That’s the “tool” the protester brought to the town hall meeting in the OP.
Ahh I see. Not the gun if I was going to try and kill someone from a distance. It is so short and so light that accuracy is horrible. I shot five rounds through one and my hands were sore, and these were handloaded “weak” rounds. From my understanding though most self defense situations are at very close ranges. I would concealed carry one but if I was open carrying it wouldn’t be my first choice.
I’m not sure of the point you are making here though? My understanding of the argument so far.
-
People thought it was pittable that a man open carried a firearm to a townhall meeting carrying a potentially threatening sign.
-
People argued that it was his legal right to open carry and it would have been wrong to arrest him.
-
A arguments ensues over the threatening nature of his sign.
-
We moved into tiny penis territory and somebody makes the guns are only made for killing people argument.
-
The response is that guns are tools, and most guns are not meant for or used for killing humans.
-
You point out very coyly that the man was carry a “kill people” gun. This is where I get lost. It doesn’t change point 2, that his carry was legal. It also doesn’t change point 5 that most guns are not designed or used for killing people. It’s a point that at first glance seems like a gotcha but it seems pretty empty to me.
I’d say that’s a stainless steel pistol, which means it’s good for outdoor use and open carry, and I’d say it’s hammerless, or at least the hammer is not visible when not cocked, which makes it easier to draw when it might snag on something.
I’d call that a personal defense revolver, in the ten to thirty foot range. With a barrel like that, it’s not going to be accurate worth a darn in anything longer than that, especially in a rapidly drawn situation.
People drive around with a spare tire because we live in a world where sharp objects and debris is fairly common on our roadways. We don’t, however, live in the Wild West.
A spare tire takes little time to learn how to safely use, requires no training to have with you, you’ll likely eventually need it, and it puts those around you at virtually no risk of death or permanent disability if you make a poor judgment call. Whereas guns are the opposite.
And yes, guns are tools. And so a chain saws. But I wouldn’t take a chain saw into the grocery store with me either. Why? Because there aren’t any damn trees to cut down in a grocery store.
Oddly enough, there might be things to shoot in a grocery store. So, therefore, you should bring a gun in with you, by that logic.
There are currently 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, down frpm a high of 45,000. Only two of those have been used against people. Therefore nuclerar weapons are not designed to be used against people. They are just tools. And besides, the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to have nuclear weapons so that I can defend my family,
This data also shows that the use of guns for justifiable homicide is totally dwarfed by it’s use for other kinds of killing.
That’s a poor argument and you know it. How many people go plinking everyday with nuclear weapons? How many people people shoot skeet with nuclear weapons? How many bullseye competitions are held with nuclear weapons. How many Olympic sports are based around nuclear weapons?
White House spokesman: nobody panic!
Or perhaps it’s just that the administration just realizes that while it may be in the best interests of Mark Potok and the SPLC to push their political fetish porn about how there’s a scary right-wing mob out there THAT COULD SNAP AT ANY MINUTE! - it’s not really in the best interests of the administration itself, to say nothing of the country.
Were there accurate statistics around, which there are not because such things are not reported, you would learn that the mere display of a firearm is the key deterrent.
I say that with two years of experience (yeah, I know, not much, but enough to know) as an armed guard and having displayed (never pointed, never fired) a firearm five times to prevent my previous house from being broken into while I was home (and they knew I was home) and once to prevent myself from being mugged in a remote location.
So in my personal experience: Six times displayed in private life to prevent a crime against me, multiple close calls on the job to prevent other crimes vs. ZERO times ever firing it at someone = The number of times used that didn’t result in killing anyone totally dwarfs the number of times (ZERO) that I’ve killed someone with a firearm.
Pretty darned sure that my experience is not even slightly unique.
Also, something heavy could fall from a high shelf. Better bring your hard hat.
Of course it’s a stupid argument, that’s my point. There are very few people I know of that want to eliminate Olympic target rifles. Shooting for pleasure and hunting is a fine actiity, and one that would not be impacted by things like gun locks or transporting guns in locked cases, or requiring gun safes, or any number of other regulations. But then we hear from the crowd that thinks the world is so unsafe they need to preen around with a gun strapped to their leg. So pleas, make up your mind. Are you arguing for continued access to guns for recreation or are you arguing that unfettered access to guns is necessary for self-defense and killing the occasional president when he gets uppity?
If we want to make analogies, here is one: prescription drugs each year save the lives of millions of people, and kill only a small number, so why restrict access to them? Cars are used safely for recreation and commuting far more than they are unsafely resulting in death and injury. Why require they have ignition locks, or have their title registered, or that operators be trained.
Face it, those of you who argue for completely unregulated access to guns come down to three arguments:
- The 2nd ammendment prohibits gun regulation.
- The world is a scary place and if I don’t have access to guns my family is unsafe.
- Guns are what protect us from tyranny.
All this crap about recreational shooting is a smoke screen, because there are many ways that those activities could be accomodated with some regulations in place on guns.
But of course we are wll off the mark of the OP, where the argument is whether somone in their right mind would think strappping on a gun and holding a threatening sign is appropriate to do during a presidential visit. The fact that some think it is, goes to show how removed they are from reality. Maybe someday I’ll walk into a church with a chainsaw (a tool) and snicker at anyone who thinks that it is “bad” or “scary” or “inappropriate”.
No it isn’t. Every video and picture I saw of this non-incident shows he’s carrying a semi-auto pistol, not a revolver.
Some of my guns are military-pattern (AR-15, FAL), and were designed and optimized for conflict. While I certainly enjoy shooting them on the range, they will also come in handy if I need to defend myself and my family from anyone who systematically infringes on our natural & inalienable rights. In the same vein as the militia did at Concord.
And those people were deterred because you threatened to shoot at a paper target. Just imagine how effective it would be if you’d had a tool that was designed to kill.
Just one, but he is the most interesting man in the world.
Hey, it was your logic, not mine. I thought it was a bit absurd, myself.
Yeah, that’s clearly a semi-auto of some kind. Can’t say more, I’m no expert at pistol recognition.
In public, I find carrying around a chainsaw is much more effective. Fewer ordinances to worry about. Nothing says “badass” like a chainsaw. If (God forbid) I need to use it in an emergency situation, the visage of me, screaming like a banshee and waving the roaring chainsaw in the air is both likely to scare evildoers so shitless as to render them non-functional (allowing me the opportunity to get close enough to de-arm (note, not dis-arm) them), and will make for one hell of a YouTube video.
At home, I have a hair-trigger setup wired into the house sound system. At the touch of a button (from many rooms), the CHI-CHUNK of a shotgun’s action fills the air. There are many sounds out there, but none sound like that. Any crimiminals left in the house after hearing that will be rendered completely ineffective because they will have shit themselves.
Of course, I named my cat Ash, so that may suggest a certain proclivity for some of the above.
They’re also great for training young men before they serve in the armed forces. Every second of training helps in a crisis.
This is incorrect.
In many states openly carrying a firearm is protected by the state constitution. There is no such right to carry a chainsaw around in public. You would actually be more open to a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace charge while carrying a chainsaw than you would openly carrying a firearm.