next »

[Pets name:]

Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country.  Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores.  They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.

Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun.  Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.

If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.  

Solid arguments from a rural perspective (though urban dwellers who actually have to live with gun crime might disagree with you), but I'm unclear how it relates to what I was saying. Are you saying that because of this, DC shouldn't be allowed to pass its own gun control laws? I don't see much value in allowing the federal government to dictate what happens on the city level, especially with such an intensely localized issue.

Edit: WOO POST 5000

What I'm saying is that gun control laws simply do not work, regardless if its Federal, State, or City ordiances that are written.  Urban dwellers may disagree, but the facts are facts.  Banning legal ownership of firearms in any city has has no affect on gun crime.  Several cities have these unconstutional laws, and since passing them, the level of gun crime has only risen.

Handguns are banned in DC, yet their murder rate is one of the highest in the country.  Banning handguns has had no effect on gun crime in DC, because criminals do not buy their handguns at sporting goods stores.  They buy them from the same folks they buy their illegal drugs from.

Somone who is willing to break the law to commit murder isnt going to think twice about breaking a gun law to get a handgun.  Banning any gun only keeps them out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens.

If laws were enough to stop crime, then simply making murder a crime would have stopped murder.  

Solid arguments from a rural perspective (though urban dwellers who actually have to live with gun crime might disagree with you), but I'm unclear how it relates to what I was saying. Are you saying that because of this, DC shouldn't be allowed to pass its own gun control laws? I don't see much value in allowing the federal government to dictate what happens on the city level, especially with such an intensely localized issue.

Edit: WOO POST 5000

What I'm saying is that gun control laws simply do not work, regardless if its Federal, State, or City ordiances that are written.  Urban dwellers may disagree, but the facts are facts.  Banning legal ownership of firearms in any city has has no affect on gun crime.  Several cities have these unconstutional laws, and since passing them, the level of gun crime has only risen.

My theory regarding this is that the ban is not so much to prevent people from acquiring weapons, but to allow police to charge a person with possession of an unlicensed firearm in addition to other crimes when they commit a crime with it, such as armed robbery. 

As to the need to posses a firearm, while I seldom feel a need to own one, as I live in a very safe city with good police presence, I imagine someone who lives in the more rural areas of the county where a police response could take upwards of 15 minutes might feel a need to be able to protect his or her home and family. 

I can make a lot of arguments against gun control, but since this thread is limited to the .50 (and I'm assuming the OP means .50 rifle and not handgun) I will keep my arguments to that.

If your government became a tyranny, and was going door to door taking people from their homes to be tortured to death in camps, which would you rather have to fight back with: a kitchen knife, dad's hunting rifle, or a big, nasty, loaded machine gun? Civilians DO have a need for a weapon as big as a .50. Not everyone needs to be armed with a machine gun in their garage, but people should have the means to stand up to their government if they need to. What if the police started to arrest people for unjust laws, or rounding "undesirables" up, could you stop them with a kitchen knife? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think it's a bad idea to blindly and completely trust an armed group of people for your personal protection.

EDIT: In my hurry I forgot to add my main point :p What about defense of your country? Should that not fall on the civilian inhabitants as well at the established military? Yes, the military is better funded and equipped to deal with war, but there is a reason no one wants to mess with Switzerland.