How many people are killed by cars? Cigarettes? Being fat watching TV all day? I’d say shooting an Uzi at a range has a much lower chance of resulting in premature death than being a typical American watching Big Brother and Survivor. Just the fat people take longer to die and aren’t as dramatic on TV news.
So why don’t we start legalizing anti-materiel rifles, howitzers, and grenade launchers? If you don’t believe those should be legalized, then you clearly accept that there are constraints to which arms are to be allowed for public…after that’s it’s just a question of degree, “right to bear arms” could be seen as “right to bear pellet guns”.
It could also be seen as the right to have arms like a bear.
Which is preferable? Polar or grizzly?
It seems like common sense was the real killer here, or lack thereof. I don’t know why anyone would think it’s safe to let a 9 year old fire an uzi. It’s not the uzi’s fault and it’s not the girl’s fault. Come on man, recoil. This was very predictable.
Same thing happened at a local gun range I used to shoot at. Some dickhead went shooting with a woman who had never shot before. The first gun he started her out on was a .357 magnum. She took one shot down range, the recoil sent her hands flying backwards, and as a reaction she pulled the trigger again, exploding the guy’s head behind her. That’s natural selection right there. Start her out with a .22 pistol…
Bottom line, guns or no guns, people that stupid would find a way to off themselves prematurely. You can’t stop stupid.
You’ve stumbled upon the libertarian paradox. (Although you didn’t really stumble upon anything. I’ve brought this point up several times.) Extreme libertarians believe in private ownership of nuclear weapons. Hmm…that seems like a bad idea. But there are those that take the 2nd Amendment that seriously. I think 99.9% of people can agree, that’s a pretty horrible idea. But that means the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute. So, where do we draw the line?
Let’s see, surface-to-air missiles also seem like a pretty bad idea. I mean, I’d love to shoot model helicopters out of the sky at the local hobby airstrip, but it’s probably best the masses don’t get that sort of technology. What about AR-15s? Sure, I bet it’s tons of fun to unload one out on a range. But, do they really serve any other purpose than being a toy for big kids? Apparently a Federal judge thought not and ruled they’re not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Here’s a crazy article from a conservative that says judges shouldn’t have the power to pick and choose what is covered. No, I think they probably should.
Ok…how about shotguns? Well, those are ideally suited for home defense and hunting so you can make a good case for those. Hunting rifles also serve a purpose and they aren’t ideal for mass shooting sprees. Handguns? That’s a tough one. Very well suited for home defense, but that’s about it. Can’t really hunt with them. They are ideally suited for crime and crime prevention though. That really is a tough one.
So, nukes, missiles, and some ARs are not covered for common-sense reasons. Other rifles, shotguns, and handguns are covered. Seems to me the 2nd Amendment isn’t at all absolute. And that is how you get a libertarian tangled up in their own ideology.
shotguns are horrible for home defense. try manuevering within your house wielding a broom with the lights turned off. fixing on a target at close range is extremely difficult in this situation compared to a handgun. so that makes the case for handguns less difficult - shotguns are not an acceptable substitute for home defense.
That’s not quite true, as you know one of the stated reasons given for the second amendment is to enable the population to resist government power if necessary (and potentially for national defense, although the feasibility of that is debatable). The first part could well justify howitzers and be within the spirit and letter of the 2A.
However, I don’t believe all that, the real reason for the second amendment is that simply that Americans in rural areas keep and need guns and that is probably about it.
But you don’t have to fix on a target when a burglar is down your hallway. Point and shoot. Much more likely to hit someone with a shotgun than a handgun.
you’re much more likely to be overtaken while trying to position a shotgun to shoot than a handgun. this isn’t even debatable. when’s the last time you saw a cop on tv enter a house looking for a perp with a shotgun drawn. LMAO.
There’s a big difference between a trained police officer and a person that just likely got roused out of bed and is scared wittless. Just the sound of pumping a shotgun is enough to get most cowardly home invaders away. If not, as jmh said, all I have to do is aim at the general area. What are the chances your average person, again scared out of their mind, is going to be able to hit a person with a handgun more than a few feet away?
And, wielding a broom? Quickly overtaken? You could always get a smaller shotgun and not live in a trailer.
Not if you have a tactical shotgun.
http://www.besttacticalshotgun.com/
This 12 gauge sports an 18.5″ barrel with a capacity of 7 (+1). It’s a bit more pricey being a semi-auto, but the beauty of that is that you just put the shells in and keep firing until you run out.
… you just keep firing until you run out. Indeed. I see your hand gun and raise you a can of 8 shell whup ass.
they make home defense shotguns that have the butt-stock removed and a shortened barrel. Not much positioning required… they’re about the size of an ar-15 with the stock collapsed… you see police entering houses with ar-15s all the time.
We need BS to pop back in. Last time we had this debate he was trying to tell me an Uzi is ideal for home defense. Well, not if you’re 9 it isn’t.
An uzi would be pretty ideal, I think that addresses all of Turd’s concerns.
What’s wrong with using a taser for home defence. Given the statistics of accidental shooting vs true home invasions it makes sense to have a non-lethal defense mechanism.
This is how it would go down for 9/10 people trying to confront some bad dudes with a handgun or uzi:
Maybe they should change the saying to “bring a taser to a gunfight.”
How about a bullpup like a Tavor…in close quarters.