Handgun ban

[New Nebraskan Republic]

(1) Target practice, (2) hunting, (3) self-defense, (4) skeet, (5) other shooting sports.

1. For target practice you don't need to possess the weapon outside of the practice facility.
2. For hunting you may need a handgun for close-quarters defense, I concede that.
3. Debatable, and really the main debate when it comes to handguns
4. Skeet uses shotguns
5. See #1

1. I live nowhere near such a facility and when that place gets robbed the criminals would have a lot more guns.
2. Yeah handguns help when hunting
3. I do need a handgun for self defense, I can't cut corners with a rifle is someone comes in my house.
4. True
5. Not really, especially when your church goes on Turkey shoots and whatnot, plus forcing us to keep guns locked in facilities is like telling us you don't trust us to be responsible and we're all criminals.

[Oneracon]

1. For target practice you don't need to possess the weapon outside of the practice facility.
2. For hunting you may need a handgun for close-quarters defense, I concede that.
3. Debatable, and really the main debate when it comes to handguns
4. Skeet uses shotguns
5. See #1

1. I live nowhere near such a facility and when that place gets robbed the criminals would have a lot more guns.
2. Yeah handguns help when hunting
3. I do need a handgun for self defense, I can't cut corners with a rifle is someone comes in my house.
4. True
5. Not really, especially when your church goes on Turkey shoots and whatnot, plus forcing us to keep guns locked in facilities is like telling us you don't trust us to be responsible and we're all criminals.

1. Maybe there would be an incentive to establish more facilities, and you could always rig the firearms to not work if taken past the boundary of the property
2. Yes, I already agreed with you there
3. .
4. .
5. I barely trust most people to be responsible with cars, so why should I trust people with handguns? Also, would you need a handgun to defend yourself from a turkey?

[Benomia]

I barely trust most people to be responsible with cars, so why should I trust people with handguns?

So, because you sweepingly don't trust people you don't even know, you want them to have less fun?

Once again, quality logic.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Wait, so handguns have only one use and that use is to kill people? Do you even have any experience with handguns?

What other purpose do they serve?

Target shooting, hunting, and collecting are other purposes handguns serve.

[Gun Manufacturers]

1. I live nowhere near such a facility and when that place gets robbed the criminals would have a lot more guns.
2. Yeah handguns help when hunting
3. I do need a handgun for self defense, I can't cut corners with a rifle is someone comes in my house.
4. True
5. Not really, especially when your church goes on Turkey shoots and whatnot, plus forcing us to keep guns locked in facilities is like telling us you don't trust us to be responsible and we're all criminals.

1. Maybe there would be an incentive to establish more facilities, and you could always rig the firearms to not work if taken past the boundary of the property
2. Yes, I already agreed with you there
3. .
4. .
5. I barely trust most people to be responsible with cars, so why should I trust people with handguns? Also, would you need a handgun to defend yourself from a turkey?

There's no room in most handguns to "rig them to not work if taken past a boundary", it would require them to be completely redesigned.

[Geo]

(1) Target practice, (2) hunting, (3) self-defense, (4) skeet, (5) other shooting sports.

1. For target practice you don't need to possess the weapon outside of the practice facility.
2. For hunting you may need a handgun for close-quarters defense, I concede that.
3. Debatable, and really the main debate when it comes to handguns
4. Skeet uses shotguns
5. See #1

1. What if the facility has no space left i.e. is overcrowded or is closed? Why can't I do target practice at my home?
2. Good.
3. Because inefficient police force?
4. Alright, I'll give you that.
5. See number one!

[Geo]

I barely trust most people to be responsible with cars, so why should I trust people with handguns?

So, because you sweepingly don't trust people you don't even know, you want them to have less fun?

Once again, quality logic.

Selfishness at its finest.

[Veceria]

After reading the daily newspaper, I realized something. Austria has quite strict laws on gun ownership, and still, there's an incident every other day where the police discovers multiple firearms (of any size) during raids. All illegal, some of them even 'completely banned' for civilian ownership. So why do people still think that a 'ban' on firearms would make such guns less available for criminals? I'm pretty sure that smuggling is even worse in America than it is here.

[Shallowell]

I don't get it, why would you want to have a gun?
Are guns not for the army and the police?
I don't condemn the US laws, i just don't understand them, at all.

The army and the police cannot be everywhere at once.

People should have guns because the government has guns. Checks and balances. And paranoia, but I always say its better to be safe than sorry!

[Evanicaland]

I personally believe that civilians do not have the right to have concealed carry licenses on handguns or keep handguns at home. The reason I think this: according to the New England School of Medicine, homeowners are 43 times more likely to kill a family member when defending their property than the actual home invader.

[The City of Alamutt]

We need to accept the fact that we will never truly ban handguns. The reason I say that we should say no to banning handguns is because you can compare this ordeal to banning alcohol. It will be persistent throughout the whole world. I do not think that people having handguns is a good idea, but people in this world will still go and get handguns, no matter if it is declared lawful, or unconstitutional.

[Evanicaland]

We need to accept the fact that we will never truly ban handguns. The reason I say that we should say no to banning handguns is because you can compare this ordeal to banning alcohol. It will be persistent throughout the whole world. I do not think that people having handguns is a good idea, but people in this world will still go and get handguns, no matter if it is declared lawful, or unconstitutional.

The reason that you think that way is only because the government hasn't actually tried to get rid of guns yet, especially handguns.

[Sociobiology]

We need to accept the fact that we will never truly ban handguns. The reason I say that we should say no to banning handguns is because you can compare this ordeal to banning alcohol. It will be persistent throughout the whole world. I do not think that people having handguns is a good idea, but people in this world will still go and get handguns, no matter if it is declared lawful, or unconstitutional.

there are countries with effective handgun bans.

[Sociobiology]

For target practice you don't need to possess the weapon outside of the practice facility.

What if the facility has no space left i.e. is overcrowded or is closed? Why can't I do target practice at my home?

you can, you just have to build an up to spec facility.

[Geo]

The army and the police cannot be everywhere at once.

People should have guns because the government has guns. Checks and balances. And paranoia, but I always say its better to be safe than sorry!

Why should the government have a monopoly over violence?
A quite convenient Max Stirner quote comes into mind.

[Sociobiology]

People should have guns because the government has guns. Checks and balances. And paranoia, but I always say its better to be safe than sorry!

Why should the government have a monopoly over violence?

because it works better than any of the alternatives.

[Geo]

Why should the government have a monopoly over violence?

because it works better than any of the alternatives.

Because no abuse has ever been revealed from the police force, because wars on Middle Beast are purely for installing liberty, because torture during interrogations never happened and so fucking on...

[Sociobiology]

because it works better than any of the alternatives.

Because no abuse has ever been revealed from the police force, because wars on Middle Beast are purely for installing liberty, because torture during interrogations never happened and so fucking on...

Perfect Solution Fallacy
read my words again.

[Gun Manufacturers]

We need to accept the fact that we will never truly ban handguns. The reason I say that we should say no to banning handguns is because you can compare this ordeal to banning alcohol. It will be persistent throughout the whole world. I do not think that people having handguns is a good idea, but people in this world will still go and get handguns, no matter if it is declared lawful, or unconstitutional.

The reason that you think that way is only because the government hasn't actually tried to get rid of guns yet, especially handguns.

The government banned alcohol once, that didn't turn out too well. The government banned certain drugs, and that's not turning out well, either. What makes you think banning firearms, or even handguns, would be any different?

[Geo]

Because no abuse has ever been revealed from the police force, because wars on Middle Beast are purely for installing liberty, because torture during interrogations never happened and so fucking on...

Perfect Solution Fallacy
read my words again.

For practically telling me to imagine all the other alternatives by myself? Seriously, it takes more than two brain cells for me!

Give me the 'other alternatives' then.

[Sociobiology]

The reason that you think that way is only because the government hasn't actually tried to get rid of guns yet, especially handguns.

The government banned alcohol once, that didn't turn out too well. The government banned certain drugs, and that's not turning out well, either. What makes you think banning firearms, or even handguns, would be any different?

because unlike the other two it has been done successfully.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I personally believe that civilians do not have the right to have concealed carry licenses on handguns or keep handguns at home. The reason I think this: according to the New England School of Medicine, homeowners are 43 times more likely to kill a family member when defending their property than the actual home invader.

1) That isn't what the study said. It said homeowners with a firearm in the house were 43 times more likely to use it in cases of homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting than self-defense. I mean shit, this HELPS your case dude, is it that hard to get this shit right?

2) That study was bullshit. It didn't keep track of whether the guns in the home actually had any bearing on the deaths involved or if there were outside firearms brought in, which was only further compounded by the urban population studied (urban centers have more gun crime than suburban or rural areas). Not to mention it is only comparing defensive uses where the assailant is killed to instances of death in the home with the firearm. Surprise, surprise, not all defensive uses of a gun end in the assailant getting killed.

[Sociobiology]

Perfect Solution Fallacy
read my words again.

For practically telling me to imagine all the other alternatives by myself? Seriously, it takes more than two brain cells for me!

so your lazy therefore your right?
and you don't understand logic do you, because all you have to think of to prove me wrong is ONE alternative that is better.

Give me the 'other alternatives' then.

1. no monopoly on violence,
see the culture of honor, anocracy, and tribalism

2. some other group with a monopoly on violence.
see theocracy and junta

[Gun Manufacturers]

The government banned alcohol once, that didn't turn out too well. The government banned certain drugs, and that's not turning out well, either. What makes you think banning firearms, or even handguns, would be any different?

because unlike the other two it has been done successfully.

When has the US ever banned firearms (or handguns) successfully?

[Geo]

For practically telling me to imagine all the other alternatives by myself? Seriously, it takes more than two brain cells for me!

so your lazy therefore your right?
and you don't understand logic do you, because all you have to think of to prove me wrong is ONE alternative that is better.

Is seriousness that obligatory here? The brain cell thing = bad joke.

Give me the 'other alternatives' then.

1. no monopoly on violence,
see the culture of honor, anocracy, and tribalism

2. some other group with a monopoly on violence.
see theocracy and junta

As an egoist, I see number one as the most desirable alternative of the three, although I don't especially care why couldn't it be number 2 or just the government, since both can be abused egoistically as well from our side as they are abused from the opposite side.