Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as “why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don’t get me started on seatbelts!” It isn’t even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with “tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr”. I could make a case for it in home protection …but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine…like driving a car.
/WastingBreath
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I’m sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
I’m willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I’ll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
I’m very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Yup, we both agree on requiring training and other checks to be allowed to carry a gun.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I’m sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
Never said it was a slam dunk, I said it has merit. It is something that happened and as someone that has a lot training and been in confrontations, tazers are not reliable (most are pain compliance tools and that is NOT viable) and good ones are bulkier than a small pistol, pepper spray is tricky and conditional (I carry it so I have an option outside my pistol or to handle aggressive animals without having to kill someone’s pet), and small physical weapons (especially knives) are truly absurd to even suggest outside VERY well trained and practiced hands. She has a knife…we went to my buddy’s gym and grabbed a training knife, painted the edge with pink paint, and squared off. In a well-lit room, with a count down, from the front, and alone, I took the knife and pinned her 5 out of 5 times in a row with her getting a mark on my elbow in one and the back of my arm in another (before she was so gassed out she called it). This was against me, a person whose top priority was her safety during the demonstration. I didn’t throw rocks or sand at her face using the approach, I didn’t punch her in the mouth shattering her teeth, I didn’t stomp her kneecap, I didn’t grab her knife hand and break her wrist. I suppose she could hope an attacker is slower, weaker, and never fought before so she has a chance to get some stabs in before getting killed…
I’m willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I’ll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
Again, we agree
I’m very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
I don’t think there is any call for “exceptionally dangerous guns”. I am very pro-pistol as a self-defense tool (with training and licensing). Shotguns and M4 style weapons even have an arguable use case in home defense(open carry of any weapon, especially shotguns and “ar"s is just dumb no matter the situation)…but insane"Imma gonna fight the gubment!” weapons are a bit absurd.
ANYWAY, I think we have said our peace and we all know this topic goes nowhere every time. Hopefully the ones calling the shots can actually find a happy middle ground that we can all look at together, sigh, and say “ok, I think that should work well enough”.
