But the point I make is that inner city Blacks kill half of all peoploe murdered in the USA when the whole Black community represents only @10% of the population.
Let's say that were absolutely true. Now what?
Poor people tend to be more violent and find alternative means to support themselves. Without strict gun control you've also armed them too. Does that make sense to you?
So I'll ask you what you suggest we do, as a nation?
Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense
Yeah, I'm all for that. Not the point I was trying to convey in my previous post but, sure, citizens should NOT take the law into their own hands.
However, I'm not for the removal of ALL guns. I enjoy duck hunting and I'm currently getting into deer/hog hunting. So I've always been cool with owning a hunting rifle or shotguns. Both can of course be used for self-defense in your home, and also for the more common use of sport/hunting/target shooting.
I don't support the ownership of concealable handguns or assault rifles. I see no point to them.
...not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals.
Criminals aren't walking into stores buying guns, for the most part. They acquire the guns from people who have legally purchased them. If you completely take away their source (ie. gun owners) then in time you reduce the amount of guns the criminals have.
In my opinion, this is only relevant for concealable weapons like handguns, and high casualty weapons like mini assault rifles. I don't really see many criminals walking around with a 30/30.
Sorry, I meant how would it be possible to take The Peoples' guns away?
"Take them away" is ridiculous. Making it impossible for you to do anything with it is more likely and not far reaching.
Stop manufacturing handguns and assault rifles, make the sale of them illegal and stop manufactuing ammunition. Eventually you'll just own a worthless hunk of metal.
At least I'm only talking about those two weapons. And it won't deny Americans the right to bear arms. It just limits what you own, and we do that already.
Guns can be made privately and ammunition can be refilled.
I get that. But evidence of places that have these laws show that people aren't going out of their way to manufacture their own handguns and assault rifles.
You're right that eventually it'll run out, but I think you far underestimate how long it would actually take. And I don't think those who would back you are willing to wait many multiple years for the plan to be implemented.
Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm good with starting it now and having my children's children reap the benefits of it. Slavery was under the same time constraints, yet here we are with a black prez.
Handguns are the best for personal defense. I don't see those going away.
Says you. I'll take a shotgun over a handgun for home defense any day.
Nobody's talking about "taking the law into your own hands."
Well it seems like you are. The job of the police is to carry out deadly force when need be. I personally don't believe citizens should be walking around with the same authority.
I can however see the point to defending your home though. But for that we're good with shotguns and or rifles.
The point is to shoot someone who is going to kill you before the police can arrive.
I believe the point is that no one shoots anyone, period.
You can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon as well, and a handgun is an appropriate tool in defending yourself against those attacks, as well.
Or, any one of those other items. I don't see the need to arm ourselves with handguns while walking around. A tazer, some pepper spray and some classes in MMA should ward off any would be attackers. Unless they have a gun. Which is the whole point.
Less guns, more fist-to-cuffs. In your home it's different. But there, again, a shotgun works just fine.
I mean that while in theory there are loads that are best for hunting, best for semi-auto assault rifles, and best for handguns, in practice there is substantial overlap about which guns use which ammo. The "varmint-hunting" .22 long rifle is also a popular caliber for small handguns. 9mm Parabellum is shot from both pistols and rifles. The classic Western rifle, the Winchester Lever-Action Repeater, is most commonly chambered for .45 Colt.
I mean, suppose we enact your "no ammo for handguns and assault rifles" law, and the guys who make 9mm and .223 simply say "well, we're not making handgun or assault rifle rounds. We're making 9mm and .223, which are popular and effective hunting loads, and if someone should decide to load them into pistols or assault rifles which were already chambered for those ammunitions, what's that to us?" Now what? How are they, in fact, not legally in the right since "hunting ammunition" means any ammunition used by hunters in long rifles?
That makes sense.
I guess some work on what legal ammunition gets manufactured and sold would also be required. So there's no overlap. This is where experts would need to come together and figure out the best way to do that.
Except that it's already been made illegal to carry those items, based on the premise that legitimate self-defense is accomplished with handguns and the others aren't protected by the Second Amendment
What? You said you can be stabbed, strangled, or beat to death with a bludgeon. Knives, your hands to strangle someone and a small bat (as an example of something to bludgeon with) are not illegal to carry at all. I don't know what you mean by this statement.
How would there not be overlap? Any round fired from a rifle is, in principle, capable of being fired from a handgun because rifles and handguns are the exact same technology. You act like people would just stop using handguns because 90% of them couldn't get ammunition, but wouldn't people just modify or manufacture handguns that fired your permissible "hunting" rounds?
I don't know enough about it to answer that. Can someone modify a weapon to fire those rounds? Maybe. I guess. I don't know.
It seems though that it's not a problem in any of the countries who've adopted this law of no handguns of assault rifles.
Oh, right. "Experts" make all things possible, I guess.
Yes, but these are ineffective self-defense strategies (to say the least) particularly when one is substantially weaker than one's attacker. And again, the sort of fixed-blade knife that would be effective as a self-defense solution - something like a Fairbairn-Sykes knife - is illegal in most jurisdictions. Carrying around a baseball bat or other bludgeon is impractical, particularly for someone without the upper body strength to swing it effectively.
I don't know why you insist on characterizing a self-defense scenario as being between two people of matched physical ability; it's people who lack much physical strength, like women, the disabled, etc who are most at risk of being attacked. It's precisely those people that are best served by handguns, which can be operated without significant physical strength, from a seated position, a wheelchair, or from the ground, etc.
I'm not doing anything like that. You said all those things can be used to kill so I said you can equally use them to defend yourself.
Your own experience that a paraplegic can learn mixed martial arts?
Those countries actually made it illegal to own a handgun or assault rifle. We're discussing your policy, the one where you make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute handgun and assault rifle ammunition but hunting ammunition is OK.
Fair enough. I'm all for altering my own proposed idea. So lets include making them illegal as well.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
