Cerek,
I agree with you only on some parts.
I have absolutely nothing against target shooting and if I owned a gun, or was invited to do some I would love to. However, that's not the purpose handguns were invented for. Guns are weapons, and the first handguns have been invented for killing people. Maybe this is misrepresented in some movies, but I honestly don't think that the people in the wild west used their Peacemakers primarily for shooting competitions.
AFAIK there are a lot of guns out there specifically designed for competitions, but some others (and these are the ones I would ban) have to do nothing with target shooting. Be it short-barreled submachineguns (e.g. a Scorpion or a MicroUzi) or really small and inaccurate pistols (like the wild west's classic Derringer). Furthermore modern gun design still includes factors like "stopping power" and they are a buying argument for many people.
I admit, that I don't know which guns exactly are allowed in the US, but I thought to understand that bans are only on single weapons and that some assault rifles ARE available on the free market, as are submachineguns and other full auto weaponry.
This is for example not the case in my country where private persons are only allowed to own handguns (revolvers, or semi-auto pistols) and hunting rifles.
My nuclear reactor example was over the line (i.e. more comical than serving its purpose). So let me rephrase:
Guns are dangerous. Guns can be used for legal entertainment as well as for illegal acts.
Based on the severity of the acts easily possible to commit with a gun (i.e. murder) AND the fact that the specific design of the gun was optimized for that act AND the fact that every other use of it is merely entertainment, based on that facts I'd strongly consider to put a ban on that stuff.
There's a ban on base-jumping currently as far as I understand. It is also a sort of entertainment or a sport, how you call it is up to you. However it is forbidden because it is dangerous. A gun is much more dangerous than a base-jump, so the logical conclusion would be to ban guns.
-
Another example for law (this time in my country) that I don't get on that part is the production and sale of "bongs". Pipes (Hookahs) specifically designed for smoking marihuana/cannabis. While this drug is illegal over here, there is a flourishing business of people selling bongs. These objects cannot be reasonably used for anything else than smoking pot, so why are they on the market? Hell, you can even buy the plants legally here and everything you need to grow pot at your home. The ONLY thing that is illegal is harvested marihuana itself. This - in my eyes - is hypocrisy. There is no other reasonable use for all this than producing and smoking an illegal drug, so I can't figure (actually I can but that's beside the point
) why these things are still legal.
-
So I hope you agree with me that IF a gun has no other use than entertainment, a ban to avoid the dangers connected with private gun ownership may be considerable if these dangers get out of hand.
-
However you argue that a gun has another purpose too, defense/protection. I have already stated several time that there are non-lethal protection weapons (Tazer guns, HighVoltage shockers, Tranquilizer Guns,...) available.
For my very simplicistic equation I got to say, that IMHO not many people (even criminals) shoot right away. They shoot if they are threatened. Something that you can accomplish by carrying a gun. If you don't have a gun, you may become a hostage, but may well stay alive if you keep cool. If you decide to go all Bruce Willis on the guy there's a good chance you're script might not be as nicely written as his. This is my point of view on the case, and one of the main reasons why I don't own a gun.
As I already said, maybe I'm also not so concerned with protection, because my country has incredibly low crime rates. I can walk through any part of my city at any time given time without fear for pickpocketing, mugging or robbing. Only one family I know has been broken into their home (when they were on vacation) and only one person I know has ever been victim to fraud. So maybe I have an easy view on this from a safe haven, but I think it's logical and so I follow it [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 11-14-2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]