Have you seen more gunshot wounds or stabbings in your line of work. If you have seen more knife wounds would you not want to ban all knifes (they are really only good for killing). I did see my tough hillbilly neighbor, a 16 yr old "boy" come up to me after he put a modern shell in his dad's old shotgun. He blew his left thumb off in the woods nearby (I couldn't find it) and asks me, "Does your mom have a Band-Aid? I think I hurt myself." Don't remeber any smell.
I am asking questions to discover some truth (value) through argumentation. How does your point of view account for the type of scenario that may be an issue regarding long barreled Arms and short barreled Arms. According to the anecdotal evidence of a Rifleman, even a short barreled rifle may be as useful as a gun, and easier to use than a long barreled rifle in more dense urban settings.
I can't agree with you on bolt action rifles being obsolete. One clean shot will kill just as one clean shot from a glock handgun will. If people need to fire more then one round to stop a perp, then they need to sharpen their shooting skills prior to using these weapons. Shotguns are not that heavy, I've held a 20 gauge shotgun before and its comparable to holding a 9mm. If an elderly or disabled person can't handle that, they won't be able to handle a handgun anyhow. While I own no weapons, if I did, it would be a shotgun; a most formible weapon and any perp seeing that pointed at them would think twice before attempting to engage me in a fire fight.
Nope. I suggest brushing up on some self-defense courses before pretending to be an authority on the subject. Do not pretend to be an authority, or have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, because you most certainly do not.
Your opinions seem right to you, but don't hold up in the real world, like you would think. Long, bolt action rifles are great shooting at something further off, not when the beast is coming at you close by, as it is with every typical violent crime here. Would you feel threatened by someone 50 to 200 yards away? I normally wouldn't. It does look easy in video games to shoot someone with a bolt gun, and then they go down in one round. Go to a shooting range and see how easy it is to work the bolt on a rifle and hit a moving target. Bring grandma to a gun store and have her hold up any shotgun with one hand and try to aim it. Just because the Terminator could do it doesn't mean everyone can. I don't know if you had a shotgun it could even save you. Where I come from they have a saying. TSTL.
To show some of this I am going to post a few articles one that you will all see about shot placement and caliber. this one is of a large male breaking into a home and being shot in the face and upper chest by 5 rounds of .38 and STILL living. http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2013-01-09/georgia-woman-shoots-intruder-5-times
I'm flattered that you'd think I was pretending to be an authority on the subject, but your flat out wrong. All I know is that all it takes is one shot to kill someone if the bullet fired hits a person in the right place. Do you deny that? If your going to be using weapons, particularly as defensive, you really need to know that your shooting skills are second to none, otherwise you have no business firing a weapon.
Find a self-defense expert that says you "only need to fire one shot or practice more". Until then, refrain from posting on the subject.
New they run around $600, but check for a private seller and you may find a good deal. 22 are simply too small IMO for real self-defence, Ruger also makes a nice compact .380 semi auto, and cheaper in cost I believe they run around $350 new but you can get a deal on the compact 9mm and it runs only about $50 more and has a bit more firepower. Make sure she can pull the slide back on any semiauto handgun she is considering, many smaller women have real trouble with that and they must be able to do it with ease, that is why mine liked the SP101, plus the grip fits her hand real well, add a speed loader and she would be set.
It is easy to see that many are puzzled by not just this but other aspects of American culture and life and the answer is not as simple as one might think. First, it is wrong to interpret or attempt to understand attitude toward guns in the US without sharing in its culture and history and politics which all are the basis for what is the 2nd Amendment. Arguably there are now differences in interpreting the 2nd's meaning, but this is still a more recent development. Just to make it simple, perhaps a bit oversimplified, the US was born out of the barrel of a gun and held that guns are a necessity for a free and independent society. This is an integral part of the American psyche and expecting that to change over a relatively short period of time is not realistic, especially when compelling evidence supports that position (to keep and bear arms) and also shows that prohibitions never bears the intended results. That, like with most human inventions and advances, guns have a negative aspect is not in question. What IS in question is just how bad are those negative aspects and at what cost can they be reduced or eliminated? If the cost can be established both in direct effort and money plus infringement on liberty than we still have to answer if the cost to benefit ration is a good one. After all there are numerous other "bad" things in this world that should be addressed and I argue at far lesser cost and with greater results than ineffective "gun control." Why is the violent crime rate so high in England? Would Aussies like their guns back? Oversimplification.
Yes, I have seen far too many gunshot wounds, both in combat and even here in the good old USA, depends on how much blood is involved and where someone is hit as to what smells you will recieve, iron is a strong smell since it is in your blood, but that is over ridden by the smell of a gut shot and someone is opened up, not much worse than that. Does that satisfy your curiousity?
We are thinking of the taurus 38 for the same reason it fits nicely in her hand and I prefer the caliber more then the .380. Plus we have snakes every now and then we can fire snake shots out of it which is a good alternative. lol
This is not true. You just need to have a working knowledge of the weapon, be able to place a bullet in a reasonable area at a reasonable distance (I usually say that this needs to be an 8.5x11" sheet of paper at 10 yards), and know how to maintain the weapon. Expecting everyone to be an Annie Oakley is unreasonable and even I am not that good. You are now trying to place the bar so freaking high that it is unattainable by anyone and is thus a de facto ban from usage if "second to none" is the standard of "accurate". Not cool.
I think you know enough about guns to serve on NY Gov. Pataki's anit-gun policy advisory board. You are at least as well informed as he is.
I guess I like to err on the side of safety. If your skills are not the best, you could concievably put others at risk when firing your weapon. The bar may be high, but when it comes to safety, one should demand the best. .
Actually I'd be honored to serve on that committee, although I think I might be too extreme on my views to serve on it, since I don't feel we need handguns in the hands of civilians period and i'm sure that would not go over well with the current makeup of the committee.
If you are getting old and your reaction time isn't what it was 25 years ago, you could conceivably kill someone with your car. I can understand your argument if you put it towards Police, but everyone? Using that logic, we should implement reaction time tests along with vision tests when renewing a persons drivers license just to make sure their reaction time is "good enough" for driving. Or how about just getting rid of all 65+ year old drivers during rush hour. They, since the vast majority being retired and not working, really have no use for driving during rush hour. Outlaw people that don't need to be on the road between 0600-0900 and 1500-1800 in major cities. It will help with rush hour collisions and traffic congestion. You can't get rid of the rights of some people while allowing for another set to have them. If you do, then you create two classes of people and another social divide that will further polarize the country.
Why not have proficiency/reaction tests for those wishing to possess handguns? They have to qualify every year in order to maintain their permits to own a handgun. Btw, I do think that for those 65 and over having to undergo reaction times tests along with vision test in order to be able to drive vehicles is probably an idea with alot of merit to it. Regulating times for driving during rush hour may be possible, although it would be labor intensive since many people might work the second or third shift and figuring out different parts of the state where this would be feasible up to a point. You can't get rid of the rights of some people while allowing for another set to have them. If you do, then you create two classes of people and another social divide that will further polarize the country.[/QUOTE] We already have that if you think about it. Convicted felons are in essence 2nd class citizens, since they cannot own any fireams, cannot possess any federal or state licences, cannot serve in various public agencies, etc. I believe the country is already polarized politically and it will take years to end the divide; most likely the next generation of adults will see the light and learn to work together instead of fighting.
I agree better knowledge of your weapon and shooting of your weapon is benificial, however to put a high standard on everyone will not go with everyone. I drive a motorcycle better then I drive my truck but I shouldnt be told because of that I can no longer own my truck. I have shot bbguns better then i shoot a shotgun (Pesky birds!! lol) BUT I dont plan to use a bbgun for home defense no matter where I shoot the person. You also have to understand if stress situations when someone is in your home and you start to fear what their intentions are you might not shoot 1 inch apart in a 3 inch proximity like when you are at the range thinking and breathing normally.
[/Quote]We already have that if you think about it. Convicted felons are in essence 2nd class citizens, since they cannot own any fireams, cannot possess any federal or state licences, cannot serve in various public agencies, etc. I believe the country is already polarized politically and it will take years to end the divide; most likely the next generation of adults will see the light and learn to work together instead of fighting.[/QUOTE] I like your communist quotes by Debs. As socialist/liberal/communist---whatever you call yourself, you won't creat a classless utopia without tramplings others underfoot. Violent felons, especially the most dangerous ones, Don't deserve to own or have guns. They don't even deserve 2nd class status. However, since most felons support democrats/socialists some 90% of the time, they are useful to your political ends. The only way to end the political divide in this country and achieve some fantasy classless society is do what your Marxist heroes did to their opponents.
