Can someone explain what purpose a pistol has? Seriously...maybe I'm naive. I know rifles, shotguns are used for hunting. But let's say a 5 round derringer I just saw in the ads for $170.

Again, I'm no gun expert, but have shot a few. A pistol was good for extreme close range, and in most cases doesn't have the knock down power for hunting, much less accuracy.

I know it's much too late but if pistols were not abundantly available, would that decrease crime?

Gun advocates " blast away", but the flooding the market with pistols has been a mistake IMO.

The purpose of all guns are the same to disable and or kill the target.

---

Who's calling for Swiss gun laws. You made the absurd point that Australia was some physical evidence that their gun restrictions leads to a utopia, I countered with pointing out Switzerland


If anything Australia gives credence to the alarmist that warm registration leads to confiscation. If you think the answer is for the Feds to round up American firearms like Australia did well.......

 

So what was your point about Switzerland then? No doubt you have never even left the USA to go to such a country.

 

Australia now has its lowest ever homicide rate and has had no gun massacre's since the legislation. It is evidence that gun control to some degree works. That doesn't make it Utopia but It is nice to enjoy proper freedom of being able to go wherever you like without feeling the need to go armed because you are scared of being attacked like you lot seem to be.

---

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...form-myths

 

Some myths on "Gun Control"

---

You have a skewed notion of morality.

 

What's skewed is your logical conclusions that tell me I have nothing to worry about regarding confiscation of my weapons in the same post that you refer to an instance where the government has already removed my right to my weapons.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...form-myths

 

Some myths on "Gun Control"

 

Oooooo, leftist points from The Guardian. Who'da thunk?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Who's calling for Swiss gun laws. You made the absurd point that Australia was some physical evidence that their gun restrictions leads to a utopia, I countered with pointing out Switzerland


If anything Australia gives credence to the alarmist that warm registration leads to confiscation. If you think the answer is for the Feds to round up American firearms like Australia did well.......

 

A. Australia already had a lower homicide rate overall than the US.

B. The vast majority of the reduction in the rate was suicides, not homicides.

C. Australia is an island nation with pretty stringent immigration policies that have been around for 200 years. Once they were loosened they started having violence problems that resulted in now infamous "stop the boats" policy. 

D. The US already had a similar ban on automatic weapons.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'll see your Australia and raise you a Switzerland

 

I'm trying to follow this conversation, but I don't understand what you are trying to say about Switzerland.  

---

The purpose of all guns are the same to disable and or kill the target.

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. But if they all do the same thing, why the need for pistols. Unless of course the have a use besides killing people.

Sure they all do the same thing. But a breakdown of their purpose may be different. You're not saying they're all the same are you?

---

Blakes Life Matters

What's skewed is your logical conclusions that tell me I have nothing to worry about regarding confiscation of my weapons in the same post that you refer to an instance where the government has already removed my right to my weapons.

 

When the government restricts your right to carry a weapon on an airplane, they did not take your knife from you, they just require you to not have it on your person or in your carry-on luggage. It is a reasonable restriction, and certainly not immoral.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

When the government restricts your right to carry a weapon on an airplane, they did not take your knife from you, they just require you to not have it on your person or in your carry-on luggage. It is a reasonable restriction, and certainly not immoral.

 

No, it's removing the means by which a person exercises his or her right of self-defense. Then you have wonderful events like 9/11 where the sheep are disarmed and the wolves move in but those who profess to be the shepherds fail the flock. That's what always happens when you depend on others to take care of you, they haven't the same level of interest that you do in your own welfare. Then to REQUIRE it makes it immoral.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. But if they all do the same thing, why the need for pistols. Unless of course the have a use besides killing people.

Sure they all do the same thing. But a breakdown of their purpose may be different. You're not saying they're all the same are you?

 

The size makes them easily portable and easily concealed. I'm an advocate of open carry, so the concealing part doesn't matter, but I prefer to carry my pistol rather than my shotgun or rifles when riding in the car.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying. But if they all do the same thing, why the need for pistols. Unless of course the have a use besides killing people.

Sure they all do the same thing. But a breakdown of their purpose may be different. You're not saying they're all the same are you?

 

Pistols are for self defense.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

When the government restricts your right to carry a weapon on an airplane, they did not take your knife from you, they just require you to not have it on your person or in your carry-on luggage. It is a reasonable restriction, and certainly not immoral.

 

After 9/11 passengers will know that the plane is not just being hijacked to Cuba. No one would be able to take over an airplane with just a knife any more. So it's NOT a reasonable restriction.


 

Having the government make the rules as to what passengers can bring aboard an airplane is immoral. That should be done by the airlines, with the customers choosing safety vs. convenience. Unlike the bureaucracy, the airlines would have a financial incentive to improve both convenience and safety. We'd have safer travel with less waiting and groping.


 

And I still can't figure out why we have to take our shoes off in entering a courthouse. Are they afraid a shoe-sized bomb will poke a hole in the side of the courthouse and cause it to plummet 30,000 feet?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So what was your point about Switzerland then? No doubt you have never even left the USA to go to such a country.

 

 

The point about Switzerland is that it has the same low rate of murder and gun-crimes as the rest of Europe in spite of allowing all citizens to be armed. Europe's lower murder rates are not because of gun regulations.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

No, it's removing the means by which a person exercises his or her right of self-defense. Then you have wonderful events like 9/11 where the sheep are disarmed and the wolves move in but those who profess to be the shepherds fail the flock. That's what always happens when you depend on others to take care of you, they haven't the same level of interest that you do in your own welfare. Then to REQUIRE it makes it immoral.

 

The 9/11 hijackers were not searched and relieved of their weapons, thus the attacks were allowed. You make no sense.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The 9/11 hijackers were not searched and relieved of their weapons, thus the attacks were allowed. You make no sense.

 

They weren't carrying knives.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

They weren't carrying knives.

 

No, they carried box cutters. Are you saying box cutters should be confiscated but not knives?

 

You would allow them to carry the weapon of their choice, and depend upon the other citizens on the plane to control any acts of terrorism?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

No, they carried box cutters. Are you saying box cutters should be confiscated but not knives?

 

You would allow them to carry the weapon of their choice, and depend upon the other citizens on the plane to control any acts of terrorism?

 

I'm saying that those other people on the planes were at a disadvantage because the equalizers, personal defense tools, were forbidden for them. Evil will always find a way to take advantage of situations where law abiding citizens comply.

 

What you constantly miss is that these evil doers take the path of least resistance, they attack places they know the targets are disarmed or unprepared. The only deterrent is to even the odds.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

After 9/11 passengers will know that the plane is not just being hijacked to Cuba. No one would be able to take over an airplane with just a knife any more. So it's NOT a reasonable restriction.


 

Having the government make the rules as to what passengers can bring aboard an airplane is immoral. That should be done by the airlines, with the customers choosing safety vs. convenience. Unlike the bureaucracy, the airlines would have a financial incentive to improve both convenience and safety. We'd have safer travel with less waiting and groping.


 

And I still can't figure out why we have to take our shoes off in entering a courthouse. Are they afraid a shoe-sized bomb will poke a hole in the side of the courthouse and cause it to plummet 30,000 feet?

 

I pretty much agree with you on most points that you make, but I must disagree with the above part that I put in bold.  I don't believe that rules put in place to make people safer are "immoral".  Morality has nothing to do with it.  Possibly an overreach of power?  Perhaps.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm saying that those other people on the planes were at a disadvantage because the equalizers, personal defense tools, were forbidden for them. Evil will always find a way to take advantage of situations where law abiding citizens comply.

 

What you constantly miss is that these evil doers take the path of least resistance, they attack places they know the targets are disarmed or unprepared. The only deterrent is to even the odds.

 

I'm not missing anything. What you propose, a return to the Old West, where everyone is armed without restriction, registration or training, is madness.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley