If a hand-gun ban was implemented in DC would residents have sufficient means of self protection?

  • Criminals Fear Residents More than the Police.

    It has been proven time and time again that Criminals will openly admit to being more afraid of coming across an Armed Citizen than a police officer simply because the Armed Citizen poses an immediate response to the criminal opposed to a police officer who first needs to be notified of the crime happening and then must arrive to the scene prior to the criminal making his/her escape.

  • There are sufficient protection options available to DC residents other than a fire arm.

    Several studies have shown that the small population of people who have fire arms in their homes are more likely to injury a family member or friend than protect themselves from a dangerous intruder. Alternative options include: door and window locks, gates and alarm systems. Many of these options are cheaper and serve as a more secure defense.

    Posted by: SpyCl4
  • Citizens across the US have sufficient means of self protection since they can't carry handguns either.

    Just because you have a handgun doesn't mean you have sufficient protection. All you really need is MACE or a bat. People are unaware of the responsibilities of having a gun so that makes it even more scary. A gun isn't always the answer. As long as you have some sort of protection, you should be fine. Lastly, citizens in other cities can't have a handgun and they do just fine.

    Posted by: ladiil0caz
  • Handguns do not provide an appropriate means of protection.

    Aiming a gun at someone and shooting is an attempt to kill. There are few situations when this situation is justified. Firearms just inflame a situation, not diffuse it. Most countries in the first world allow only law enforcement officers and other professionals access to firearms. Citizens of these countries seem quite able to protect themselves.

    Posted by: taidokas
  • I support a gun ban because residents will still have ways to protect themselves.

    People can always carry pepper spray as a means to protect themselves. They can also carry knives if necessary. Sometimes people use guns for protection and this may cause a death when it is not necessary. With pepper spray they would be able to protect themselves properly without causing a death.

    Posted by: StevyDemon
  • Citizens owning guns only continues to perpetuate violence.

    In any given situation, allowing someone with little to no experience using guns only increases the potential for violence. In many cases, guns in the home are actually used against owners, leading to higher instances of violence. The focus should be on decreasing socio-economic gaps and increasing police presence, rather than arming citizens.

    Posted by: MyrBad
  • I oppose weapon legislation generally speaking, while I also oppose using violence for self defense.

    Legislation does not provide immediate and direct security for the individual. At the same time, owning a handgun does not provide the security imagined. Statistics show that owning a handgun increases the risk of self inflicted injury and successful suicide attempts. The fundamental issue is the freedom to protect oneself as they see fit. I oppose any law that would prevent an individual from defending themselves, though I might disagree with their approach personally.

    Posted by: E Olson
  • Hand-gun ownership does not sufficiently provide a means of self defense to the average person so a hand-gun ban would not affect a persons means of self defense.

    According to many studies an untrained person under stress is not equipped to defend themselves with a hand-gun. The stress of the circumstances severely impedes the ability of even a regular hand-gun user to accurately fire a gun, so it really isn't the best source of protection. It is impossible to properly control that stress unless a person is professionally trained and retrained so that he is able to control those stress levels.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • Yes, because good sense is the best means of self protection.

    D.C. residents would still have sufficient means of self protection, if there was a hand-gun ban in D.C. The best way to protect yourself is to use good sense. Don't join a gang. Don't buy or sell drugs on the street. Don't pull large amounts of cash out of isolated ATMs on dark nights. Avoid known high-crime areas during peak crime times. The ability to use or threaten the use of a handgun probably would be the deciding factor in self protection occasionally, but the number of cases would be small and would be offset to some degree by some of the negative impacts of increasing the availability of handguns in the city.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • I agree that residents of DC would still have sufficient means of self-protection with a handgun ban, as there are many other forms of self-defense.

    Residents would still be able to carry knives, if they chose to, which could be used to fend off attackers. They could also take self-defense classes, and learn how to physically protect themselves, which would not allow the attacker a chance at grabbing their weapon. A handgun ban does not mean that the residents would be unable to protect themselves at all.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • Guns are our self protection

    Without guns we have no defense against the criminals who will come banging at our doors. Also it is taking away our freedom as Americans. It is our second amendment "to keep and bear arms". That was one of the first ten amendments made in America, If you take away those amendments, the basis of our laws today, whats next!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  • Guns are the most efficient means of self defense

    You don't have to be a fit professional martial artist to use a gun. Handguns also give you a greater chance of survival against an incident with multiple attackers. Criminals can and will get their hands on a black market handgun, so people should have the right to equal force presented to them

  • Taking away hand-guns will only make residents vulnerable

    By disarming the residents, they will not have any means of defending themselves and their loved ones. Also, some people would not be able to defend against perceived threat to our lives and liberty like the government. If someone is intruding on other people's property, trying to break in the house and the homeowner has called 911, what can they do in the mean time? Defend their home and everyone they care about! Sometimes, you can't rely on the police to help.

  • By taking away handguns you aren't fixing the real issue.

    Do you think that it is the gun that is expressing feeling and anger towards the victim? No. The anger and frustration is coming from the criminal or person. If you take away a handgun its not like all of a sudden the person is going to say, "Wow, I no longer want to hurt people. I have no more desire to cause harm or commit crime." Instead they will have and increase in confidence saying, "Now I have even more power over my victim. My victim no longer has the possibility of having something that is powerful enough to stop me from doing what I want to do." We need to focus on the people here. Why are we focusing on a tool that has no choice? We need to focus on the people who have the anger in their heart and the lack of conscience. We need to focus on the mentally ill. As they always say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Focus on the real issue people.

  • Hand-gun laws do not limit criminal activity they only limit law abiding citizens.

    If someone is going to commit a crime they are already breaking the law so why would breaking a ban stop them from committing the crime with a gun.

    Posted by: M Hahn
  • If a hand-gun ban was implemented in DC, the residents would not have means of self protection, but the criminals would continue to have hand guns to use against law abiding residents.

    As has been shown time after time in cities that tried hand-gun bans, crime rises against the unarmed citizens. DC's murder rate was (and likely still is) dramatically greater than the adjacent areas of Virginia where citizens can, and do, arm themselves. It is also unconstitutional to ban Arms in the U.S.: "Amendment II: 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." The words "keep and bear Arms" could not be clearer.

    Posted by: R0d30NeiII
  • I believe that people should be able to choose if they have a handgun or not, especially in a dangerous area like Washington D.C.

    At first glance, a handgun ban would seem to reduce crime. However, it is important for citizens to choose to have self-protection or not. There is the argument that "tyrants prefer unarmed citizens" and that is certainly true. However, though it is an important right, at the moment it is more likely for people to be in danger from criminals, than from our democratic government. If there is a ban, it will be harder for criminals to obtain firearms, but not impossible, as they disregard the law, hence the title "criminal". If they want a gun badly enough, they will find a way to get one, law or not. On the other hand, with a law against handguns, most law-abiding citizens will be without protection from those who disregard the law. A gun would be a deterrent against violent crime, especially against women, a group which I believe is overlooked in the gun-control debate. Women should have the option to own a firearm, because it is usually the men who are involved in violent crimes, and women are often the helpless victims.

    Posted by: RandCooIed
  • A handgun ban would deprive people of the most effective means of self-protection--but a limited ban might still make sense.

    Since many instances of violence occur because of misunderstandings or after a cycle of escalating fear and anger attending unexpected conflict, reducing the prevalence of handgun ownership would probably reduce the dangerousness of such incidents and save lives. Yet strictly speaking, complete bans do deprive people of the most reliable self-defense mechanism once a conflict has turned violent. A compromise would be to allow handguns in the home but not out in public. It is difficult to weigh the options and competing values precisely, but some middle ground may be the best approach.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • I think that residents wouldn't have sufficient means of self protection if a hand gun ban was placed.

    If there was a ban placed it would affect the people who are sane and wouldn't abuse the hand gun privileges. The people who purchase hand guns legally for protection use them accordingly. They do not abuse their privilege buying making poor decisions on when or when not to use the guns they have. Most likely those people only use their weapons upon emergency situations. People who buy guns off the black market are the ones who are responsible for all the crimes that are taking place. Therefore a ban would not be a helpful idea.

    Posted by: EmanBunny
  • If a man brings a fist to a gun fight, he dies.

    By defending themselves with a natural fist, in the case of an intruder with a gun, then there is no question that the gun is more likelier to win in the case of the conflict. Responsibility is the best thing here, and relying on the police to do everything in your stead is not the philosophy I can share.

    Posted by: Bear

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.