Personally, I do agree the threat of some kind of home invasion that is done where you'll have the time to retrieve your weapon and fight off the killers is a remote, remote possibility, and for me, the remoteness of that possibility isn't worth buying a firearm over. And I don't live in some protected gated community. But I'm not going to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of and how they should personally allay that fear.
I'm sure those countries do have people who are fearful of the "remote possibility" and would like the option to have something like an AR-15 at hand.
What if that person fears an incident of 50+ attackers simultaneously and feels they would need a fully automatic firearm to ward off such a threat?
We have to have limits. Currently, it would seem firearms with the capability to kill many people in a short amount of time have more frequent and unique application in mass shootings than in protection from home invasion.
One guy shot 40 people in 30 seconds.
Sure, but I guess I'm trying to say that my selective outrage doesn't have any kind of political slant to it. I think some conservatives believe many on the left focus on the mass shootings out of political conveniency, when I believe that it's just because mass shootings are more disturbing.
Then the numbers should tell us we need to do more about automobiles and not worry about guns so much.
derp
derp
Oh sorry, i forgot it's a crime of poverty when negros do it
Black mass shooters don't seem to make national news for some reason.
Last edited by Donald Sterling.; 08-05-2019 at 10:31 PM.
You forgot you were derp.Oh sorry, i forgot it's a crime of poverty when negros do it
It's always stuck with me that, in Dallas in 2016, you had a bunch of counter protesters walking around sporting AR-15's and other kinds of high capacity guns... and when someone actually started firing on people, the CORRECT RESPONSE (as acknowledged even by gun people) was to find the nearest cop and hand your gun over.
If that isn't proof that those stupid toys are just for show and nothing more, I don't know what is.
This is the slippery slope fallacy here. Furthermore, echoing TSA's description of the AR-15, a feature of it is its low wall penetration, which would make it a safer option than other firearm solutions. We can say a machine gun is a non-starter because when defending yourself against a potential 50 invaders, you might kill innocents across the street, which is unacceptable.
Also, what if I was a person who lost a loved one in home invasion situation where access to a firearm would've saved their lives? I personally vowed to never let that happen again. Should I be denied access to the most (reasonable) effective home defense firearm?
Now that said, I'm taking TSA's description of the AR-15 in good faith. When I suggested low recoil, low penetration weapons like the 9mm handgun, he said it doesn't have the stopping power. Weapons like the .357 and shotguns, too much recoil and not enough rounds. If there's any kind of objective study out there that demonstrates a firearm that has the same effectiveness as the AR, while being lower caliber and having a smaller magazine, it'd be interesting.
I forgot about that.
Common sense prevailed.
You're right. No sense in having that weapon as an eternal personal defense solution. It's supposed to be for the home. The debate around it, the debate we're having, is if it's prudent to allow purchase of it? I don't mind females, the elderly, or the otherwise physically impaired to have access to the best defense solution there is if they feel they need it. I would welcome a lower caliber, lower mag firearm that is just as effective.
Not being a gun guy I would think in the home, close quarters, you want something short barreled. You are more likely to hit things with the barrel I would think.
I'm familiar with slippery slopes, but you said you're not going to tell someone what they should and shouldn't be fearful of, nor how to allay that fear. Obviously you agree there are limits to which fears we accept as valid and which ones we deem less important than the greater good.
Unless there have been as many or more lives saved with the use of the kinds of guns regularly used in mass shootings (terror, gang, or otherwise), it's a fair trade. IMO
You shoot a guy with a 9mm, he's not stopping at all?
Seriously, a barking dog makes most of them run. Why wouldn't a gun discharge?
Yeah, be careful with that.
Gun enthusiasts like TSA are the types that will argue vehemently, for example, for the legalization of silencers by arguing that silencers don't really work.
Bend over. I'll show ya in' discharge!
Im assuming he means after getting hit the attacker also with a gun can still discharge on you.
Your sperm cells have no tails.
The few that do, swim in circles.
I'm not a gun guy, so I don't know the effectiveness of the 9mm in real world situations. I'm of course taking TSA in good faith, since he seemed sincere in that discussion.
Yes. Obviously we're not going to let someone have an Apache Attack Helicopter because he's afraid of Godzilla or a Red Dawn scenario. Someone who fears 50 invaders coming for them all at the same time is equally irrational.
That's a fair point, but again, it is about a right. I'm sure 9mms, the most popular hand gun, have been used in more murders than life saving situations, but I think we agree a 9mm shouldn't be outright banned. I want much stricter gun control (age limits, more thorough background checks, a tiered licensing structure), but I'm still uneasy about punishing the responsible for the actions of the few. My solution is just to make the proverbial "hoops" someone has to jump through in order to prove themselves responsible for AR-15 ownership more convoluted. If owning that weapon was really that important to them, they wouldn't mind all the jumping.
I wouldn't ban 9mm's because their application for defense is reasonable, and their application for multiple murders is limited.
I would like to see production of AR-15's and similar firearms halted to drive up prices and divert ownership to collectors, or, perhaps, people who really feel like they need them for protection.
Then stop trying to disarm people in a world full of guns, moron.
More then former presidents
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
