Video: Obama supports D.C. handgun ban
But, to answer your question, that's where the concern is coming from.
Not surprising. Military services exist for the defense (presumably) of their respective countries. The membersof the most successful military units learn one primary skill: how to kill, preferably without dying themselves; disabling an enemy is usually considered more effective, it isn't always possible in the heat of battle. All else is delivery systems and support.
Reloading.
I see you're posting from Arizona, a gun-friendly state (soon you'll be able to open-carry a pistol at the Grand Canyon!).
I invite you to visit the "tx.guns" newsgroup. By just lurking, you'll pick up a great deal of info about (mostly) handguns and the laws affecting them.
Don't ask "Which handgun is best for me?" The answers are like cures for hiccups! Your best bet is to visit an indoor range, rent several pistols, and try them out.
While carrying a pistol in a vehicle is legal in Texas, that might not be the case in other states. A better bet is to get an Arizona Concealed Handgun Permit. Here's a link to other states that honor AZ permits:
Being a Socialist kind of guy, Senator Patrick Monyhan suggested much the same thing years ago. He said "We have a 200-year supply of guns on the street, but only a ten-year supply of ammunitition."
Your last statement kind of begs the question - the six to eight handgun killings per week in your town leaves out the criterium of whether the deceased needed killing.
The guard was killed with a rifle, IIRC. I don't recall reading the caliber or type. McVeigh used a massive bomb. Neither will fit in a pocket.
IIRC it was a friggin .22 rifle. I wonder here he was actually hit.
Ever see the damage a .22 long rifle hollow point can do?
Lew
Awhile back your point was that there are people out there who insist that fully-automatic weapons are needed for hunting. While you are free to believe that it doesn't appear to be a position where you can point to supporting references. If merely asking you to support your claim amounts to arguing about any point no matter what, okay, I guess we know now that you never meant to be taken seriously.
I have actually felt a .22 long. They glance off bones pretty easily, thank goodness.
I suspect they like to bounce around compared to a more powerful calibre that would go straight through.
And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard pressed to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.
Big difference between a .22 long and a .22 long rifle hollow point.
Glad you were not seriously hurt.
Doubt you would have been so lucky if it had been a .22 long rifle hollow point.
Lew
SFWIW, I forgot how many thousand .22 long rifle hollow point rounds I've squeezed off in my life.
I spent a goodly proportion of today grinding and carefully honing some chisels :-)
To use on wood I might add!
.22 long rifle hollow point, think dum-dum.
They simply tear everything to shreads.
Lew
In the case of guns, "need" is seldom an issue. The thing that counts most is "want."
If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon to mow down prarie dogs, why not?
If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon for sport, target shooting, investment, historical artifiact, or simply for collecting, why not?
Don't credit the lack of guns. You probably don't have that many people that need killing.
If that's what it takes to give you a testosterone fix, so be it, but just do the background and register them.
You will never understand "Why not?"
Lew
He was a convicted felon, therefore just his possession of a firearm was illegal even before he shot that security guard. But as you might have noticed criminals don't worry much about breaking the law which is why passing more laws making guns more illegal has little if any effect on them.
You might also note that it was airport-type security that prevented this particular criminal from entering the museum, that's the reason the only person he shot was a security guard at the entrance.
As for the presence of firearms permitting crazies to go around killing people, you need to explain why a state like Vermont with extremely liberal firearms laws (e.g. you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon) is at the bottom of the list for violent crime in the U.S. Shouldn't all those armed folks in Vermont packing guns result in lots of criminal use of firearms? Hey, maybe there are factors other than the existence of firearms at work here, perhaps dealing with those other factors is worth a try rather than looking at disarming sane, sober, law-abiding citizens who aren't causing anyone any problems, hmmmmm?
It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens, and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if they can. So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that criminals happily ignore it. If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that might be interesting.
What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will choose to register a firearm? Felons aren't supposed to possess guns in the first place, that's why they don't stand in line at a gun shop and undergo a background check.
Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada, registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?
I read something years ago about a former head of Scotland Yard testifying before a Parliamentary committee. When asked what effect Britain's strict gun laws had on criminals getting their hands on guns, he said the law had little or no impact, that any serious criminal in the country could get any kind of gun he wanted within 24 hours, he even mentioned the prices paid for weapons. Britain's gun laws might prevent shootings by outraged husbands or drunks or whoever simply by making firearms hard to come by for the average person. But anyone who thinks criminal gangs will have trouble getting guns should note that drug trafficers are able to bring narcotics into the country by the ton. Since the War on Drugs has been a trillion-dollar failure, one has to suspect that banning handguns would be just as effective as banning recreational drugs has been.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.