Survey: Most US teens oppose banning handguns

4th Annual Uhlich National Teen Gun Survey survey shows that more than half of America's teenagers oppose a national ban on handguns and a majority do not believe that banning handguns would make the country safer.

57% disagreed with the statement "Handguns should be banned; nobody except police and soldiers should be allowed to have one", while just under half, 49%, agreed that "America would be a safer place without handguns".

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed indicated that they were not afraid that violence might happen in their school, while just over half said they did not believe metal detectors made schools safer.

For the complete survey results including totals grouped by age and race, please see http://www.ucanchicago.org/gunsurvey/2003TeenGun.pdf

An immediate sweep of handguns is not the wisest idea. First starting from the top, like banning assault weapons and keeping hunting weapons in storage facilities when not used. Then introduce non-lethal defense weapons, like tasers, tranquilizers, plastic bullets, etc. Once the need for a handgun, which is for self-defense, is gone, then proceed with severely tightening the noose on them. But not now. Violence is still rampant, not solely because of guns, but because of poverty, drugs, etc.

Any of the examples you mentioned can and do kill people, so I would not call them non-lethal. If there was a concealable, convenient less-lethal weapon available at a reasonable price and was as effective as a handgun in stopping a violent attacker, I'd buy one immediately.

I have a problem with your argument because it appears to be based on the notion that availability of tools or other objects is somehow related to an arbitrary assessment of a person's "need" for that object. That has no basis in our legal system, nor does requiring people to store their personal belongings in any particular manner. You also made a inaccurate statement IMO about the purpose of handguns - Most are used mainly for recreational shooting with self-defense as a secondary reason for owning them, but many handguns are designed and used for competitive shooting or hunting.

But seriously, did the students at Columbine believe it could happen to them?

I would agree that the USA would be safer if there were literally no handguns around, and especially if police used less lethal weapons exclusively (i.e. did not carry guns routinely). However, I and I believe many of the teens surveyed recognize that a handgun-free America is not a realistic possibility.

Given that there will always be SOME guns around no matter what laws are passed, I want to make sure that I personally have at least one of them so as not to be out-gunned by potential violent attackers or looters (in the event of an earthquake or other disaster). I'll give my gun up only when I am sure nobody else has one or can ever get one.

O8)

same results...people favor gun control.

And 57-43 is pretty close...imagine how that might change if people were REALLY aware of the dishonest ways in which the gun industry has been peddling its lie about "more guns = less crime." Or of some of the specimens who make up the NRA?

Shows how out of touch with mainstream America the corrupt gun industry and the RKBA crowd really are.

All right, I think that I found the question that you are always quoting. It came from a Harris Poll, the question was

—‘Would you say you favor stricter gun control, or less strict gun control?’

Tell you the truth, I am suprised that the answer was not closer to 100%. Even people that support the RKBA should answer yes to this. How about this question:

Would you say you favor or disfavor gun contol measures that would limit or prevent law abiding citizens from posessing and purchasing legal firearms?

What do you think the result of this would be? It is easy to get the answers that you want by wording the questions a certain way.

Are you suggesting that if I and other honest, law-abiding gun owners step up to the plate and dispose of our guns first that armed violent criminals will follow suit?

:think: :argh: :crazy:

forced to assume the worst. Seems quite a logical way to deescalate the arms race.

I'm not anti-gun although sometimes the mindset of some gets under my skin.

I'm one of them. The average woman has maybe 60% the physical strength of the average man, and is culturally conditioned against using what she has. I wouldn't feel safer, as a woman, if nobody in the USA had guns.

couldn't you defend youself with a rifle? If so, why do you need a handgun?

Peace
:kick:

Most rifles are too powerful for indoor use, which causes overpenetration problems. Handgun ammo (22 rimfire notwithstanding) is generally much lower power than rifle ammo.

Handgun ammunition is generally a lot cheaper to shoot.

Because of their smaller size, safe storage devices for handguns are less expensive and take up less space than storage for long guns.

Practice ranges for rifles tend to be located in remote locations. Pistols can be shot in indoor ranges, which can be located anywhere.

Handguns can be concealed and carried discretely on the body. Rifles and shotguns are too big for that kind of use.

It is sometimes difficult manipulating a long gun in confined spaces. Pistols or short barreled SMG would be the weapons of choice

Much more experience with it. But you can't carry a rifle around just anywhere. At least I can't. :)

Isn't that enough to win in your country?

Wackawackawacka....

P.