I do not see what the big deal is regarding a ban on handguns. If the sale of handguns were made illegal, hunters could still hunt. Without handguns a home owner could still own a rifle or a shotgun to defend his home. Any gun owner could still go to shooting ranges or other "leisure" activities that revolve around guns. It would only rule out a specific type of gun. The kind that is easiest to carry and conceal and as such the kind used most for crime.

Without resorting to "the government is secretly trying to kill us all!"; can you please explain to me why this is a bad thing, and not a good move for our future. I mean, the constitution is a wonderful document, but it is amendable for a reason.

It's true, hunting rifles and shotguns can be used to defend one's life or one's family. However, a handgun's small size makes it suited for a home-invasion situation. If nothing else, the length of rifles and shotguns makes them easier for the criminal to grab. While most gun owners don't fear the goverment is going "to kill us all," many are concerned that the handgun ban deprives law-abiding citizens with a very effective defensive tool.

That said, and I now the slippery-slope argument is considered a falicy, there is a concern that a handgun ban could be the first step in disarming citizens (whether over the course of years or centuries). And that if it ever came to pass that the government were trying to kill all Americans (or more realistically, if the government were exerting an unreasonable level of control over all Americans), an unarmed citiznenry would be unable to fight for even basic human rights. Given the context in which the Bill of Rights was writen, it only makes sense that this was a concern of the founding fathers. The American Revolution seems quaint today, but the fact is, it was a revolution, in which thousands of people (including our founding fathers) fought their government for what they considered basic human rights.

Without resorting to "the government is secretly trying to kill us all!"; can you please explain to me why this is a bad thing, and not a good move for our future. I mean, the constitution is a wonderful document, but it is amendable for a reason.

Then amend it. Repeal the 2nd and there will be no talk of the people's constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

As for why legalize pistols? Because they're easy to conceal and carry in public for the law abiding. The police have a tendency of looking at me funny if I walk down the street with an AR-15 in a tactical sling. As for usefulness, firearms are excellent equalizers if one decides to go that route. They are literally the only thing that allows elderly, weak ,female victims to go toe to toe with young, strong, male aggressors and win.

Making pistols illegal doesn't help much either way. Criminals don't give a damn about the laws. Note that DC still has a very high murder rate by firearms that have been banned in the district. NYC and Chicago also have practical pistol bans and yet, people still get shot there.

Let me start by saying that I am not informed on this issue. I do not have a side yet, so I appreciate your input as it is helping me to make a more informed decision. So, thank you.

As a martial artist, I understand the argument that a rifle or shotgun is easy to grab. In a close quarters situation a longer firearm is a disadvantage. That is a good point. But if a criminal comes into your home with a hand gun bought from the same place you purchased yours… Well, I would rather grapple with a thief than engage him a quick draw competition with my life and the lives of my loved ones on the line. So, get a dog or a an alarm system, and count on the fact that the criminal won’t have access to a short barrel weapon either. Isn’t that preferable?

I also understand the argument that says banning hand guns bans them from the regular citizenry as well as the criminals. Similar to the cloning and stem-cell bans which kept good scientists from finding ways to do good with the technology; while doing nothing at all to deter those whose intent was nefarious from the start.

But this is different. This isn't just affecting a certain caste of skilled experts, this is referring to the everyman. The concept of putting the gun into the hands of the elderly woman or the potential rape victim is compelling. Crimes again women anger me right to the core. However.... I think the person more likely to go out and find a gun in that situation isn't the victim. Fire arms can drive violent crime. In nations where access is restricted, violent crime rates drop. If we stopped selling hand guns, they would become progressively more difficult to come by for everyone, not just the good guys. The common thug can hardly go to the nearest port and acquire a shipment of illegal firearms. While there will always be criminals with those kinds of recourses; those are not the criminals breaking into homes for petty thefts or attacking elderly women for their purses. At least not nearly as commonly.

So, the more difficult it is to procure a hand gun the less likely it is to be used against the citizenry. Isn’t that better protection for our families than “also having a gun” and hoping that we are the better, faster shot?

Lastly, and almost as an after note; isn't an important part of this argument human nature? We, as a species, have a lot of violent impulses. Opportunity is a HUGE factor in our decisions, even our criminal one. Just ask anyone who deals in loss prevention.

I'll leave most of your comments; they're interesting but one can get sucked into these endless debates for hours... But there are two points I think it important to be made aware of:

Den:

If we stopped selling hand guns, they would become progressively more difficult to come by for everyone, not just the good guys. The common thug can hardly go to the nearest port and acquire a shipment of illegal firearms.

The common thug wouldn't need to. The miracle of the free market (in this case, black market) will bring a gun from the port to him. The average bozo also lacks the resources to go to a port and smuggle in $10M worth of cocaine, but the last I saw sophisticated professional criminals weren't the only ones with access to illegal drugs. As long as there's a demand, someone will be willing to risk a lot to make money filling it.

(Of course many guns, more than the government likes to admit or publicize, are also stolen from police and military armories. And not just small arms, either. But that's another issue.)

Den:

Lastly, and almost as an after note; isn't an important part of this argument human nature?

Only tangentially. The most important argument is what the law says. Unlike Dahlia Lithwick, most credible legal scholars and analysts would rather be stuck with a bad but otherwise valid law until they can change it within the existing system than junk it right away at the cost of making a mockery of rule of law. If our constitution and laws mean whatever the hell anyone with a half-baked opinion think they ought to mean at any given time and place, and not necessarily the same thing tomorrow, rule of law is dead and so is the republic.

It sounds to me like you HAVE picked as side, and that is the side that wants to ban handguns. You didn't address a very basic question: won't a ban on handguns lead to a ban on all guns? I mean, that's what the pro-choice crowd thinks when the subject of partial-birth abortions comes up. Also, you ask if criminals having a harder time getting a handgun is a better protection than me also having a handgun? I'd have to say no, since "a harder time" isn't the same thing as "can't get one." Now, also remember prohibition. Alcohol was banned, and ordinary citizens became criminals because they wanted their alcohol. More important, alcohol HAD been legal, and the citizens were used to it. As much as I dislike abortion, I believe attempts at banning abortion will be just as futile. It's legal now, and people aren't going to want to give up that ability no matter how good the reason sounds. That is also human nature, and you should figure that into your equation. While you're at it, figure that a handgun ban would turn me, an ordinary law-abiding citizen, into a criminal because I REFUSE to give up my legally purchased handgun, no matter how good a reason you think it would be.

Good points. I especially liked the Prohibition argument. We are a resourceful and wealthy nation. It would be relatively easy for the average American to make it worth the while of someone beyond our borders to provide guns. Also, tools like the Internet have only expanded the range of that power. Supply and demand, and with this being tied to our culture so strongly, I do not see how a simple ban would "help". I am confused on one issue however. I thought that what was on the table was a ban on selling additional handguns. Not making existing handguns unlawful to possess? Because trying to pass that second law is just crazy.

I don't KNOW though. Do you really think that stopping the sale of new handguns would be more harmful to the law abiding populice than it would be to the criminal element?

Your rational assumes Criminals will not arm themselves if guns are not available.

Violent crimes are not limited to guns. England has had a ban on firearms for dozens of years. Violent crime still occurrs in England perhaps not with a gun but it still happens just a frequently.

Be it stabbings, bludgeonings or shootings violent crime will not be stopped by banning arms from law biding people.

We can only deal with crime reactively since we know neither when or by whom a crime will be committed.

mdao:

They are literally the only thing that allows elderly, weak ,female victims to go toe to toe with young, strong, male aggressors and win.

This theme appears over and over again as a reason to prohibit gun control. I review the news on almost a daily basis, both local and national, and I have to say I can not recall ever reading a news story where an elderly woman managed to defend herself against an attack by wielding or using a handgun. What I do come across, way too often, is '9 year old brother accidentally kills his 7 year old sister', or 'gunman goes on rampage at school /church/ office building/ fast food restaurant, or innocent bystander gunned down in drive-by shooting'. It's madness. It's out of control. Just how many more of these headlines do YOU have to read before you realize there is a problem?

You are mistaken, since the Dunblane massacre and the resulting imposition of much stiffer gun laws the number of deaths due to gun violence has risen significantly in the UK.

Curious G - I don't think you've been looking very hard - there are about a million stories like that. try:

<link>

This is the "feel good" story of the year!

Vigalante granny. Really? This is the kind of thing you support? No gun control. No need for a justice system or due process of law. Just 'Cowboy-Up' and gun down the bad guys. Lovely. Yeah, no, I don't read FreeRepublic.com 'A Conservative News Forum'. Nor would I put much stock or credibility in anything printed there. I also don't read 'touchy-feelie liberal love fest' magazine either. Just the regular ol' news.

curious_g:

I review the news on almost a daily basis, both local and national, and I have to say I can not recall ever reading a news story where an elderly woman managed to defend herself against an attack by wielding or using a handgun.

Actually I personally know people who (though not particularly elderly) have put a quick stop to home invasions and assaults by holding (not even using) a gun on a criminal.

I think what you're seeing is the media's fear bias. Not liberal, not conservative, fear. New programs and papers make money based on the number of people watching and reading and people respond to fear-mongering (see: George W. Bush Presidency).

All shootings are tragic, but especially those that you mention. Children shooting children is an issue of fireams storage and wholly preventable.

Mass shootings are a different animal. Again I wonder if the media does not bear some responsibility, the shooter's name(s) often live in infamey, repeated over and over, along with their manifesto or Myspace page, what have you. Does that not reward the shooter (in his or her sick mind)? Additionally they nearly always happen in places where people wouldn't think to (or aren't allowed to) be armed. You can't prevent homocidal behavior in every human, if they've a mind to kill, they will, and in situations such as these they will use whatever means available to kill as many people as they can.

Bear with me, the last James/Younger gang bank robbery ended when the citizens of Northfield, MN collectively opened fire on the robbers, killing or wounding all but Jesse and his brother Frank. I don't mean to be trivial; I know this isn't the old (Mid)west, and I'm not suggesting everyone be armed, but I do wonder how a mass shooting would be different if one or more of the intended victims were armed.

I just had to comment on England’s gun law. While it is true that they still have violent crime it is not safe to say that they have the same level of violent crime. America is a battlefield compared to England.

The better point made is that England’s law is old and established. Where as a similar law passed in the U.S. would be counter to our nations established culture.

In other words, to say that it worked for England in no way guarantees that it would work for us.

While it is true that they still have violent crime it is not safe to say that they have the same level of violent crime. America is a battlefield compared to England.

Also incorrect. Violent crimes of all types except homicide are higher in the UK than the USA. Look up the numbers yourself if you don't believe.