Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I gave you an example of their constructive use. I disproved the argument that they have no legitmate use. The riot example is not the best example or the best argument, but it is enough to disprove your argument that these "types" of guns are totally unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, without answering my second question in my previous post you're not disproving anything. For assault weapons (not fully-automatic assault rifles) to be necessary, I argue that they must have some positive ability that other weapons don't. So, again, couldn't the shop owners have defended themselves with something like a glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but probably not as effectively. Please define what differentiates an "assult" weapon from a "happy-peaceful fun" weapon too.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So, again, couldn't the shop owners have defended themselves with something like a glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you're actually curious, I will answer you. Handguns are sufficient for immediate personal defense only. You can't defend property with them because to be honest you can only hit something about 10 or 20 feet away, despite what you may see in the movies.

So you need a rifle. Which rifle is a matter of preference, but what would fit the needs of a defender of a house or business would seem to be one that is reliable, easy to operate, and will hold enough ammunition to ward off multiple assailants.

An AR-15 has these qualities, a bolt action action rifle that holds 3 rounds does not. A shotgun may be appropriate for close quarters or short distances, but quickly becomes useless as the area to be covered increases.

Also these shop owners were defending their stores, not just their persons.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

Not at all.

First, are you saying that AR-15s are legal because of the LA riots? I find that hard to believe. I don't think that a one-day-civil-war-like example, like the LA riots, will convince me of anything. That was a very unique happening and not representative for society in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't buy an AK-47 or AR-15 to use every day, you buy it in case the [censored] really hits the fan.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

Also - how would an American approach getting a normal handgun, like the glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

In Florida I would walk into a gun store, show ID, fill out the proper form, pay for the gun, come back 3 days later and pick it up and walk out with it. If I had a concealed carry permit I would be allowed to walk out with it the same day.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't defend property with them because to be honest you can only hit something about 10 or 20 feet away, despite what you may see in the movies.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the range of a glock is limited, it is certainly possible to use it beyond ranges of 20 feet.

[ QUOTE ]
...and will hold enough ammunition to ward off multiple assailants.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are talking about angry, but normal, people here, right? They're not zombies that will walk towards you until they fall. I would think that if you fire towards a group of people with any firearm, they run. I'm still not convinced that a handgun with a 20 bullet clip isn't sufficient.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Also - how would an American approach getting a normal handgun, like the glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would buy one from a private seller so that the government wouldn't have any of my information, although they already have a ton of info on me and I have bought from a dealer in the past.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't defend property with them because to be honest you can only hit something about 10 or 20 feet away, despite what you may see in the movies.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the range of a glock is limited, it is certainly possible to use it beyond ranges of 20 feet.

[ QUOTE ]
...and will hold enough ammunition to ward off multiple assailants.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are talking about angry, but normal, people here, right? They're not zombies that will walk towards you until they fall. I would think that if you fire towards a group of people with any firearm, they run. I'm still not convinced that a handgun with a 20 bullet clip isn't sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

A kia is sufficient, rice and beans and veggies and fish are sufficient, a single room in a rooming house is sufficient. Some people want a van and more variety in the food they eat and larger living quarters.

When we are talking about defending ourselves, why is it good or reasonable to go with the minimumly sufficent option? (assuming for the sake of argument your correct and people would flee when the glock is brandished)

If a few guys do happen to also have glocks, the store owner is the one that is going to be running, you realize that right? But he does not have to run with a semi auto rifle and the people with the glocks will run past when they see it in his hands.... and go find an easier target.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
If a few guys do happen to also have glocks, the store owner is the one that is going to be running, you realize that right? But he does not have to run with a semi auto rifle and the people with the glocks will run past when they see it in his hands.... and go find an easier target.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if they go find an easier target - what good did the assault weapon really do? Someone still got looted.

Second of all, I think you overestimate the random looter's ability to evaluate his chances. They are angry and they want to create mayhem. Unfortunately, because of the American gun culture, they also have guns available.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter who shoots who. The statistics, that point out an obvious flaw somewhere, certainly don't. The second someone opens fire, the system has already failed.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
bluesbass: What is your reason for owning an AR-15? (I'm just wondering)

Also - how would an American approach getting a normal handgun, like the glock?

[/ QUOTE ]

I own an AR-15 mainly because I simply enjoy target shooting with it. Also, if as a last resort, I needed to defend myself against serious civil unrest or government tyranny, it's an effective weapon -- but not necessarily any more so than other semi-auto rifles not classified as "assault weapons."

To buy a "regular" handgun from a store, it depends upon which state you live. I'm not sure of the procedure in my state, because I only buy my firearms from private sellers which have no paper trail. I believe it typically involves at least showing ID and undergoing an instant computer background check.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the range of a glock is limited, it is certainly possible to use it beyond ranges of 20 feet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to a firing range and rent a pistol for 50 bucks or whatever and shoot some targets like on tv that you can zoom farther away and closer. You will quickly find out that you can't hit [censored]. It's really quite amazing.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, if they go find an easier target - what good did the assault weapon really do? Someone still got looted.

Second of all, I think you overestimate the random looter's ability to evaluate his chances. They are angry and they want to create mayhem. Unfortunately, because of the American gun culture, they also have guns available.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter who shoots who. The statistics, that point out an obvious flaw somewhere, certainly don't. The second someone opens fire, the system has already failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) "someone" is a lot different than "you".
o) I would say the system has already failed when rioting starts, personally. As far as your opinion that it doesn't matter who shoots who, maybe you might want to look into "criminal" vs. "potential victim". Me, if someone is gonna bash my head in with a brick, I'd much rather have him shot than me dying of a bashed in head. Maybe we should ask a guy named reginald denny I think was his name - oh, wait, we can't ask him cause he got killed when a rioter pulled him out of his car and bashed his brains in with a brick. Well at least the police weren't there cause then they might have shot the rioter and then we'd have 2 people hurt, and everybody knows 2 people hrut is much worse than 1 person hurt. 2 is worse than 1. so 1 must be good. yes, it was good that some random white guy driving along got killed, yes, yes