#99 Pragmatist> I guess what I don't get is the self-defense argument. How many of us really _need_ to defend ourselves in such a serious way? I think the argument "They're cool and I should be able to have one if I'm not a criminal" is much more honest. (Not saying that's your argument, AKAT.)
I appreciate your honesty. Rights are never about 'needs', after all, who 'needs' desktop publishing software, or a bullhorn, or a personal printer/copyier/etc, or unhindered access to internet web sites (ala China). In communist countries, many such items were regulated because people could use them to print handbills or flyers advocating things that the government was against.
The right to keep and bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment states, "shall not be infringed". In current legal parlance, rights can only be abridged or infringed due to judicial process. For example, if I were convicted of a felony, some of my legal rights would then be taken away because I was given a trial and found guilty. As long as we don't have kangeroo courts, almost all citizens would be agreeable.
The problem comes in when some politician, such as Schumer for example, decides that nobody outside law enforcement or the military needs a weapon such as an 'assault rifle'. And he (and others) then go on to define such a weapon based on COSMETIC features. The fact that such weapons are used in a tiny percentage of all gun related crimes is completely ignored. Handguns have also been demonized by more than a few politians, including those who would prefer an outright ban of them.
Handguns, btw, are a good choice for self-defense because they are compact, fairly easy to use, widely available (through legal dealers, I'm ignoring illegal means here), and not too expensive. The average man/woman can be trained in their safe usage much easier than most other available weapons. And they *have* been used many millions of times for self-defense, almost always without being fired. Criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck estimates between 1-1.5 MILLION self-defense uses each year in the U.S., almost always without a shot being fired. I think it is mainly due to the fact that most criminals don't want to get shot while plying their trade.
If a woman uses a handgun to prevent an attack, rape, or murder, I'm personally pleased that she is still around and breathing. If the perp gets shot, well, too bad for him. And if the perp dies, I figure she has saved the judicial system a lot of money AND prevent that same criminal from trying the same thing with countless other women.
Btw, thanks for your politeness in discussing this issue. Even if we end up on opposite sides of the issue, it has certainly been a breath of fresh air on DR!
