

 

[BuckNaked]

Then I'm curious as to what you believe will get guns out of criminals hands.

In this country, I don't believe anything will get the guns out of criminals' hands, with the exception of those criminals that are actually caught and put in prison.

In the countries where handguns are not the norm or they are outlawed, their crime rate is not nearly as staggering as ours is.

Did those countries have a culture of gun ownership like this country has? I don't know the answer to that.

Surely there must be an answer other than every American carrying a handgun with them 24/7.

I'm not suggesting any such thing, and the overturning of this law doesn't allow that either.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, from the other side of this argument to explain to me a) what makes you believe that there will be an explosion of crime if law abiding citizens are permitted to have guns in their homes and b) why are you opposed to citizens being able to protect themselves?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Easier to AIM you bet. It is also a lot easier to hit things (children, pets etc) that you are not aiming at.

If we're talking about home protection, we're typically talking about shooting an intruder within 15-20 feet. Unless the intruder is holding someone close to them, he's going to be the only person hit. And I don't care what kind of shot anyone thinks they are, unless you're Jack Bauer with nerves of steel, I'm thinking that you're not shooting a handgun at an intruder who's holding your kid or your cat either. That would be plain reckless.

Well...I might take the shot if it were the cat.

 

[eclectics]

I'm not suggesting any such thing, and the overturning of this law doesn't allow that either.

I never said you personally did, and yes, I'm aware the law won't permit this. I suppose I should be more diligent in explaining when I make a general statement as opposed to a specific one. I just get the impression there wouldn't be too much of an argument from the members of the NRA if they all were suddenly allowed to carry loaded handguns on their person at all times. But since they can't, and the majority of people that seem to benefit the most from carrying a handgun is the criminal, I still believe an illegal handgun should carry a harsh non-negotiable punishment. On the other hand, if you feel you can't protect yourself or your home without one, I have no objection to anyone eligable buying a legal one and getting a license and registration for it, although no one has convinced me a hunting rifle can't serve as an adequate dual purpose weapon.

 

[MassJester]

What, 4 pages of posts following a story about judges striking down a law and not one comment about "activist judges" having no respect for legislative solutions?

Well, well, well.

 

[MikeS.]

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.



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.

X2

 

[MikeS.]

The state of Virginia does allow open carry of a firearm. You don't see it being done a lot but it is there.

When the 2nd amendment was written, same time as the other nine, "the people" referred to just that, the individual person or people. Any time you see "the people" in the rest of the Bill of Rights it refers to an individual right.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the 2nd and in other works of the same time, The Federalist Papers for one, he clearly stated that the 2nd meant an individual right.

Fla. opened up concealed carry permits several years ago. Quite a few people there have concealed carry permits. About 1/10 of 1% have been charged with a crime involving their concealed weapon.

All the other states that have opened up their concealed carry permits, none have seen a spike in crime rates because of it.

 

[Andy B]

It certainly can be interpreted that way, and it can just as easily be interpreted as saying that individuals have the right to bear arms, militia or no militia.

Possibly but in that case they should not be in the same sentence.

No, I don't think it would be better. No army and no militia (or national guard) is going to be able to protect my family in my home as well as my husband or I can do with our own weapons. I hope it never comes to having to shoot someone, but I wouldn't hesitate if it came to my family or an intruder.

If there were no other guns in society would you still need the gun?
Would you shoot an intruder if you knew they were unarmed and if so how would the law deal with that?

While I see your point, I still don't agree with your conclusion. There aren't enough police on the streets in DC or in any major city to catch all of the criminals with guns.

Are there any statistics which show if shootings by previously legally owned guns is significant. ie a gun turned on its owner, a police gun used, a legal gun owner commiting a crime.

 

[Charade]

What, 4 pages of posts following a story about judges striking down a law and not one comment about "activist judges" having no respect for legislative solutions?

Well, well, well.

It was the DC legislature that tossed "respect" for the 2nd amendment out the window.

 

[sha_lyn]

If there were no other guns in society would you still need the gun?
Would you shoot an intruder if you knew they were unarmed and if so how would the law deal with that?

there is no way to insure that an intruder would not have a gun. As I said before, they won't care that having a gun is illegal. Making laws against guns will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?
In your line of thinking a criminal would think "hey I want to rob that gas station. Sure I could go to jail but I don't care. Hey what will I use to rob it. I better use a hammer because I'll go to jail for using a gun"

 

[eclectics]

How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

 

[Andy B]

there is no way to insure that an intruder would not have a gun. As I said before, they won't care that having a gun is illegal. Making laws against guns will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?
In your line of thinking a criminal would think "hey I want to rob that gas station. Sure I could go to jail but I don't care. Hey what will I use to rob it. I better use a hammer because I'll go to jail for using a gun"

I am asking questions to appreciate the issues involved, I do not appreciate your reply.

I was asking a theoretical situation question in a discussion with Bucknaked and you have jumped in.

In a situation without guns in society was my situation suggested,'How hard is that concept to grasp'? Under those circumstances would you want a gun?

The second scenario was if you knew an intuder was unarmed would you shoot. Not how you would know, it was theoretical question I admit to try to understand further. I then asked what the position of the Law would be.

I do not believe I have put any line of reasoning in my posts so please don'y make one up for me.

As I posted in my first post on this thread I explained that I am British and therefore from a different culture I was trying to ask questons to find out more.