Handguns only good for killing people?!

J

Jeff Thomas

New member
Well, yes I'm talking handguns, but this is really a political question.

We've got a new, local talk radio host in Phoenix who is nauseatingly liberal. And, therefore (why, oh why does that necessarily follow?) fervently anti-gun.

The other day he was ranting about handguns, and how they are 'only designed to kill people', and they are not as acceptable as bolt action rifles and shotguns (he doesn't like semi-autos of any kind - surprise -probably never shot one).

So, what are the best counter-arguments to the 'handguns are evil because they are only made for killing people' position? My first thought is to freely admit that is one of their most important uses, if that is what it takes to stop a BG. And, of course they are sometimes used for hunting, but I hate the hunting argument - it seems so superficial and weak.

For that matter, is there a page (or pages) on nra.org or elsewhere for a list of solid rebuttals, with citations, for the most common anti-self defense / gun lies?

Thanks.
 
Well...the category of handgun and use that's the most appealing to clowns like this are the fairly potent types carried for animal defense when you aren't actually hunting and don't feel like packing a rifle. A classic example is an Alaskan backpacker or fisherman *required* by law to carry a gun that can stop 1,200lbs of bear dead in it's tracks.

That's what saved the .500 Limbaugh Long handcannons from being declared "destructive devices" by BATF. Stuff like the Limbaughs, the .454Casulls and the various insane .45-70 Gov't revolvers are almost never seen in street crime due to costs, ammo costs unless you're a reloader and off-scale recoil.

There's people that carry more modest pieces as "potential wilderness survival guns". I've taken long-distance motorcycle camping trips into the boonies with a standard .357 and carried the following loads:

* Standard .357 125grain JHP personal defense loads, can also be used on smaller deer-sized and below game.

* .38 Wadcutters, accurate and low splat-factor for rabbit or similar size.

* blanks for emergency signalling.

* Shotshells for squirrel/bluejay class game.

* 180grain bonded-core hunting loads, with GOOD placement can stop boar, even a black bear if necessary.

* Glaser Blue label defense, can also be converted to more shotshells in a pinch by slicing away most of the jacket with a pocketknife.

Hmmmmm...doesn't sound like "nothing but a mankiller", does it?

Jim March
 
ANY GUN regardless of length/calibre/action can be used to kill a human being, it's just the small criminal element that have NO regard for their actions that use them indiscriminently to end the lives of innocents ! :(


The *target* concept may be a good rebuttal - there's been target shooting ever since the first handguns were invented. :)

If guns are so evil, why are they allowed in the Olympics ? ;)

Why should I go to war & die for the likes of you ? - Would you sacrifice yourself for me ?

Somehow I don't think you would !! ;)

Liberal = Democrat in Australia - The're EVERYWHERE :(

------------------
"The Gun from Down Under !"
 
The things Jim mentioned are good and true. I only have one problem with them. They play into the hands of our enemies. Well, everyone in the city isn't gonna have a grizzly at 5th and Main...

Look them straight in the eyes and tell them about the young college student in Charlotte who used a handgun to kill a man attempting to rape her. Yes, she used a handgun to kill a man with a record of multiple rapes and burglaries. A man suspected of a string of rapes and burglaries in Charlotte. Should she have been prevented from owning a handgun? What is your purpose, sir, making the nation safe for rapists and burglars?

Don't back up from this issue. Don't squirm one bit. Tell them that self-defense is a basic human right and never let up from there. Any retreat at all is a defeat on this issue.

Handguns only have one purpose-killing people, said whoever. Answer: So? What's your point?
 
I know a woman who was being stalked. One coworker told her to get a restraining order. Another officer told her to get a gun. She did both.

One day, the stalker forced her car off the road. He exited his vehicle with gun in hand. Jumping onto the hood of her car, he brandished the gun threateningly. She shot once through her windshield and lived to tell the story. Both the police and the District Attorney cleared her of any wrongdoing.

How about one woman's life saved?
 
I think the best argument is that I ENJOY handguns.I have a number of handguns that have never killed anyone.I enjoy using them and having them available should I need them for defense.
Be sure to add that handguns are used every day by HONEST people for a variety of purposes including self-defense.
People who see handguns as having only one purpose are short-sighted.
Tell him I said so!

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
How ignorant can this guy be? Handguns have a multitude of purposes besides "just killing people".
My Para Ordnance 14/45 makes a very attractive paperweight in my office. It keeps loose paperwork on my desk from flying off when I turn on the ceiling fan. And, depending how I position the muzzle, it has the added benefit of keeping my business appointments brief and on schedule.
My .44 mag Desert Eagle makes an excellent doorstop. I even used it once as a wheel block while I was changing a flat tire on an incline.
You can use your revolver as a paint roller, but I think that next time I'll use something a little bigger than my S&W 642. It took me forever to paint the bathroom with that dinky thing, and my wife wasn't too crazy about the pattern the cylinder left.
Sadly, with the advent of polymer framed pistols and the increasing popularity of soft rubber handgrips, the once traditional use of a handgun as a hammer has been severely compromised. My Glock just can't drive a nail, especially if I forget to put the magazine back in.
All kidding aside, I would stress the defensive benefits of firearms ownership. Bringing up the sporting purposes of firearms has always seemed like a weak argument to me. It's easy for them to argue that you can/should find an alternative form of recreation.
Bringing up government abuses, the BATF, FBI, black helicopters, UN troops, tyranny and the loss of personal freedom will make you sound like a crackpot. It may all be true, but once you go off on that rant, most people are going to tune out.
The truth is that millions of hardworking, law abiding, honest citizens have correctly come to the conclusion that the police cannot be everywhere they are needed at once. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of evil people in this world who will rob, beat, rape or kill you for little or no reason. So we each have to decide whether we intend to be passively victimized or if we will fight back and defend ourselves and our loved ones.
Yes, guns do kill people. Most of those who have chosen to arm themselves for defensive purposes have no desire to kill anyone. Unfortunately, those who choose to prey on their fellow man often cannot be reasoned with and thereby leave us with little choice.

[This message has been edited by Karanas (edited March 18, 1999).]
 
Handguns are necessary because they kill people. As life forms we have the right and duty to defend ourselves and pass on our genetic material. Bears use claws and teeth, people use tools - guns.
My Kimber Compact has no legitimate sporting purpose. Its a mankiller. If my life or my loved ones lives are threatened some mouthbreather I'll pull the gun out and shoot them dead so that we may live.
Thats its purpose.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Let's not loose sight of the value of a handguns as a deterent. It is because they can kill that they are used more as a deterent than a killing tool.
 
What about national pride? you keep outlawing handguns rifles etc, how are we supposed to compete in the olympic shooting events, as it is the germans are beating us in those events, don't you want our people to show up ready to win? can win without practice and you can't practice without the handguns
 
Come on, Chink, you don't think firearms sports will be included in the Olympics for very much longer, do you? Half the nations where they're holding the Olympics, they don't let even the participants practice. They'd have to have access to their guns to do that, and that would be "dangerous".
 
Yes, the handgun is used in competition. Yes, practice is needed. All of those things can be done with the handgun under lock and key at the club.

And that is where these arguments will lead us. Our weapons under lock and key at a range exactly as is done in other countries.

Don't fall into that trap for that is precisely what it is-a trap. The primary purpose of a handgun is to kill. That is the purpose of its design. Do not waffle when faced with this question. Answer it with examples of justified self defense with a handgun. If you give examples of other uses, fine. Give them after examples of justified self defense.

Only two principles justify our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. One is personal self defense and the other is death to tyrants. If you back up from these you play right into the pro-criminal, pro-tyranny lobby's hands.

Self defense is a basic human right. A handgun is the best self defense tool ever developed. The only self defense tool that allows an eighty year old invalid to defend themselves against anyone. Never let them forget it, never apologize for it, and never back up.


"God created all men equal, Sam Colt made them all the same size."

[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited March 19, 1999).]
 
Spartacus is right.

Once you back down from that premise, then they can whittle away any other statement you have.
Stand firm and make them defend and justify why we should be defenseless against criminals and tyrants.
I have used a 1911 to protect myself...didn't have to shoot, the mere site of that big ol hole inline with the guy's nose made him wet his pants and turn tail. Turns out there were 2 of them...without it I really believe I wouldn't be here typing

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I suggest calling in and asking for his advice on self defense. Offer some hypothetical situations, each having some immediacy wherein police response times greater than "Immediate" would be fruitless.

Ask him for his suggestions for your elderly mother who lives alone, and whose neighborhood is suffering from breakins. Or a storekeeper who must make significant night deposits...Etc.

Should he suggest any other weaponry of whatever sort, he is then approving of violence per se, and the question becomes, "What difference does it make what weapon is used?"

Again, the key is to make HIM make responsible comments on a very practical matter, in an arena that the cops state they cannot help.

Ask him how to deal with a world where two federal district courts have held that the police duty is toward the safety of the community as a whole and not to its individual citizens. (District of Columbia; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.)

Separately, if you get into a discussion about long guns vs. short guns, in this "good gun/bad gun" garbage, consider: Of people shot with long guns, 2/3 die, 1/3 live. Of people shot with short guns, 1/3 die, 2/3 live. Ergo, outlaw short guns and the death rate goes up!

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited March 18, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited March 18, 1999).]
 
I have just requested a copy of Mr. Waters' book, "The Best Defense". I plan to recommend and refer to that book in every CHL class I teach, to all my non-TFL friends, to my family, and to everyone who asks me, "Why?".
 
Dennis:

I read Mr. Waters book. Was not only fun reading, but was also informative. Made me think of the importance of regular practice with my arms. Therefore, I'm taking up reloading once again so that I can afford to shoot those 500-1000 rounds per month.

As to the argument to use against liberal talk-show hosts, I would suggest reading a Nation of Cowards. This will give you some excellent ideas. Such as asking him if his life is worth more than an LOE's life. Is an LOE's life only worth the small salary we pay them? Turn it back on him, make him look like a coward. We not only have the right to defend ourselves but also the duty. For when we let someone get away with murder, we only allow them to move on to the next victim. Is it not each of our duties to see that a violent criminal can not murder the next victim? When they refuse to defend themselves they are allowing that criminal to do the same to someone else.

Richard
 
bookie,

In my view, our responsibility goes even further than what you suggest. I live in a small town. I was confronted in the presence of witnesses by a man with a hand in the pocket of his field jacket. He stated he had a pistol and was going to kill me. I knew of the man and had never known of him using a handgun. A knife was more his style.

To make a long story short, I was able to get out of there. Later, a good friend shot and killed this man without witnesses present. My friend was tried for murder and acquitted.
Faced civil charges for wrongful death and lost.

I have always regretted it coming to this. While my state requires a person to escape if possible-I took unreasonable chances to escape. I should have shot him.
 
My opinion is that handguns are not ment for killing people,(Well duh snoman)they were brought about as more effetive arms,i.e. bolt rifles, and shotguns, are not as easy to carry all the time and have when you need it,as we all know, they are poor substitutes for a long gun...

---snoman---
 
Jeff,
the best way to "Handle" this FOOL, is to listen to his show one more time. Write down all the Advertisers. Write a letter to them stating that you can not in good faith ever purchase their products or use their sevices as long as the support that show. Write the Radio station and express the same thing to them and that you nor any of your Friend will be listening to their station as long as he is on the air. Get as many of you friends in the area to write similuar letters or make phone calls, never call the show as it thrives on controversy. If the radio station feel it may be losing share The Fool will be gone very quickly, same if the sponsers start pulling their ads.
 
DC & Spartacus are right, don't back off one millimeter. Very few people NEED to hunt, but everyone may be subject to a situation in which he or she will NEED a defensive weapon. The handgun, since it is meant to be worn and not carried, is the best for the job because it will be right there when the baloon goes up.
Self-defense is a corrollary to the basic human right to life. Even if handguns were in fact only good for killing people, that's really the only NEED that most of us will have for any firearm. Ask these types why they think the gov't should be responsible for an individual's protection. Remind them that the Supreme Court has upheld time and again that law enforcement has no duty or obligation to protect any individual, only society as a whole. Remind them that law enforcement agencies are reactionary in nature, usually showing up only AFTER the crime has been committed. Ask them what gives them the right to choose for you what is or isn't an appropriate means of self-defense.

------------------
Regards, Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top