Quote Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo View Post
No, Moral-man, you are quite right. The ONLY reason to own a hand-gun is to kill. And the only thing a hand gun is good for is killing people: it's not a sports gun. So if anyone has a gun for protection in this day and age, it's because they contemplate killing an intruder who is probably after no more than a few dollars. That's not "necessary force" in my opinion. I know money's important in a material world, but a burglar isn't there to threaten your life, he's there to steal your credit cards. You can phone the bank afterwards to cancel the cards without loss of anyone's life.

So, if it's not "necessary force" and it's contemplated beforehand, doesn't that count as premeditated murder?
Nope! That counts as defending one's property. In the US, at least, a disproportionate amount of break-ins and home invasions are committed by drug users looking for their next fix. Many will do ANYTHING to get what they need, including killing people. With the current rate of such crimes planning to kill an intruder isn't "premeditated murder," it's a planned defense.

Hunters (what an unspeakable passtime: killing for amusement! They then drive home with the poor beast strapped to the front of their truck so that like-minded morons can think "What a great guy!") need hunting rifles I suppose. They should be licenced. They should pass a weapons handling test and pass an exam on the gun laws. They should also notify the police at least 24 hours ahead of any hunting expedition so they can be aware of where shooting is likely to take place.
I agree in part: hunting for trophies is unspeakable and should be banned except where necessary to control the animals' population to prevent them from exhausting their food supply and starving. Hunting for food, on the other hand, is more understandable, though mostly unnecessary in this day and age except for those with low incomes. I agree regarding the licensing and weapons handling tests, which should be applied to ALL weapons, including hunting weapons, hand guns, even bows and arrows. In the US, at least, the vast majority of hunting takes place outside of city limits and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the local police. Game wardens, county and state police are aware of the legal hunting areas and monitor them. At least theoretically.

And, as far as my understanding of American law goes, the constitutional right to bear arms is restricted to people actively taking part in a militia to protect themselves against the British or the Indians. How much of a threat is either group now?
A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists. However, it is my opinion that any citizen who wants to own a weapon should be required to obtain a license, submit fingerprint and DNA samples to the national databases, attend a strict and comprehensive training program with annual reviews, and be held fully responsible for any incidents involving their weapons, weather they were using them or not.

If criminals knew that a significant percentage of a population were trained and licensed to carry arms they would have to think twice about threatening anyone. Providing the licensing procedure was sufficiently comprehensive and included some form of psychological profile the chances of unstable persons getting hold of legal weapons would be minimal. The costs of all of this should be covered by the weapon manufacturers and those selling and purchasing the weapons.

I don't own any weapons myself, nor do I feel the need to do so. I do, however, believe in the rights of my fellow citizens to own them, providing they can meet such stringent requirements. The gun control laws in this country right now are a farce. They definitely need revamping. But banning all civilian owned weapons is, in my opinion, a bad idea.