**GW #350** Would you Support A Handgun Ban?

Do you support a handgun ban?


  • Total voters
    31
Sep 2017
5,469
6,538
Massachusetts
As much as I’d like to delve in to those individually, I’d rather stick closer to the intent of my topic. So I will ask...do you support banning any other types of firearms? Like “assault weapons.” Or do you take the same approach? I’m more looking for thought process if you are wondering on intent.
I support an outright ban on individual ownership of a number of arms -- various chemical, nuclear, and biological arms, for starters, as well as certain anti-aircraft weapons, howitzers, bombs, landmines, etc. As for firearms, in particular, I can see value in banning new purchases/transfers of weapons that are particularly useful for causing mass havoc. However, I wouldn't focus on aesthetic difference, the way some gun-control measures have in the past (e.g., I don't care if it looks like a "military style" weapon or a hunting weapon, the question is functional capability). So, if I were to come up with those rules, they'd be based around the functional output of the weapons. The main features that make a firearm useful for mass havoc are (1) the number of rounds it can put out in a given time period by a competent user, and (2) the amount of energy each of those rounds imparts (a combination of caliber and muzzle speed, which goes to the question of how deadly each shot is likely to be if it hits). Bans designed to limit how many rounds a nut job can churn out before reloading and how long reloading takes might well cut down on the body count in mass shootings. And such limits aren't going to mean anything with regard to how useful firearms are in practical hunting and self-defense scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2017
5,469
6,538
Massachusetts
Who buys single shot pistoles?

banning semi-automatic firearms would include over 95% of all pistols.
Yes, that sounds about right. I'm just pointing out that it's an option, not saying it's an option I support. I own an eight-shot pistol, myself.

But you are confusing "single shot" with "single action".
I am not. I own an S&W M&P R8, which is a revolver that shoots both double and single action.
 
Jan 2018
831
474
Houston, TX
I support a ban on handguns being carried, openly or concealed, in public spaces......except for law enforcement.
Keep your gun in your truck or at home to defend your castle.
Yea sure, because that is where a terrorist, mass shooter, kidnapper, or thief is most likely to strike. (SARCASM).
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,538
Massachusetts
So you would restrict to "single shot" at least your not ignorant anymore of what a semi and what a single action pistol is. ;)
I'm not advocating limiting to single shots. I'm just saying they exist. I would be more open to limiting to six- or eight shots, though. In practical scenarios, if you're firing off more than six or eight shots, you're probably being careless about your shot selection. I get that spraying bullets has its role in military situations, where you're just using suppressing fire to keep people's heads down, or to take out a large force that's charging a fixed position. But for self-defense/home-defense, you shouldn't be shooting at things you don't think you've got a good shot at hitting, and in realistic scenarios, you aren't going to need to take down more than a half-dozen attackers. If you're firing off ten or twelve shots, you're probably more of a risk to the innocent than to whoever you think you're aiming at.... especially if you're using higher-velocity/higher-caliber rounds that have the risk of over-penetrating (e.g., passing through walls and killing bystanders).
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,538
Massachusetts
if I am attacked by 14 people and I shoot and stop 13, how long to you think the 14th will wait around for me to eject and load a 2nd magazine?
If you've taken down even a few of those 14, the rest are going to stop coming, because they don't want to be next. It's about convincing them that the risk of continuing the attack is much higher than the likely reward. You just need to deal out enough harm to convince the remainder that there are less dangerous victims to be found.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,538
Massachusetts
A handgun ban is unConstitutional.

If we are going to act unConstitutional, why make it just about guns?
The current court would say a handgun ban was unconstitutional. But that's judicial activism by the conservatives, not something driven by the history of the second amendment. First, obviously, until fairly recently, it was understood by courts that the second amendment didn't apply to the states, so there'd be no issue with imposing such a ban at the state or local level. A strict-constructionist court that went back to the original intent could restore the power of the states to regulate that way, rather than stomping on states rights the way the current conservatives do. Second, a court that was willing to stick closer to the historical interpretation, rather than pulling new law out of their asses, would focus on what firearms are useful in the context of regulated militias, and would see limits on types of firearms as constitutional, so long as they didn't limit the kinds of firearms that would be necessary for a well-regulated militia to have a functional role in defending the state. So, ironically, you'd be on firmer ground banning handguns, which have little use in military actions, than banning fully-automatic AK-47s, which are standard military weapons that would clearly be quite useful in a militia context.
 
Jul 2013
4,792
5,703
Ohio
What use is a handgun for self defense if I don’t have it? Like when I am out in the middle of the woods? Or carrying something of significant value from one point to another? Out on my walk from my home?
Goodness, you must be getting shot at a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo2

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
66,568
13,571
315 bowery/DMS
There is a difference in shooting to kill and shooting to defend one self, something I began teaching my dauthers, you shoot unil they stop

if I am attacked by 14 people and I shoot and stop 13, how long to you think the 14th will wait around for me to eject and load a 2nd magazine?



If you got 13 and the 14th still has the ballz, you better reload fast.
 

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
66,568
13,571
315 bowery/DMS
The current court would say a handgun ban was unconstitutional. But that's judicial activism by the conservatives, not something driven by the history of the second amendment. First, obviously, until fairly recently, it was understood by courts that the second amendment didn't apply to the states, so there'd be no issue with imposing such a ban at the state or local level. A strict-constructionist court that went back to the original intent could restore the power of the states to regulate that way, rather than stomping on states rights the way the current conservatives do. Second, a court that was willing to stick closer to the historical interpretation, rather than pulling new law out of their asses, would focus on what firearms are useful in the context of regulated militias, and would see limits on types of firearms as constitutional, so long as they didn't limit the kinds of firearms that would be necessary for a well-regulated militia to have a functional role in defending the state. So, ironically, you'd be on firmer ground banning handguns, which have little use in military actions, than banning fully-automatic AK-47s, which are standard military weapons that would clearly be quite useful in a militia context.



This is so wrong its not even funny.



So you are actually arguing the states laws overide, just the second amendment?


Did you really just argue that the 2nd didnt apply to the states? No really?


Explain the tenth then. Holy fuck thats dense
 
Recent Similar Discussions Forum Date
Entertainment
Recent Similar Discussions
**GW, Post #71** Villains I Have Hated