Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Attempts to disarm the working class must be resisted.

Or minorities.

Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

[Sevvania]

Or minorities.

Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."

Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.

[New Baldonia]

Or minorities.

Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

I'm for arming all Americans regardless of class, race, political standing, or financial mobility. As long as you're not under indictment for or convicted of a felony, a fugitive from justice, addicted to a controlled substance, declared mentally unstable by a court, or have been committed to a mental institution, an illegal alien or in the US under a non immigrant visa, dishonorably discharged from the military, have renounced your citizenship, subject to a restraining order, or convicted of any domestic violence related misdemeanor.
Oh, and they need to be over the age of 18.

Which just so happens to be exactly the same requirements we have right now. Only difference is that now you're getting a free gun. Well free relatively speaking, since they would have to be purchased with tax dollars. And it would mean that one company would be receiving a rather large contract from the government that would give it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Ok on second thought I don't want the government to arm anyone. If you want a gun, buy it yourself.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."

Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

I'm for arming all Americans regardless of class, race, political standing, or financial mobility. As long as you're not under indictment for or convicted of a felony, a fugitive from justice, addicted to a controlled substance, declared mentally unstable by a court, or have been committed to a mental institution, an illegal alien or in the US under a non immigrant visa, dishonorably discharged from the military, have renounced your citizenship, subject to a restraining order, or convicted of any domestic violence related misdemeanor.
Oh, and they need to be over the age of 18.

Which just so happens to be exactly the same requirements we have right now. Only difference is that now you're getting a free gun. Well free relatively speaking, since they would have to be purchased with tax dollars. And it would mean that one company would be receiving a rather large contract from the government that would give it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Ok on second thought I don't want the government to arm anyone. If you want a gun, buy it yourself.

Oh, i wasn't thinking of the government arming them. I'm thinking that a fundraising campaign would be a good idea. Now, we'd have to ensure that people with felonies on their records weren't getting the firearms, and that the proceeds are actually going to buying the weapons, so I suggest that we give gift cards with the name of the homeless recipient on them. They show their ID at the counter, get checked out, come back in three days, and pick up the gun. Ta-da!

[Sevvania]

When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."

Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.

So only those who can afford guns without help can be trusted with the responsibility of owning one? That seems a bit elitist to me.

[Fartsniffage]

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.

If you already have things then it's very unlikely that the government of the US would be trying to take those things from you. What with money being the same as speech and all.

Seems to me that the poor are far more at risk of government tyranny than the rich so it would make sense to arm the poor. And the homeless are pretty much the definition of poor in a first world country.

[New Baldonia]

Oh, i wasn't thinking of the government arming them. I'm thinking that a fundraising campaign would be a good idea. Now, we'd have to ensure that people with felonies on their records weren't getting the firearms, and that the proceeds are actually going to buying the weapons, so I suggest that we give gift cards with the name of the homeless recipient on them. They show their ID at the counter, get checked out, come back in three days, and pick up the gun. Ta-da!

Oh, well in that case you'll have no argument from me. I'm all for charitable donations.

[Sevvania]

I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.

So only those who can afford guns without help can be trusted with the responsibility of owning one? That seems a bit elitist to me.

It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern. There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?

If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?

It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.

[New Baldonia]

So only those who can afford guns without help can be trusted with the responsibility of owning one? That seems a bit elitist to me.

It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern. There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?

If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?

It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.

Eh, good points. Ok, I rescind my approval of this "arm the homeless" idea. Unless all other citizens who are legally allowed to own a firearm are also armed in order to act as citizen police and first responders to gun crime.
Though this would require that your state consider "the protection of another" to also be considered self-defense. Luckily I don't know of any states where that's not the case, but still.

[Ifreann]

When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."

Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

Maybe we should ask Desperate Measures...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern.

The cry of elitists throughout history.

There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?

Sorry, since we're taking it on good faith that other people will not use firearms for nefarious purposes such as settling arguments, then why should we approach homeless people with a presumption of guilt?

If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?

Technical details that can be addressed. Not a reason to not provide them with the means of self-defense.

It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.

Which again comes back to prejudging people's actions based upon economic status. You're automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends, which means that you're using a different standard of judgment for them than you would for anyone else.

[Sevvania]

It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern.

The cry of elitists throughout history.
How many of those "elitists" could back up their cries with actual points that have basis in reality?

There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?

Sorry, since we're taking it on good faith that other people will not use firearms for nefarious purposes such as settling arguments, then why should we approach homeless people with a presumption of guilt?
Which do you need more, to settle an argument or avoid dying of starvation/exposure?

If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?

Technical details that can be addressed. Not a reason to not provide them with the means of self-defense.
"I don't have an answer, but someone else can figure it out," isn't a very convincing argument.

It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.

Which again comes back to prejudging people's actions based upon economic status. You're automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends, which means that you're using a different standard of judgment for them than you would for anyone else.
All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good approach. The entire situation is a Catch-22. If such an approach were to be take, you would just be trading one set of problems for another.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How manyof those elitists can back up their cries with actual points though?

I haven't met one yet.

There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?

Yes, or at least as much good faith as we would give to anyone else acquiring a weapon. There is a presumption that it will be used only for justified ends.

Which do you need more, to settle an argument or avoid dying of starvation/exposure?

Which do you need more, to maintain your freedom, to get shot by a store clerk who is also packing, or to be sent to jail for a very long time for using a gun in an armed robbery?

You're assuming that homeless people are unable to make rational decisions based upon self-preservation, but at the same time, you are assuming that they will make impulsive decisions based upon self-interest. That's incredibly condescending.

"I don't have an answer, but someone else can figure it out," isn't a very convincing argument.

Irrelevant. Guns can be safely stored in the appropriate backpack. Make it part of the gift.

All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good solution.

Are you seriously using a paraphrased George Orwell quote to argue your point? You realize that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" was a phrase meant to show the absolute absurdity and internal contradictions of the farm's governing body, right?

People BUY weapons for nefarious purposes all the time, and yet they get sold.

Yes, desperate times can result in desperate actions. However, to assume that someone will resort to desperate actions simply because of economic status, to assume a lack of ethics, morality, or common sense due to one's economic status...that seems a bit pompous, if you'll forgive me for saying so.

[Norstal]

Or minorities.

Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...

I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.

Why stop at the homeless? I'd say non-citizens should be able to own guns. Migrant workers have been abused too much by their so called employers. Arming them will make them twice about exploiting workers.

[Sevvania]

How many of those elitists can back up their cries with actual points though?

I haven't met one yet.

They were good enough points to convince at least one poster to rescind his support of arming the homeless, unless he's just being an elitist, as well.

It's easier to presume that a person who has enough money to get by is less likely to resort to crime to make ends meet. They may very well resort to crime, but if they do, odds are that it'll be for something less necessity-driven.

"Maintaining your freedom" as a starving homeless person doesn't sound like it'd be high on the list of priorities. Jails have shelter and free food. People make impulsive decisions based on self-interest all the time while disregarding the notion of self-preservation, because if they didn't, nobody would rob convenience stores ever, for fear of getting shot by a clerk with a gun.

A bag can be removed from a homeless person sleeping on a bench just as easily. You can't shoot somebody if you're asleep, and I'm not sure what's supposed to alert you to an intruder if there's no sound of shattering glass or door being forced open to wake you up. This seems like it would just turn homeless people into even higher-priority targets for people who want a free gun.

I don't think many people resort to desperate acts "simply" because of things like economic status, lack of ethics, or lack of common sense. I think people resort to desperate acts because there's something they need, and they feel that they don't have an alternative.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I haven't met one yet.

They were good enough points to convince at least one poster to rescind his support of arming the homeless, unless he's just being an elitist, as well.

It's easier to presume that a person who has enough money to get by is less likely to resort to crime to make ends meet. They may very well resort to crime, but if they do, odds are that it'll be for something less necessity-driven.

"Maintaining your freedom" as a starving homeless person doesn't sound like it'd be high on the list of priorities. Jails have shelter and free food. People make impulsive decisions based on self-interest all the time while disregarding the notion of self-preservation, because if they didn't, nobody would rob convenience stores ever, for fear of getting shot by a clerk with a gun.

A bag can be removed from a homeless person sleeping on a bench just as easily. You can't shoot somebody if you're asleep, and I'm not sure what's supposed to alert you to an intruder if there's no sound of shattering glass or door being forced open to wake you up. This seems like it would just turn homeless people into even higher-priority targets for people who want a free gun.

I don't think many people resort to desperate acts "simply" because of things like economic status, lack of ethics, or lack of common sense. I think people resort to desperate acts because there's something they need, and they feel that they don't have an alternative.

So because you have an idea that homeless people will be more likely to rip off stores (and mind, you've presented no statistical evidence, but rather a tired stereotype of homeless people and unwarranted assumptions that naturally follow from this stereotype), you're fine with people who don't have homes not being able to defend themselves from assault or abuse of authority. They're not worthy of the level of respect and dignity given to housed folks. Got it.

[Asterdan]

I can name two people who would agree with you:
Hitler
Stalin

[Spirit of Hope]

They were good enough points to convince at least one poster to rescind his support of arming the homeless, unless he's just being an elitist, as well.

It's easier to presume that a person who has enough money to get by is less likely to resort to crime to make ends meet. They may very well resort to crime, but if they do, odds are that it'll be for something less necessity-driven.

"Maintaining your freedom" as a starving homeless person doesn't sound like it'd be high on the list of priorities. Jails have shelter and free food. People make impulsive decisions based on self-interest all the time while disregarding the notion of self-preservation, because if they didn't, nobody would rob convenience stores ever, for fear of getting shot by a clerk with a gun.

A bag can be removed from a homeless person sleeping on a bench just as easily. You can't shoot somebody if you're asleep, and I'm not sure what's supposed to alert you to an intruder if there's no sound of shattering glass or door being forced open to wake you up. This seems like it would just turn homeless people into even higher-priority targets for people who want a free gun.

I don't think many people resort to desperate acts "simply" because of things like economic status, lack of ethics, or lack of common sense. I think people resort to desperate acts because there's something they need, and they feel that they don't have an alternative.

So because you have an idea that homeless people will be more likely to rip off stores (and mind, you've presented no statistical evidence, but rather a tired stereotype of homeless people and unwarranted assumptions that naturally follow from this stereotype), you're fine with people who don't have homes not being able to defend themselves from assault or abuse of authority. They're not worthy of the level of respect and dignity given to housed folks. Got it.

The money spent giving guns to the homeless could be much better spent making them not homeless. Such as providing job training, suits, cell phones, places to live, mental health care, better education system, or a better safety net. All of those would help the person not become homeless, and get out of being homeless, where they could then make a choice about getting a gun, be less exposed to danger, and less likely to commit crime.

Also hereis a source for you. Those in the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to commit crimes.

[Desperate Measures]

The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.

Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?

Maybe we should ask Desperate Measures...

Why is everyone always turning to me?

[New Baldonia]

Irrelevant. Guns can be safely stored in the appropriate backpack. Make it part of the gift.

a backpack is not a safe appropriate place to store a firearm. If that backpack is made immobile by attacking it to a solid fixed object, or by cementing it in place, then perhaps it will be fine. However that would make it a bit useless for someone who is homeless.

All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good solution.

Are you seriously using a paraphrased George Orwell quote to argue your point? You realize that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" was a phrase meant to show the absolute absurdity and internal contradictions of the farm's governing body, right?

"All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others." is quite a bit older than George Orwell.

People BUY weapons for nefarious purposes all the time, and yet they get sold.

yes, however the way you put it makes it seem like people commonly wander into gun stores in order to buy murder weapons. However, only a small percentage of guns legally sold are used in crime, and rarely in premeditated crime. Usually the guns are purchased in private, and from individuals who are not legally allowed to own guns in the first place (and to someone whos not allowed to own a gun as well). In addition, selling a firearm to someone despite knowing that it could be used in a crime is a felony.

Yes, desperate times can result in desperate actions. However, to assume that someone will resort to desperate actions simply because of economic status, to assume a lack of ethics, morality, or common sense due to one's economic status...that seems a bit pompous, if you'll forgive me for saying so.

Facts are facts. Lower class and minorities are responsible for a majority of crime in north America. Does that mean that they commit crimes more often, or is it that they're more heavily monitored. I dont know, but what I do know is that they make up for most of the statistics on crime in the US.

Maybe if you gave these homeless a form of shelter, a job, and somewhere safe to store their guns, then it'd be fine. But you'll need to meet those goals first, which would kinda remove the whole homeless factor.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So because you have an idea that homeless people will be more likely to rip off stores (and mind, you've presented no statistical evidence, but rather a tired stereotype of homeless people and unwarranted assumptions that naturally follow from this stereotype), you're fine with people who don't have homes not being able to defend themselves from assault or abuse of authority. They're not worthy of the level of respect and dignity given to housed folks. Got it.

The money spent giving guns to the homeless could be much better spent making them not homeless. Such as providing job training, suits, cell phones, places to live, mental health care, better education system, or a better safety net. All of those would help the person not become homeless, and get out of being homeless, where they could then make a choice about getting a gun, be less exposed to danger, and less likely to commit crime.

Also hereis a source for you. Those in the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to commit crimes.

Yes, all of these things would be nice, but they're not happening, and frankly, handguns are significantly less expensive.

Maybe I'm missing something, but your study seems to use the income one's family had during one's upbringing as a factor in potential criminality, not one's current economic or residential situation.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Maybe we should ask Desperate Measures...

Why is everyone always turning to me?

To everything there is a season.

(Turn, turn, turn).

[Spirit of Hope]

The money spent giving guns to the homeless could be much better spent making them not homeless. Such as providing job training, suits, cell phones, places to live, mental health care, better education system, or a better safety net. All of those would help the person not become homeless, and get out of being homeless, where they could then make a choice about getting a gun, be less exposed to danger, and less likely to commit crime.

Also hereis a source for you. Those in the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to commit crimes.

Yes, all of these things would be nice, but they're not happening, and frankly, handguns are significantly less expensive.

Maybe I'm missing something, but your study seems to use the income one's family had during one's upbringing as a factor in potential criminality, not one's current economic or residential situation.

The study tracked them from the age of 15 to the age of around 18-19. So it was the income most of them were living in at the time the crimes were committed.

For the price of a handgun you could get a homeless person a cellphone with prepaid minutes, probably worth far more to him as it gives a better ability to communicate and thus get jobs. You could also probably get him an ok suit to use at interviews, you could definitely get him a hair cut and a shower again useful for interviews.

A handgun is useless without ammo, will we also be regularly supplying the homeless with ammo, so they can practice or in case they actually use the firearm? What if it becomes lost stolen or damaged? What if they sell it?

With all those costs other potentials open up, like job training. With minimal increased costs we could probably get better mental healthcare, which is something we need to deal with suicides anyways. Or help adjust our education system to help those who find themselves on the street.

Oh and here is another source.

These regressions show that a one percent increase in the population below poverty level will lead to an increase of about 135 total crimes and about 25 violent crimes.