Quote:
Originally Posted by encalibur
@Tactical Lever: At the risk of sound like a "hippie" again, i still don't see how opening the restriction would help the rape, robbery, etc victims. It would just make it easier for lesser lowlifes to get a gun, or prompt them them to shoot first before jumping somebody with a hand in their jacket or purse.
@hillbillyreefer: i guess the intended use or purpose of a firearm is debatable since you can point the barrel at anything, but a firearm that is easily concealable and is the firearm of choice for criminals is definitely not the same as the .22 or .17 i'm about to purchase (very excited at my eventual first rifle by the way  )
I suppose i need to be convinced that not restricting handguns will not = more handguns in the hands of those that shouldn't have guns or more crime with handguns. Aren't there hard stats available? (honest question).
IMO the biggest hurdle is not those of us that browse the forum, it's the population of urbanites that don't see a use for guns period, visit go for day trip to a national once a year and think they appreciate wildlife and the environment. |
Perhaps you should start at page one and read this entire thread. There has been some excellent hard stats posted on this topic. Once you are done reading it come back with any logical questions you may have. Do some research on what has happened in the States when restrictions are relaxed, then check England, and Jamaica to see what happens when restrictions are increased. The interesting part about the two islands are just that, they can't even blame long porous boarders, for making gun smuggling easier.
You seem to forget that licensed individuals have been vetted by the state after going through a course and testing. That is the ONLY way to get a LICENSE. If you passed all the checks and balances to be granted an RPAL why not be able to have a restricted not at home or at the range?