But you seemed to use the ‘high % don’t cause a problem’ argument.
Anyway the issue is not whether to regulate things in principal, except at the real extreme. The practical issues are much more complicated than yes or no on any regulation at all.
And as much as the 2nd amendment is mentioned on both sides of the gun control debate, it’s actually pretty rare that state or local govt have been able to enact gun laws that got thrown out in court over the 2nd amendment. And nationally in the US the political limit to getting the votes for gun control legislation comes way before any obstacle in the courts wrt to the 2nd amendment. Again at the extreme of fanciful internet debate (‘let’s ban guns’, yes or no) the 2nd amendment would be a real obstacle. In political reality the second amendment is a mountain far in the distance for the pro-gun control people with loads of hills to climb politically before they’d ever get to it, and little sign so far they will get to it.
Look at the dynamics of the Democrats trying to take back the House like in special election in PA. Same old idea of ‘folksy’ Democrats from red areas claiming they are no friends of Nancy Pelosi, etc. To some extent they can go back on that once elected: what would be the point of running as a Democrat otherwise? But those swing votes which would deliver Congress can’t go for tight nation gun control (within the 2nd amendment ) or they’d just lose those seats right back. In that political situation I guess I too would try to play up the 2nd amendment and NRA as to why I was unwilling to lose my seat voting for national gun control. Doesn’t make it so.
I wouldn’t tell anybody. Just like I don’t tell anybody I don’t own a gun. And I never said I would* never* use it, I probably would plink with it from time to time and I don’t think target shooting is an illegitimate use for a gun, and that’s just, like, my opinion, man. I don’t see why it’s so offensive to you that I’d “waste” some disposable income on something that might gather dust. It’s not *your *money. My dad has a bunch of guns I’ve never personally seen him shoot. I’ll probably inherit them someday, and I’ll probably hock them, since they’re either hunting rifles (don’t hunt), or too big a caliber handguns for home defense. Big deal.
I didn’t find it “offensive”-there are degrees between “I support you 100%!” and “I am offended!”, and I was just curious as to why you would buy this gun just because it was suddenly about to become unavailable.
I don’t know man. There’s probably some psychological theory behind it that I’m not going to bother looking up. Probably the same reason people hoarded booze before prohibition.
According to our local firearms expert posters, the AR-15 is the best choice for home defense.
The idea is not to completely eliminate shootings long term, as that isn’t possible.
The idea is to have the trend of shootings going down over the long term, or at least prevent it from going up.
If you will only take measures that you think are 100% effective all of the time, then you will never do anything.
If you said, “I am responsible, and I will take all reasonable precautions to prevent accidentally killing someone, or allowing my guns to fall into the wrong hands.” then I could get behind that.
As it is something that is possible, unless you think that you are taking a measure that is effective 100% of the time, it is something that you should have at least some level of concern about, lest you become complacent.
There are three types of firearms you can use for home defense:
Handgun
Rifle
Shotgun
A handgun would be the worst choice, obviously. They’re very inaccurate and underpowered. A rifle chambered in .223 would be very accurate and powerful, but it’s a bit too powerful. The bullets could go through walls and hit an innocent person on the other side. And they may even hit your neighbor’s house. The best choice for home security is a shotgun.
I own battle carbines (e.g. AR-15s) and battle rifles (e.g. FALs), but they wouldn’t be my first choice for home defense. But they will come in handy for that rainy decade when we need to defend against an organized threat…
Without any actual desire to get into my sleeping arrangement, no, this is not correct. I have various holsters that I could easily put on in a few seconds. If I felt like the situation allowed me the time to do so, I would. If there were footfalls coming down the hall towards my room by the time I got the safe opened, I wouldn’t fumble around with a pistol holster and would instead just grab an AR-15 and confront the intruder(s) with that.
From what? A Bolivian death squad?
Look, I get people’s desire to be able to defend their homes. But why is the United States the only industrialized First World nation that both a) has a mass shooting problem and b) has a significant population of people that truly feels they are in danger unless they have military-grade firepower? I never hear anyone from the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan or any other modern nation saying they don’t feel safe without their SA80, Gewehr G36, Steyr AUG, Type 89 or whatever gun their military happens to be issued.
I disagree. A shotgun with a correct load would be the best choice, but pistols (good ones, not Saturday night specials or purse pistols) are generally well-suited for home defense. They are accurate at the ranges you will be shooting inside of a house, unless you are a terrible shot, or live inside some grand palace. They posses enough stopping power and contain enough rounds to eliminate 99% of the threat you’d encounter in a home invasion, again unless you are a terrible shot.
Our CC advocates have no doubt given the matter a great deal of thought. I’d really like to know how they reached that conclusion. I’ve literally never seen or heard it addressed, only avoided or assumed.
Huh, I’m sorry, I’m generally pro gun control and I neither keep nor bear in civilian life, but the claim that those who carry (concealed or not) do so in eager anticipation of one day having the excuse to shoot someone strikes me as presumptuous. I would demand anyone who’d carry to go through a rigorous, not just perfunctory, permitting and training process (including When Not To Engage), but then I’d understand if they carry concealed simply in order to not seem provocative and not cause anxiety in others.
But they keep telling us how they and their guns provide safety and security in case “something” happens, so why should we feel anxious about it? Is it that they don’t carry Good Guy Badges so we can be sure? The story isn’t consistent if that’s really it.
Again, I’d like to hear from actual CC advocates as to why they don’t carry openly, and hopefully there’s an answer out there better than
Does there need to be more reasons? People who carry a concealed firearm do not necessarily revolve every thing they do around it, and don’t necessarily care to draw attention to themselves. Someone who wants to dress appropriately for the occasion, is going to make certain fashion choices. I would no sooner wear an openly displayed firearm than I would a combed-cotton tank top.