Guns used for lawful self defense

[Jason]

Do they have guns in France? Mebbe a few matchlocks hidden away in caches for the next revolution?

[Svartalf]

we have twin barrel shotguns

[Jason]

Dreilings! Talk to your German friends, they can hook you up.

[Seth]

See my new gun?

Oh is this the part where we post guns?!

Here is the newest addition to my family:

Assault rifles are neat. I appreciate them, but in a different way from other firearms. I don't own any and I can't think of a reason why I would want to. They're terrible for home defense, despite what Seth says, they're not nearly as practical for hunting as any of the thousands of options in hunting rifles, they're no good for target shooting (unless it's restricted to assault weapons which sort of defeats the purpose), so why own one? Besides going plinking and wasting 30 rounds in a few seconds that is.

Nonsense. I hunt with my LaRue OBR, I just have to use a staked 5 round magazine, and it shoots sub-MOA groups at 1000 yards, so it's GREAT for target shooting...or shooting other stuff at long range.

The reason to own one is that while there are specific firearms that do specific jobs better (like a single-shot match rifle in .22), a semi-automatic "assault rifle" (which is a misnomer) is reasonably good at EVERY shooting job, including home defense, national defense, hunting and sport shooting. So if one is going to have ONLY ONE firearm, it's by far the best all-purpose weapon to have.

Now it's true that for long-range precision shooting I use my bolt-action Sako TRG-42, and for elk hunting I use my Steyr Scout Rifle because it's lightweight and fast, and for bird hunting I use a shotgun, and for personal defense in public I use an H&K USP Compact .45, and I supplement home defense with pistol, rifle AND shotgun, but we were discussing a ONE GUN household, and in that calculus, an "assault weapon" is the most flexible and effective type of long gun available.

[Blind groper]

Is it wrong that I'm pro gun because I love to shoot the hell out of paper silhouettes and cans and fruits and old appliances?

You can be anything you like. The reason I am anti-hand gun is that I am pro-human life. While hand guns are not the biggest cause of loss of life, they are one of the most preventable. The loss of 20,000 people a year to hand gun homicide and suicide, and the maiming of another 80,000 people every year, simply because there is a weird attitude towards guns in the USA is just wrong!

If a firearm has a legitimate use, like hunting for the table, or if it is a non lethal target shooting hobby, then there can be no concern. However, hand guns are not designed for that. They are designed for one purpose only - killing people. And hand guns account for 50% of all murders and 60% of all suicides in the USA. For that reason, I oppose their distribution to anyone other than the police.

I really do not care even about Seth's military weapons. Such weapons barely register in the homicide statistics, and so, of someone wants to collect them, it seems to do little harm.

I have posted (from reputable peer reviewed journals) the fact that having a hand gun in the home increases the probability that a family member will be murdered by 300%, and that one will successfully suicide by 400%. I have posted (from reputable peer reviewed journals) material from Yale and Harvard respectively, showing that Seth's two assertions are wrong.
1. That concealed carry reduces crime.
2. That there are 2.5 million successful self defense actions each year in the USA.

The idea that a hand gun is effective for self defense is overwhelmed by the increased risks. Hand guns increase death. They do not reduce death. As a person who believes that human life is the most precious of all things (there is no after-life) I conclude that hand guns should not be distributed to anyone other than police.

[Svartalf]

Pro human life? Man, I've become jaded, callous and cynical about the value of yahoo life for' longer than half my life... It's a shame, but there are quite a lot of bipeds that I don't classify as humans, even though a naturalist would put them in the genus homo, and the life of a chav or other noxious brainless pest is valueless to me as soon as the critter becomes a nuisance... so if I ever need to defend myself against such, I do prefer to have lethal force available at once than risk my life and limb waiting for socially approved wielders of force, many of whom are not worth a whit more than the ones bothering me, to come to my help, if they do.

[Blind groper]

Svartalf

If you need to defend yourself, that is fine.
However, the use of lethal force is a last resort. Or should be. If I have to defend myself, and I have had to, my first resort is to use my intelligence, and try to communicate with my potential attacker. I have done that on several occasions, and found that I could talk my way out, and no harm done. Lethal force is something that anyone who is intelligent and competent will use only as a last possible resort.

[Seth]

Is it wrong that I'm pro gun because I love to shoot the hell out of paper silhouettes and cans and fruits and old appliances?

You can be anything you like. The reason I am anti-hand gun is that I am pro-human life. While hand guns are not the biggest cause of loss of life, they are one of the most preventable. The loss of 20,000 people a year to hand gun homicide and suicide, and the maiming of another 80,000 people every year, simply because there is a weird attitude towards guns in the USA is just wrong!

If a firearm has a legitimate use, like hunting for the table, or if it is a non lethal target shooting hobby, then there can be no concern. However, hand guns are not designed for that. They are designed for one purpose only - killing people. And hand guns account for 50% of all murders and 60% of all suicides in the USA. For that reason, I oppose their distribution to anyone other than the police.

I really do not care even about Seth's military weapons. Such weapons barely register in the homicide statistics, and so, of someone wants to collect them, it seems to do little harm.

I have posted (from reputable peer reviewed journals) the fact that having a hand gun in the home increases the probability that a family member will be murdered by 300%, and that one will successfully suicide by 400%. I have posted (from reputable peer reviewed journals) material from Yale and Harvard respectively, showing that Seth's two assertions are wrong.
1. That concealed carry reduces crime.
2. That there are 2.5 million successful self defense actions each year in the USA.

The idea that a hand gun is effective for self defense is overwhelmed by the increased risks. Hand guns increase death. They do not reduce death. As a person who believes that human life is the most precious of all things (there is no after-life) I conclude that hand guns should not be distributed to anyone other than police.

[Seth]

Svartalf

If you need to defend yourself, that is fine.
However, the use of lethal force is a last resort. Or should be. If I have to defend myself, and I have had to, my first resort is to use my intelligence, and try to communicate with my potential attacker. I have done that on several occasions, and found that I could talk my way out, and no harm done. Lethal force is something that anyone who is intelligent and competent will use only as a last possible resort.

Which you can't do at need if you're not properly armed before you are attacked by someone. Duh.

"Please wait Mr. Criminal, I know I haven't been able to talk you out of raping my wife and daughter and then butchering us all, so I need to go arm myself so I can shoot you as a last possible resort."

[Svartalf]

Svartalf

If you need to defend yourself, that is fine.
However, the use of lethal force is a last resort. Or should be. If I have to defend myself, and I have had to, my first resort is to use my intelligence, and try to communicate with my potential attacker. I have done that on several occasions, and found that I could talk my way out, and no harm done. Lethal force is something that anyone who is intelligent and competent will use only as a last possible resort.

IF I have to defend myself, not that I expect it much, I'd rather that the means wherewith to effect the action were available and in easy reach... as it is, a "nanny" that can't even effectively protect me at need is telling me that I can't have my toys... more because they are afraid that some of us might rise in revolt against the corrupt in charge than for any acceptable reason. and I know for trying to communicate with yahoos under pacific circumstances that they are yahoos, and thus unreceptive to communication and meaningful intercourse. I trust my intelligence to determine when lethal force is a good idea, and I know the kind of biped with which it is likely to be.

[Blind groper]

The problem with the self defense logic is that hand guns kill a lot more people who are members of the family, than they save. So the self defense logic fails in line with the numbers.

If you rely on non firearm methods of defense, meaning your brain (if you have one), then the probability of your family members surviving actually increases. Having a hand gun in the home increases the odds of murder and suicide.

[aspire1670]

Svartalf

If you need to defend yourself, that is fine.
However, the use of lethal force is a last resort. Or should be. If I have to defend myself, and I have had to, my first resort is to use my intelligence, and try to communicate with my potential attacker. I have done that on several occasions, and found that I could talk my way out, and no harm done. Lethal force is something that anyone who is intelligent and competent will use only as a last possible resort.

IF I have to defend myself, not that I expect it much, I'd rather that the means wherewith to effect the action were available and in easy reach... as it is, a "nanny" that can't even effectively protect me at need is telling me that I can't have my toys... more because they are afraid that some of us might rise in revolt against the corrupt in charge than for any acceptable reason. and I know for trying to communicate with yahoos under pacific circumstances that they are yahoos, and thus unreceptive to communication and meaningful intercourse. I trust my intelligence to determine when lethal force is a good idea, and I know the kind of biped with which it is likely to be.

Shorter Svartalf: if I ever get out of my armchair......

[Svartalf]

No purpose going to the range if you ain't got nothing to shoot, is there?

[JimC]

Home, home on the range...

Where the crazed gun nutters do graze...

And seldom is heard

An intelligent word...

As they blaze away every day!

[Jason]

I haven't seen or heard a good argument from the anti-gun camp yet.