Home Depot ad: a comely model caresses a sledge and purrs "there’s nothing like a big hammer. 
9mm and .45ACP are the two most popular cartridges.
10mm is extremely expensive, high recoil, and relatively difficult to control (supposedly, I don’t have any problem with it).
.40 is a 10mm short. It’s a 10mm without the ballistics, and with a slightly smaller cartridge (the former being a result of the latter), and is also rather expensive.
The .41, what the fuck, seriously?
ETA: You forgot .357 Sig. 
Rare but it’s out there.
It sounded vaguely familiar, but, if something is so rare as to not sound familiar to me, it’s probably completely unknown to 99% of the general population, and 90+% of shooters, do you really have to ask where the fans of it are?
.41 magnum has a diehard core group of enthusiasts. It’s a hell of a whitetail cartridge if you like revolvers.
.41 AE, on the other hand, I think is officially pronounced dead. Does anybody even make brass any more?
I’m not sure such an immediate response would be a good idea, protection-wise. I mean, were I plotting to do devious things to the population of America, I’d start by legislating against a very specific type of gun that not all gun owners have. If the immediate response to the government attempting to take away your guns in this fashion is armed resistance, then gun owners can be taken considerably easier in “waves”, when they don’t have a huge amount of support. Waiting beyond an incursion into your rights such as this means you may well be less equipped, but at least you’ll have more people at your back.
No, I meant where’s the line drawn for you between “Guns? What guns, officer?” and an attacking response.
That seems like an odd one, actually. I mean, assuredly, it’s a wise idea as far as actually keeping your guns goes, unless they actually find them, in which case you no longer have them to stop them being taken away.
Well, i’d personally tend not to define not having the right to own guns as slavery, and I don’t feel that I am one right now due to my country’s more strict gun ownership laws. But just as guns mean you are safer from those who would enslave you, so are others made more at risk from those who would enslave (including yourself) - as has been pointed out, gun ownership is unfortunetly not confined to those who would take the side of good.
I was trying to be pithy.
I’d rather take the risk of someone else having the ability to enslave me, while I have the ability to defend myself, than the risk that some people don’t have the ability to enslave me, while others do.
Lets face a fact: The Government will always have guns. The government is made of people. Therefore, some people will always have guns.
I just don’t want some people to have a monopoly on the ability to use force in my defense.
Sorry to have misunderstood you, then.
Why?
I mean, either way, the chance you’ll be enslaved could be greater or lesser. The chance that you’ll be able to sucessfully defend yourself likewise could well be lower with widespread gun ownership. I mean, by the same token that you are able to offer armed resistance, others are able to offer more risk that you’ll need to do so. Your overall safety isn’t increased.
But, in return, you are willing to relieve the monopoly of people being able to use force against you. The government having guns doesn’t mean that other armed citizens taking the government’s side don’t count as far as oppression goes.
I disagree. I don’t think my overall safety isn’t increased. But I’m certain my overall safety isn’t decreased.
Therefore, that in itself is reason enough. Even if my overall safety was slightly decreased, I’d accept it. Why? Because I need not be perfectly safe, in a bubble of protection, in order to live my life. Any time you go outside, you face a risk of death, injury, etc. But to not go outside would be indicative of metal illness. To try and minimize harm is acceptable – to try to remove it from you life entirely is clinical.
And other citizens will be armed whether the law says they can or cannot.
The kicker is, those citizens who have arms are the ones the laws are designed to disarm in the first place, those who would choose to do harm.
Therefore, I choose to allow others to own firearms, on the basis that I trust them. Why? Because that’s the basis of society, implied trust. Our rights, as individuals, are entrusted to us by the rest of society, by god, by a creator, by whatever, but we, as individuals, do have rights. And one of those rights is not to be prejudged.
Taking away a persons ability to efficiently and safely defend his or herself, home, family, because someone might misuse an object is the very definition of punishing a group for the crimes of an individual.
I disagree. You’re armed, and can deal with threats. But others are armed, and so more able to pose a threat. The advantages being armed gives you in terms of personal defence are also given to those who would mean you need it. I will certainly admit that whether or not your safety is decreased isn’t a clear certainty, but by the same point I don’t see how you can be so certain that it isn’t.
Yes, but the point on which that hinges is whether the advantages weigh out the disadvantages. Your reason for owning guns even were your safety decreased wouldn’t be a desire to be unsafe, but a desire for the advantages that come from doing so outweighing those risks. You don’t leave the house because you desire risk, you leave the house because of the advantages it provides being worth more to you than the risks you accept by doing so.
I don’t understand what you mean by this point. Why is it a kicker that laws are designed to disarm people who would choose to do harm? Isn’t that kind of the point of such laws?
And yes, citizens will be armed whether the law says they can or cannot - until they are caught. People do all sorts of acts despite their illegality; that doesn’t mean that if those acts were made legal tomorrow, there would be no increase in that behaviour.
But by trusting people implicitly, you prejudge them, and not as individuals but as a group. You’re saying that, as a whole, you judge them worthy of that particular right.
What happened to implied trust? You trust people in general to the extent of allowing them guns, but not to the extent that you feel guns unnecessary for efficient and safe defence of your home? Surely, by increasing the risk of unsafe gun-related incidents so that you may deter a threat, you punish a group for the crimes of an individual?
That’s also true of firearms in many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.
That would mean I’m allowed to make comparisons between guns and cars, as I understand it.
From someone arguing for the right to own guns, the best typo EVAH!
Happens every day when shoppers are charged extra to cover the actions of shoplifters, or car insurers charge more to cover the actions of the minority. Why should you be treated differently when we are discussing the most dangerous product in the market?
ps. Also occurs with drug legislation. Why can you have a gun, but I can’t have a gram of heroin?
AFAIAC, you should be legally able to buy all the heroin you want. Criminalizing drugs did nothing except turn them into a revenue stream for criminals.
You could also say that legitimising guns made a revenue stream for ruthless mercenaries, uncaring of the product they were selling and the uses it was being put to, beyond their legal ‘responsibility’.
Because my safety isn’t increased by banning them.
Those who would choose to do me harm anyway, would choose to have firearms, anyway.
No, the point of such laws is to disarm everybody. But the only people who end up disarmed, are those who obey the laws in the first place. Therefore, those who would do harm end up not obeying the laws, and having guns anyway.
I have no intention of punishing a group for the actions of an individual.
It would be an individual (or group) who breaks into my house, posing a potential threat to myself, my house & my family. I wouldn’t shoot up the entire neighborhood in attempt to prevent it, only those who actually have broken the law and pose an immediate threat to myself or my family.
That isn’t punishing anyone, only acting in self defense. What would be punishment for me, however, is the inability to take such action.
I support legalizing drugs, and write my legislators often about it. Why do you assume that being pro-gun is being pro-prohibition? Assumption, tsk tsk.
You could, but you’d be displaying ignorance. Guns have always been “legitimate” here. There is, at present, an effort by some to deligitimize owning guns. There were no illegal drugs here until well into the 20th century when the bluenoses got involved.
Do you use heroin? Do you want to use heroin? Would making it legal change your answers to those questions?
Why do American gun laws give you such a bad case of diaper rash anyway?
So a “nut”, which is definitely something bad, is someone who is passionate about collecting something, such that they read publications about it? What about a coin collector? Is he also trying to make up for a small penis? What if the collector is a woman? Does she also have penis envy?
We shake our heads in pity at those fools. 