I'm in the middle of the gun debate, I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think that means that anyone should be able to buy a weapon capable of killing dozens of people within just a few minutes.
I don't own a gun for both philosophical and practical reasons. As the statistics I previously posted show, a home invasion robbery is highly unlikely, and violence by the robber is highly unlikely. My dog's barking, among our other security measures, would make such a crime even more unlikely. Even if I had a gun I would not shoot a burglar unless he threatened me or refused to leave.
the scenario:
It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"
Do you want a gun in this scenario?
I understand. I've often said that while I don't want a gun, if they banned guns, I'd be first in line to buy one illegally. That said, I am strongly against the sale of assault rifles and sniper rifles - there's simply no need - much less any good use - for such in the civilian world. Ditto for long ammo clips and armor-piercing ammo. Besides, if one is really concerned about home defense, the best weapon is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, that the burglar can hear that unmistakable sound...and a cell phone with which to call the police.
I don't prepare for getting hit by lightning either. I don't prepare for lots of unlikely events. You don't either. No one does. At least be honest.
I understand. I've often said that while I don't want a gun, if they banned guns, I'd be first in line to buy one illegally. That said, I am strongly against the sale of assault rifles and sniper rifles - there's simply no need - much less any good use - for such in the civilian world. Ditto for long ammo clips and armor-piercing ammo. Besides, if one is really concerned about home defense, the best weapon is a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, that the burglar can hear that unmistakable sound...and a cell phone with which to call the police.
I'm in the middle of the gun debate, I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think that means that anyone should be able to buy a weapon capable of killing dozens of people within just a few minutes.
I don't own a gun for both philosophical and practical reasons. As the statistics I previously posted show, a home invasion robbery is highly unlikely, and violence by the robber is highly unlikely. My dog's barking, among our other security measures, would make such a crime even more unlikely. Even if I had a gun I would not shoot a burglar unless he threatened me or refused to leave.
Lets be more realistic and it turns out to be a robber. BTW ask any cop or DA-if you break into a home in the night time it is presumed you do so with the intent of confronting occupants. Anyone who shoots without first identifying their target is a moron and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law
As to the bolded above; what about lighter and a gasoline can?
You've inserted the "break into" part into my scenario. Nobody broke in. Read again.
The OP scenario involved precognition, so let's not talk about realism.
the scenario:
It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"
Do you want a gun in this scenario?
As to the bolded above; what about lighter and a gasoline can?
the scenario:
It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"
Do you want a gun in this scenario?
I'm curious about how anti-gunners would feel in real, dangerous situations. It's easy to decry the horrors of gun ownership in the safety of your armchair, but if the lives of you and your family were at risk would your convictions still hold?
The scenario:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
The way I see it, if you're anti-gun and would still want a gun to defend yourself in this scenario you're a hypocrite. This isn't an absurd scenario. It happens daily in just about every country in the world. So what say you?
Or just get some bleach and ammonia
the scenario:
It's late at night, you hear someone rummaging around downstairs. Frightened, you scramble to get your gun out of the night stand. You load up the weapon and go to see what's up. You don't know if the burglar is there to just take stuff, kill you, rape you, or all of the above. You creep downstairs to confront the burglar, now in your kitchen. You see their shadow, and level your weapon. The light suddenly flicks on, momentarily blinding you. Reflexively, you pull the trigger. The intruder flinches and cries out, The cry turns into words, "Dad! It's me!"
Do you want a gun in this scenario?
By assault rifle, which fire full automatic, I assume you mean assault weapon, which is a term used to describe skeery looking sporting weapons which do not fire full automatic. One example is the Ruger 10/22, the rifle often used to teach kids gun safety and marksmanship. Since it can be made to look skeery with a few bolt on parts, it is an assault weapon. The civilian version of sniper rifles costs in the $5000 up range, weigh in the 35 to 50 lb range, and ammo is about $5/round. Neither of these is a desirable weapon for a criminal, so you must have some other reason for strongly disliking them. In addition, neither is exactly suitable for concealed carry. Which is also a legitimate and legal use.
I don't buy the argument that a 12 gauge pump is the best home defense weapon, but if that is your choice, go for it. A 12 gauge is better than no weapon at all.
Your other point, no need, no good use, is just not valid, although it is often a talking point among gun banners. The same could be said of your preferred weapon, the cell phone.
No, I'm not referring to automatic weapons. I'm referring to weapons like the AR-15 that fires a .223 - which bullet is not bigger in circumference than a .22 bullet...but the muzzle velocity is much higher, and so does much more damage. There's no NEED for such a weapon in the civilian world. Same thing for modern sniper rifles - there's no NEED for them. There is no real need for a good, law-abiding citizen to have either one. Neither one is really the most suitable for home defense - that is, unless you see the perps a half-klick away and you somehow already know that they ARE going to invade your home. Otherwise, there's no real need for them...
...but sniper rifles are great if you're a bad guy and you want to off some victim from a half mile away.
As far as the .12 gauge goes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Sure, if you and all your family is well-trained using a rifle or handguns, and if they don't have a problem aiming properly in very high-stress situations, sure, go for it. But I would have to think not just for myself and my weapons training, but more importantly for my wife who might have to use it, and she's had very little weapons training. Your reply might be, "well, get her more training!" My reply to that would be that we've got better, more important things to spend our time and money on. Not everybody builds their lives around firearms or has any desire to do so.
I don't think anybody is really as "anti gun" as you think they are.
No, I'm not referring to automatic weapons. I'm referring to weapons like the AR-15 that fires a .223 - which bullet is not bigger in circumference than a .22 bullet...but the muzzle velocity is much higher, and so does much more damage. There's no NEED for such a weapon in the civilian world. Same thing for modern sniper rifles - there's no NEED for them. There is no real need for a good, law-abiding citizen to have either one. Neither one is really the most suitable for home defense - that is, unless you see the perps a half-klick away and you somehow already know that they ARE going to invade your home. Otherwise, there's no real need for them...
...but sniper rifles are great if you're a bad guy and you want to off some victim from a half mile away.
As far as the .12 gauge goes, you and I will have to agree to disagree. Sure, if you and all your family is well-trained using a rifle or handguns, and if they don't have a problem aiming properly in very high-stress situations, sure, go for it. But I would have to think not just for myself and my weapons training, but more importantly for my wife who might have to use it, and she's had very little weapons training. Your reply might be, "well, get her more training!" My reply to that would be that we've got better, more important things to spend our time and money on. Not everybody builds their lives around firearms or has any desire to do so.
Your arguments get less valid the more you repeat them. It was you who misused the term assault rifle. FWIW, the AR 15 style comes in a wide variety of calibers.
Likewise your dislike for the sniper rifle. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded a home or held up a convenience store with a $5000, 50 pound, sniper rifle, especially from a half mile away. Banning them would result in zero reduction in crime.
You do seem to be hung up on need. But that is not a valid argument, either legally of from a pure enjoyment perspective. I have lots of things I don't need. And the 2nd makes no mention of need. I mentioned your cell phone, since you consider it a weapon. No one needs a cell phone. I have no desire to ban them based on need.
Who said I oppose other citizens owning guns? I only oppose those having guns who shouldn't have them in the first place.
Ah. Since I've stated time and time again that I have zero problem with law-abiding citizens being able to own guns, that's silly?
Your arguments get less valid the more you repeat them. It was you who misused the term assault rifle. FWIW, the AR 15 style comes in a wide variety of calibers.
Likewise your dislike for the sniper rifle. As far as I know, no one has ever invaded a home or held up a convenience store with a $5000, 50 pound, sniper rifle, especially from a half mile away. Banning them would result in zero reduction in crime.
You do seem to be hung up on need. But that is not a valid argument, either legally of from a pure enjoyment perspective. I have lots of things I don't need. And the 2nd makes no mention of need. I mentioned your cell phone, since you consider it a weapon. No one needs a cell phone. I have no desire to ban them based on need.
Does it fire the same round as an M-16?