More guns not equal to more deaths

[Ricter]

In the right hands, yes.

And I agree.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So 30 rounds in a, for example, AR-15 isn't really necessary or ideal for home defense.

Unless your home is overtaken by a swarm of armed ninjas.

 

[CaptainObvious]

So 30 rounds in a, for example, AR-15 isn't really necessary or ideal for home defense.

Not unless you're fighting off a mob. A short barrel, 18", shotgun is the best. One with a stock is better than the pistol grip type you see in the movies. 10 ga. will have to much kick. 12 ga. with the right load will do, but at close range a 16 or 20 ga. will do the trick. This of course assuming the intruder hasn't already got the jump on you and doesn't kill your ass while you're trying to find your weapon.

 

[Ricter]

Not unless you're fighting off a mob. A short barrel, 18", shotgun is the best. One with a stock is better than the pistol grip type you see in the movies. 10 ga. will have to much kick. 12 ga. with the right load will do, but at close range a 16 or 20 ga. will do the trick. This of course assuming the intruder hasn't already got the jump on you and doesn't kill your ass while you're trying to find your weapon.

Well said. For the possibility of a scuffle I like to carry:

1 x head
2 x hands
2 x elbows
2 x feet
2 x knees

: )

 

[Tsing Tao]

So 30 rounds in a, for example, AR-15 isn't really necessary or ideal for home defense.

If you are trained with it, it is a better solution. But if you're not, then it isn't.

 

[Tsing Tao]

"The problem is that all the energy on the left is about the gun and none of it is about the underlying problems."

Ok, so you drew a comparison with the right doing the same thing on issues which has nothing to do with the fact that the left spends all it's energy about the gun and not on the underlying problems, but agree the left does it as well on gun control. I'm ok with that. Good ol' Ricter. Not wanting to give an inch - no matter how obvious - unless doing so means he can get a shot in on the other side of the aisle.

 

[Ricter]

Ok, so you drew a comparison with the right doing the same thing on issues which has nothing to do with the fact that the left spends all it's energy about the gun and not on the underlying problems, but agree the left does it as well on gun control. I'm ok with that. Good ol' Ricter. Not wanting to give an inch - no matter how obvious - unless doing so means he can get a shot in on the other side of the aisle.

Not following your argument here. You said the left puts its energy into gun control and not into underlying causes [of street violence].

 

[Tsing Tao]

Not following your argument here. You said the left puts its energy into gun control and not into underlying causes [of street violence].

That's correct. And you responded with all sorts of stuff about taxes, affirmative action, etc. which are unrelated to the topic of gun control. I'm guessing you did this to show that the right will expend lots of energy on stuff while ignoring the underlying cause of those issues, even though that doesn't dispute that the left is guilty of this tactic on the topic of gun control.

 

[Spike Trader]

That the US has more mass shootings that other countries is not in debate. That it is because of the number of guns, and not some other demographic issue (racial, etc), is.

Your heading says 'More Guns Not Equal to More Deaths'.

 

[marcoPolo21]

The problem is that all the energy on the left is about the gun and none of it is about the underlying problems. You can't kill someone with a gun if there are no guns - obviously. But there are guns, and no one can get them all off the street. It's impossible. So going after the people who do obey the law isn't the solution that will provide the real payoff. Unless the solution is to just drive the anti-gun agenda.

one thing that would help

is to make it illegal to manufacture the [hand]guns

and over time there would be less and less and less of them

[there are no quick fixes, which means thinking long term]

marc