TheHammer24 wrote:Just so we're all clear, we all know that you're unbelievably more likely to shoot and kill yourself with the gun than you are to ever use it to shoot an intruder, right?
Shyster wrote:TheHammer24 wrote:Just so we're all clear, we all know that you're unbelievably more likely to shoot and kill yourself with the gun than you are to ever use it to shoot an intruder, right?
Are you referring to the Kellerman study and its claim that a gun in the home is “43 times” more likely to shoot someone in the family than a criminal? That study is massively flawed and misleading. For only one refutation, see: http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml.
For just one example of the study’s flaws, Kellerman only counted people shot and killed by firearms. The vast majority of family members shot by a gun in the home are suicides, and a gun suicide is quite likely to be fatal. Around 90% of suicide attempts with guns are successful—a gun to the temple or to the roof of the mouth will do that. On the other hand, not nearly that percentage of intruders and criminals shot by homeowners die, and many cases of defensive gun usage do not involve shots fired at all. Do we judge police officers my how many criminals they kill? No, we judge them on criminals caught and crimes averted. Then why should be judge gun owners only on killing criminals? The study was biased from the start to produce a high, headline-grabbing ratio that could be used to justify gun-control measures.
TheHammer24 wrote:FYI: My brother competes in rifle and owns a gun. I've shot one recently. Doesn't do much for me, but he loves it. I have no problem with it, I guess, but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.
TheHammer24 wrote:....but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.
tifosi77 wrote:There are what I believe to be common sense laws that I support. Fingerprinting guns at the factory, for one thing. (Not necessarily an effective tool in tracking criminals, but to me it's such a minor thing to do.) Mandatory proof of financial responsibility in case of an accident (i.e. insurance), minimum annual competency requirements, shoring up the background check process, etc.
Pitt87 wrote:For home defense, I have a Remington 20 gauge shotgun stashed under the bed rail. I have four shells in my bedstand; two short brass bird loads and two slugs... two slowers, and two stoppers.
I don't own a handgun, but I've fired enough to have lots of semi auto slides jam after two quick taps. I like revolvers for that reason, and don't really know if/why you might need more than 6 rounds, unless you needs more for a tactical reason (law enforcement?).
ffemtreed wrote:As for ballistic fingerprinting, the technology just isn't there to support that and only increases costs of guns to the legal law abiding citizens that want to own them. After the first 500 rounds fired from a gun out of the factory the ballistic makeup is completly changed, the firing pin is changed, the extractor marks are changed. Now even if it didn't change, how to run a search on such microscopic detail against millions and millions of potential suspect guns.
tifosi77 wrote:TheHammer24 wrote:....but I do think liberal gun laws lead to the proliferation of them among bad guys.
I live in a state and city that has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the nation. I've seen some studies that indicate as many as 80% of people who commit crimes with guns are not legally permitted to own one. I've seen others that show the rate of gun crimes committed by legally purchased firearms by the legal owner is somewhere in the sub-1% region.
And yet.... the 'bad guys' have plenty of guns.
I just don't understand the line of thought that if a gun is easier to obtain legally, then people who intend to use the gun for ill purposes will be more inclined to get their guns at the local FFL.
ffmtrend wrote:Its almost unheard of actually. But yet people want to create laws and place burdens on people to prevent problems that don't exist in the first place.
TheHammer24 wrote:Shaf, tifosi, Shy, and FFM, I'm really more on your side than you think. Let me explain.
I agree with your observations, but I would respond that the fact that cigarettes are legal for people 18+ makes it easier for people under 18 to obtain them. Indeed, cigarettes are easier to obtain than marijuana, which is illegal for everyone. But in California, where it is legal for some people, I again bet it is much easier for those that shouldn't have it to obtain. In other words, the operative inquiry isn't whether those that are prohibited from possessing guns are the ones committing crimes, but rather, are they able to get guns because guns are abundantly available for other people in this country.
Shaf is entirely right--gun control limits the guns to those that shouldn't have them. (Shaf and I have recently agreed to an uncomfortable extent). So even if the U.S. completely outlaws guns, some bad guys will have them. We still have cocaine and opium in this country; I'm not naive. As I also said, I think guns are enjoyable for a lot of people, and I don't have a problem with it. So really the operative question is: "will gun control laws reduce their nefarious use greater than the decrease in utility suffered by those that enjoy them"?
Guns are fun; that's fine. And I mean suffer--why punish them? I just absolutely reject the "if it saves one life argument." That's not fair--we could save 1,000,000 lives my outlawing cars, but we don't do it because they are utility-enhancing.
As for my conclusions? I think our liberal laws proliferate guns, but I probably agree with ffm in the end.
There's just such a reactionary and unnecessary. We should probably just maintain the status quo. I don't think we can really eliminate all the guns we have here now. Maybe we could slowly try to limit all handguns, and that would have a good effect, but I'm not sure.
Rylan wrote:Utopia would be boring.
Anyways, yea Maryland has crazy gun laws. And yet, still is a terrible state
Think this is going to be my next purchase. 45/410 rounds? yes please!
shafnutz05 wrote:Yeah I'm pretty much in tif's boat. I'm all for "common sense" laws regarding guns, but I am pretty vehemently against most forms of actual gun control. And I have no issue with felons, etc not being allowed to own firearms. That is a "common sense" law.
ffemtreed wrote:The status quo would be Ok if everyone followed the same standards, I don't mind a quick background check to purchase a gun but you have places like Illinois, California, Maryland, DC, Hawaii, and New York who have overly oppressive laws that make it time consuming and difficult to own firearms or get a CCW.
ffemtreed wrote:mac5155 wrote:
Think this is going to be my next purchase. 45/410 rounds? yes please!
Not a good idea in my personal opinion unless your shooting snakes or groundhogs.
The .410 2.5" shells for self defense are pretty new and not proven at all. They use some gimmicks to try and make them more effective such as plastic discs in the shell and etc. The judge also has some quality control problems that are inherent to most modern Taurus brand firearms. If you do get one, make sure you put it through its paces on the range. The .45LC rounds are good as long as you can find self defense rounds.
As I said earlier don't think you don't have to aim, or aim isn't as important with shotshells. Most of the .410 personal defsnse rounds now use 3 pellets of 000 buck and a couple plastic discs. at 5 yards (15ft) the spread is only about 6 inches and usually you only get a few of the projectiles on target when you aim at center mass (heart).
My biggest problem with the judge is that its HUGE and very hard to control when fired, it just doesn't fit in your hands well unless you got bear paws.
I would suggest if you want a revolver for self defense check out the rugers or smith and wessons and get something in .357mag.
The Judge and S/W Governor are fun to place with at the range and blow watermelons up with but you defiantly don't want to carry one everyday and there are more proven self defense calibers out there.
Users browsing this forum: PghSkins and 4 guests