Do you think that handguns should be available to the public?

michael m

Jesus! What kind of society do you live in at all? To even ask that question even seems half mad! I presume it is to Americans you are referring? Aren't they readily available there already? That does so much for your country. Maybe they should legalize Cocaine in Columbia too! That would solve everything wouldn't it?

Grunt

Yes

Lillian

To those that want one and are qualified to have one, yes. I do.

Bulldog

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
not really hard to understand is it, i believeveryonewith the legal and menttal ability shoould have a gun aand tthe proper training too use it

Mike W

Handguns are available now, and should remain available to the public.

Gojira

England has proven 1000000000% that when you outlaw guns for the law abiding, only criminals and cops have guns. I myself have many different guns, anyone wants to take them away should be prepared for a fight to the death over them.

dude.

This is interesting. I notice from your profile that you're in Russia, and a quick web search shows that Russia's murder rate (handguns illegal), is over twice that of the U.S. (handguns legal). I don't know what to make of it yet, but it puts an interesting twist to the gun debate in the U.S.

spartan.trojan

Yes as long as you know how to use it safely.

t. B

Not only should it be available it should be MANDATORY.If you know the other guy has a gun too you had better know you are better with yours before you draw down.

If the gun is used in the commission of a crime. The criminal should be sentenced to life in prison where they will never be allowed to hold a gun again.

okrife

YES!!!!!!!

nothanksimstraight

Yes they should be. If they were outlawed (aside from the revolution that would start) Only the criminals would have them. Would you rather protect yourself and family with sticks and rocks or would you rather have the psych affect of a show of force along with the force to back it up.

Ties that bind

they are

Kilroy

Yes. The general public obeys laws and uses firearms for sport, recreation and self defense. Even if you ban handguns, then criminals will still have them because as we all know, criminals don't obey the law. That's what makes them criminals.

rotorhead

They are, and I got mine.

And NO, you can't have them!

gunplumber_462

Certainly. I've yet to see a credible argument to the contrary.

Brad V

Well, they are available to citizens, over the age of twenty one, who are law abiding, are of sound mind, and are willing to come up with the money to make a purchase.

In some states, they can actually carry concealed weapons, with the proper license to do so. The problem is that all states do not allow this practice. In those states, the crimes against citizens are sure to dissipate, if their foolish politicians were to wake up and realize this. In those states too, the politicians have body guards to protect them, but not the average citizen. Where's the equality in that ?

sfctranspo

Yes, if not hand guns people will still kill.

Jeff A

If decent, law-abiding people carried handguns it would rob the criminals of their superior firepower. There have been a lot of instances of a loser with a handgun walking into a store or restaurant and shooting people. Everyone is at his mercy because they have no way to defend themselves or stop the person. If decent people were armed we would have a fighting chance instead of being vulnerable like sheep. The police show up after people are dead to draw chalk lines around the bodies on the floor. They can't be there to prevent the carnage.

Ginger H

I've already got mine.

kid

They have been...

Submariner 1

Yes

dsm37127

obviously a left winger that wants to take away my second amendment rights guaranteed by the constitution. the answer is yes. if you start to ban one type of firearm, whats next?????

mariner31

They ARE... read your second amendment. Sure, there are some minor requirements and roadblocks, but except in the great Liberal Bastions of New York City and Washington DC they're available to law abiding citizens.

THOUGH, I think a shotgun is MUCH better for home protection. I've detained lil punk thieves 3 times now my happy Mossberg... they poop their pants when they hear the magic sound "Shick-shick" of a round being chambered.

Darrol P

There is no simple yes or no answer to this question.

In the United States, the basic law, the Constitution, of the land addresses the individual's right to bear arms. There is a range of opinion about what the Constitution means. My point is that your question, in the US, raises basic questions of law and rights.

Personally, I am a little concerned about lightly giving up the right to have firearms, handguns or otherwise. There is self protection; there is also the ability of the individual to be a force, a check, against collective authority. This is a very dangerous right and responsibility.

Having said that, I have chosen not to own firearms. I feel like I do not have the training or the judgment to use them wisely or effectively. It is best for me to rely on other protections.

Edit: The question boils down to this: Is it safe, or is there a safe way, to give government an absolute monopoly on deadly force? The law should give government very wide discretion on the use of deadly force, but not an absolute monopoly. How should the competition be structured? I do not know

jrhd97

Yes, criminals have said they wouldn't perpetrate a crime against some one they thought would be armed.
If everyone had free access to hand guns the VT, the missionary school, the church in Colorado, Columbine, the Utah mall, Edinboro PA all wouldn't have happened. People, who became victims, would have been armed and able to stop the crime.
Police don't have some magic mojo over the hand gun that the general public doesn't. Most officers don't even rack up as much range time as recreational users.

NSA

If you are in America, then you can purchase a handgun at age 21.

Provided you don't live in one of the overly oppressive cities.

The 2nd Amendment garauntees the right to keep and bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

conranger1

Not a military question,

but they are only available if you pass the criteria and the police background checks.

Steel Rain

They are in the United States as long as you pass a background check and are not a convicted felon.

One Big Awfull Mistake America

They are! I have a few guns. you just need a back round check some states require a firearm safety class.

tom l

Every household in Iraq is allowed an AK-47 assault rifle. Here in the US automatic weapons are not allowed in the hands of the general public. It seems to me that since we have the right to have guns that they should at the very least be the equal of our "enemy" (at least Bush thinks they are our enemy)
So even hand guns fall short of the intent of the second amendment.
If push came to shove here we would be trying to defend our homes and nation with a bunch of old bolt action deer rifles.

Musiclad

It is a right in America for a person to own a gun. I agree with that and own a few myself. But, I do not believe that handguns are the best gun to own when so much bad can be done with it. Guns don't kill people, people do. For safety purposes I say no but for my own right I say not all guns are bad. It is the person that is the problem.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: