4 ms·

Oh, I own several dozen bows, a wide collection of arrows, and a couple of crossbows. I take a couple of handicapped people out to hunt and Maine allows handica

• kbenson 9y ago
  > I guess the partial point I'm making is that a firearm is a tool and needn't be used to harm humans. This brings to mind my stance over the last few years regarding firearms, which is I think it would be beneficial to outlaw handguns (as opposed to rifles or shotguns), if it could be feasibly done (it probably can't, there's far too many out there already). Firearms can be utilitarian, but the extra utility offered by miniaturizing them to the point that they are easily carried on your body, and easily hidden on your body, seems to encourage modes of use that are detrimental. Police, of course, may have reason to need a small firearm handy, but even then there seem to be problems where it's so easy to access that it's used inappropriately (or even accidentally used instead of a taser).
  • KGIII 9y ago
    When hunting bears, it's prudent to carry a sidearm. Bears will sometimes stay really still, appearing as if they're dead, and will attack when you get close enough. (That situation counts for every black bear attack in Maine since the 1880s.) A rifle isn't as easily maneuvered in tight situations and close up. You don't want to damage the meat more than you have to - so that you're maximizing the value. Dispatching a wounded animal (of other types) with a pistol is fairly common and the rounds are less likely to cause much more damage. Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round. Then, there's sport shooting. Pistol clubs and competitions are quite common activities in certain spheres. I was on both a rifle and pistol club. (Back then, they were actually functions at my school. Our firearms were locked in the closet in the headmaster's office.) So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol. Also, as you suggested, I have no idea how they'd get them off the street. I can't even begin to imagine the uproar. As an aside, as far as I know, the largest mass killing of civilians in America was at the Battle of Wounded Knee. After disarming the civilians, they massacred a bunch of them, including women and children. When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens. I have no idea how we'd be able to get pistols off the street and I'm not sure that'd actually solve anything. Most firearm deaths that aren't suicides are caused by people who aren't actually interested in obeying the law. Even if we could, I'm not sure that I'd want to give up that liberty. Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk. We can speculate that speech is a more a cause than the firearm used to commit the act, I don't want to give up that right either. As for the police, I'd like to disarm them except for specially trained officers and only for use in certain situations. I don't see that as being political feasible either. Call it a hunch, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
    • kbenson 9y ago
      > So, there's justified reasons to own a pistol. Well, that depends. If those are justified reasons, then there are justified reasons to own and operate a .50 cal BMG rifle, a grenade launcher, or landmines. You can make a sport out of anything, and that something is used as equipment a sport isn't a good reason for its legality. Of the things you mentioned, the bear safety is the most compelling, but that's easily solved by circling widely to the front and putting an extra round in the head. That's safe. It would be nice if handguns could only be used responsibly, but they have specific attributes that I think make them problematic for society. > Additionally, I rabbit hunt with a .22 (Ruger Mk II) frequently. Opportunistic rabbits are delicious and easily taken with a small round. When I was young I watched my grandfather take a golpher in the head while it was diving into its hole at 30 yards using a .22 rifle. I pulled the body out of the hole it landed halfway in. I'm not convinced a handgun is required for this either. > When the Revolution really got started, the British were marching their way to Concord to confiscate the powder, shot, and cannon. They were going to go disarm the citizens. Sort of a on-sequitur, since we're not talking about removing all firearms, just a specific type of firearm, and one of less use in an armed conflict than the ones I'm proposing we could keep. I believe the right to bear arms is important. I believe in the citizenry's right and responsibility to be a check on the government. I'm just not sure how handguns really support that in a way that isn't by other firearms, and I do think they have unique disadvantages for society. > Freedom does come with penalties. Liberties come with associated risk. This argument is all too often unqualified. Should we all be allowed access to RPGs, land mines and missiles? I believe there exist weapons that the regular citizenry don't necessarily need regular access to. If you believe the same, I think it's entirely valid to ask for what criteria makes some of those items valid for that list and not hand guns. That may be easily answered by some, but others might find it hard to justify their initial reaction. Edit: Fixed some typos