Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Do you believe in the right to have a handgun at home for self-defense?
The Los Angeles Times article, "Supreme Court takes gun case that will test reach of 2nd Amendment", reports that the Court has agreed to hear the challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns. What are your thoughts?
Interesting Question?
Yes (1)
No (0)
- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
September 30, 2009 04:32 PM
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I believe that self-defense in an inherent human right, and that the Constitution not only guarantees your right to defend your person and property, but also your freedom. Citizens (free from mental illness and past convictions for violent crimes) should be allowed to apply for permits to carry guns outside of their homes, and should always be allowed to keep firearms within their homes.
It is ridiculous to me that people think that if you take away guns, you will reduce violence. To those people I can only say: take a look at prisons. If you take guns away from violent people, they remain violent: they sharpen down toothbrushes into weapons, mangle each other with their fists, and stuff hard objects into their socks to beat each other that way. And that's with 24 hour supervision. If you take guns away, you take only a tiny, trivial percentage of the items that can be used to kill a person. If you really want to solve the problem of violence, I'm sorry to say it's a much more difficult road (so, sorry, but suck it up and admit you can't use the easy answer, because you're just interfering with the liberties of responsible citizens and wasting time).
Even if taking away our gun rights did make our society safer, it would not make our society freer. And if I had to choose, I would choose freedom every time. Being able to own a gun is more than the freedom of saying "I'm doing something other people don't like!" as the anti-gun lobby usually accuses us gun owners of wanting. It's the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property. More importantly, it's the freedom to defend your rights from the government, if it ever came down to it. I know that sounds right-wing nutty (I'm actually incredibly liberal), but that's exactly why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment. A militia is a group of citizens that fights its own government to take back power. If this country was still even a shadow of its former self, when Bush sent his cronies out to arrest people and take them to secret prisons, militias would have risen up and stopped that. Clearly, we'd rather shop at WalMart than defend our liberties, but we shouldn't give up the ability. The government should fear its people. Not the other way around.
So, should citizens be able to defend their own homes? At a bare minimum.
It is ridiculous to me that people think that if you take away guns, you will reduce violence. To those people I can only say: take a look at prisons. If you take guns away from violent people, they remain violent: they sharpen down toothbrushes into weapons, mangle each other with their fists, and stuff hard objects into their socks to beat each other that way. And that's with 24 hour supervision. If you take guns away, you take only a tiny, trivial percentage of the items that can be used to kill a person. If you really want to solve the problem of violence, I'm sorry to say it's a much more difficult road (so, sorry, but suck it up and admit you can't use the easy answer, because you're just interfering with the liberties of responsible citizens and wasting time).
Even if taking away our gun rights did make our society safer, it would not make our society freer. And if I had to choose, I would choose freedom every time. Being able to own a gun is more than the freedom of saying "I'm doing something other people don't like!" as the anti-gun lobby usually accuses us gun owners of wanting. It's the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property. More importantly, it's the freedom to defend your rights from the government, if it ever came down to it. I know that sounds right-wing nutty (I'm actually incredibly liberal), but that's exactly why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment. A militia is a group of citizens that fights its own government to take back power. If this country was still even a shadow of its former self, when Bush sent his cronies out to arrest people and take them to secret prisons, militias would have risen up and stopped that. Clearly, we'd rather shop at WalMart than defend our liberties, but we shouldn't give up the ability. The government should fear its people. Not the other way around.
So, should citizens be able to defend their own homes? At a bare minimum.
| Asker's Rating: |
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (5)
September 30, 2009 04:00 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
There is a huge controversy about the right to have a handgun at home. Personally I believe it is a "good" thing because everybody should be able to protect themselves. However the problem that remains is too many people will abuse the law and not only use the handguns for self-defense. Therefore the State will have to thoroughly think this through and decide what is best. I don't think it is such a good idea because handguns will eventually only lead to more violence.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 30, 2009 06:34 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
YES! YES! It is our right and in some cases, very necessary. Without going into some big debate over handguns, I will just state my reasoning.
A decent pistol costs what, $300.00? And a human life is worth what, everything? So, if three hundred bucks can save my life, you bet I’m keeping one. No questions, no doubt.
Helpful Answer?
A decent pistol costs what, $300.00? And a human life is worth what, everything? So, if three hundred bucks can save my life, you bet I’m keeping one. No questions, no doubt.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 30, 2009 07:26 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I just typed a ridiculously long post about why all handguns should be outlawed and it was lost to a web error. Apparently the Mahalo engine has a right wing slant.
But in short -
Handguns in homes are dangerous, and are far more likely to result in accidental discharge and death of children and adults than they are to be used in successful self defense.
Handguns have no real purpose other than to kill humans. Hunting and sport can be done with rifles and shotguns. Assault rifles are even worse, having no reason to exist other than mass murder or assassination (or war).
The Second Amendment is not an absolute. The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution, which has been amended many times since its creation. Each of the first 10 amendments has been intepreted in a non-absolute fashion. The freedom of speech is limited - you cannot threaten others, you cannot yell fire in a theater. The freedom to assemble is also limited - you cannot have a riot, nor can you assemble on private land. The eight amendment, barring excessive bail for prisoners, is certainly up to debate on a case by case basis. The original document is not even clear on whether these rights apply to all within our borders or only to citizens, which clearly is something that is debated in some cases.
As such, this country (and supreme court) is well within its rights and precedent to limit what the "right to bear and keep arms" means. If you ask me, it should mean that you have a right to have a rifle and shotgun for general use and hunting. Handguns should be allowed by permit only. Gun sales should be heavily restricted, and punishments for violation of these rules should be severe.
Helpful Answer?
But in short -
Handguns in homes are dangerous, and are far more likely to result in accidental discharge and death of children and adults than they are to be used in successful self defense.
Handguns have no real purpose other than to kill humans. Hunting and sport can be done with rifles and shotguns. Assault rifles are even worse, having no reason to exist other than mass murder or assassination (or war).
The Second Amendment is not an absolute. The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution, which has been amended many times since its creation. Each of the first 10 amendments has been intepreted in a non-absolute fashion. The freedom of speech is limited - you cannot threaten others, you cannot yell fire in a theater. The freedom to assemble is also limited - you cannot have a riot, nor can you assemble on private land. The eight amendment, barring excessive bail for prisoners, is certainly up to debate on a case by case basis. The original document is not even clear on whether these rights apply to all within our borders or only to citizens, which clearly is something that is debated in some cases.
As such, this country (and supreme court) is well within its rights and precedent to limit what the "right to bear and keep arms" means. If you ask me, it should mean that you have a right to have a rifle and shotgun for general use and hunting. Handguns should be allowed by permit only. Gun sales should be heavily restricted, and punishments for violation of these rules should be severe.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 01, 2009 02:49 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I suppose I believe in the right for people to have one, but I truly hope everyone who's interested in acquiring one seriously considers the risks. It is much more likely that an accident will occur harming a member of your family than that you'll successfully use the weapon to ward off a home invasion in process. Truth be told, what's so wrong with keeping a rifle if you really feel you must have a weapon for protection?
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 01, 2009 07:17 AM
I know handguns tend to make non-gun people nervous, but if you live in an urban environment you are much better off with your neighbor engaging a home invader with something other than a rifle.
Rifles have long barrels and tend to send their projectiles out at higher velocities which is actually much more dangerous for indoor use. An ordinary deer hunting rifle can easily send the bullet into the bad guy and out the other side, then through the walls of your house, then outside, then through your neighbor's walls, then through your neighbor. . . A rifle is a distance weapon, and for a typical home defense scenario you won't be needing to pick off the bad guy at 100+ yards. If the bad guy is that far away a homeowner is almost never justified in shooting at him. In life and death situation, a rifle obviously can stop a bad guy inside your house, but it is generally not the best choice.
Also, a long barreled weapon is unwieldy for indoor use. If you need to retreat from a home invader and duck through doorways, a long barreled rifle can really get in the way. If you actually need to aim and shoot, a 3-4 foot long rifle might get hung up on a standing lamp or furniture. (Try running around your house while holding a yard stick out in front of you.) In close quarters it is harder to keep the rifle pointed at a moving target and easier for the bad guy to take it away from you. (Try pointing your finger at someone while they move around quickly and then try pointing with a yardstick and you'll see what I mean.)
For home defense I like a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel length and small "home defense" shot for this purpose. I also like a .45 semiautomatic handgun with hollow points as the big slow rounds are less likely to over penetrate.
Handguns have a few practical advantages too. They are small enough to fit into a small affordable safe instead of an expensive refrigerator sized safe. Many of them fire more affordable ammunition than what is used by most rifles (ammo cost is a huge factor when practicing and gun owners should practice). Most big cities have multiple indoor shooting ranges where people can practice with their handguns, but not rifles and sometimes not shotguns. Thus, a conscientious home defender will have more opportunities to keep their skills sharp with a handgun. A handgun can be operated with a single hand, so people with medical problems who can't handle a rifle or shotgun could still potentially use a handgun. You could dial 911 with one hand while holding a handgun ready in the other in case a home invader breaks into your room. A handgun also has the advantage of concealment. If you think something horrible is happening in your backyard and you go investigate, going outside with a shotgun or rifle is likely to panic your neighbors. A handgun can be held ready while concealed so that if the problem turns out to be a false alarm you don't scare your neighbors into calling 911 and end up with a SWAT team thinking that YOU are the bad guy.
I see that your answer is fairly open minded and I am not trying to convert you into a handgun lover. I just thought that the explanation might help you and others understand why some people choose them for home defense instead of a rifle as you mentioned.
Report
Rifles have long barrels and tend to send their projectiles out at higher velocities which is actually much more dangerous for indoor use. An ordinary deer hunting rifle can easily send the bullet into the bad guy and out the other side, then through the walls of your house, then outside, then through your neighbor's walls, then through your neighbor. . . A rifle is a distance weapon, and for a typical home defense scenario you won't be needing to pick off the bad guy at 100+ yards. If the bad guy is that far away a homeowner is almost never justified in shooting at him. In life and death situation, a rifle obviously can stop a bad guy inside your house, but it is generally not the best choice.
Also, a long barreled weapon is unwieldy for indoor use. If you need to retreat from a home invader and duck through doorways, a long barreled rifle can really get in the way. If you actually need to aim and shoot, a 3-4 foot long rifle might get hung up on a standing lamp or furniture. (Try running around your house while holding a yard stick out in front of you.) In close quarters it is harder to keep the rifle pointed at a moving target and easier for the bad guy to take it away from you. (Try pointing your finger at someone while they move around quickly and then try pointing with a yardstick and you'll see what I mean.)
For home defense I like a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel length and small "home defense" shot for this purpose. I also like a .45 semiautomatic handgun with hollow points as the big slow rounds are less likely to over penetrate.
Handguns have a few practical advantages too. They are small enough to fit into a small affordable safe instead of an expensive refrigerator sized safe. Many of them fire more affordable ammunition than what is used by most rifles (ammo cost is a huge factor when practicing and gun owners should practice). Most big cities have multiple indoor shooting ranges where people can practice with their handguns, but not rifles and sometimes not shotguns. Thus, a conscientious home defender will have more opportunities to keep their skills sharp with a handgun. A handgun can be operated with a single hand, so people with medical problems who can't handle a rifle or shotgun could still potentially use a handgun. You could dial 911 with one hand while holding a handgun ready in the other in case a home invader breaks into your room. A handgun also has the advantage of concealment. If you think something horrible is happening in your backyard and you go investigate, going outside with a shotgun or rifle is likely to panic your neighbors. A handgun can be held ready while concealed so that if the problem turns out to be a false alarm you don't scare your neighbors into calling 911 and end up with a SWAT team thinking that YOU are the bad guy.
I see that your answer is fairly open minded and I am not trying to convert you into a handgun lover. I just thought that the explanation might help you and others understand why some people choose them for home defense instead of a rifle as you mentioned.
October 03, 2009 03:11 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think you mean to ask, "Do you *agree* with the right to own a handgun and keep it at home?"
Go ahead. I think it's stupid, because 82% of the time the weapon gets used *against* the person who bought it and thought he'd hidden it, and if you're going to pull one of those things you'd better be prepared to actually pull the trigger when in fact most people have to be way more upset over an issue greater than a home invasion to actually pull the trigger, plus if you really want to freak out an invader, what's better is an over-under shotgun (they make such a blood-curdling noise when you load them, and if you do have to pull the trigger, they'll work, whereas handguns are not so guaranteed to be lethal...)
You see, there's a dilema to the whole issue.
The only time a can of pepper spray or a tazer or a baseball bat won't do the trick is if the intruder is armed with a gun, in which case, now you're in a situation of facing another person with a gun with a gun, and the problem with guns is that the person who pulls the trigger first has a huge advantage.
That means, if the intruder has a gun, and you do too, logically the thing to do is shoot first, but, even though in the US it's legal to shoot anyone who'se trespassing on your property without consent, the fact is, *most* people don't like killing... even when it's a freaky intruding stranger on crystal.
I'm sorry, but as a people Americans are just not that mean.
It's even a problem for soldiers, where they're trained, and in combat , and they *know* there's an enemy that will shoot them first if given the chance.
Yet there's still the dilema of how the intruder might be wacked on crystal and carrying a gun, in which case, the only defense is another gun, but it's only a defense if you shoot first...
Personally, I think there should be licences for uber-fast acting tranquilizer amo. Take a course, get your licence, and have your gun loaded with tranquilizer darts, and if there's an intruder, tranquilize him and then duck while it takes effect, and then call the cops while someone else in the family ties him up before he comes to.
Helpful Answer?
Go ahead. I think it's stupid, because 82% of the time the weapon gets used *against* the person who bought it and thought he'd hidden it, and if you're going to pull one of those things you'd better be prepared to actually pull the trigger when in fact most people have to be way more upset over an issue greater than a home invasion to actually pull the trigger, plus if you really want to freak out an invader, what's better is an over-under shotgun (they make such a blood-curdling noise when you load them, and if you do have to pull the trigger, they'll work, whereas handguns are not so guaranteed to be lethal...)
You see, there's a dilema to the whole issue.
The only time a can of pepper spray or a tazer or a baseball bat won't do the trick is if the intruder is armed with a gun, in which case, now you're in a situation of facing another person with a gun with a gun, and the problem with guns is that the person who pulls the trigger first has a huge advantage.
That means, if the intruder has a gun, and you do too, logically the thing to do is shoot first, but, even though in the US it's legal to shoot anyone who'se trespassing on your property without consent, the fact is, *most* people don't like killing... even when it's a freaky intruding stranger on crystal.
I'm sorry, but as a people Americans are just not that mean.
It's even a problem for soldiers, where they're trained, and in combat , and they *know* there's an enemy that will shoot them first if given the chance.
Yet there's still the dilema of how the intruder might be wacked on crystal and carrying a gun, in which case, the only defense is another gun, but it's only a defense if you shoot first...
Personally, I think there should be licences for uber-fast acting tranquilizer amo. Take a course, get your licence, and have your gun loaded with tranquilizer darts, and if there's an intruder, tranquilize him and then duck while it takes effect, and then call the cops while someone else in the family ties him up before he comes to.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
ewpldf
Nice work! I am nominating you for Answer of The Day!
Click here to visit the contest and vote for your entry to increase your chances of winning the prize.
windowshop...
lesliec