This question is often asked by gun control advocates. Why does someone need an "assault" weapons? What logical reason is there for owning one? It deserves an honest answer. View attachment 17370 I purchased a Mossberg 500 12 gauge pump action shotgun with a folding stock as shown in the attached photo. This shotgun meets two of the "criteria" for an "assault" weapon because it has a pistol grip and a folding stock and would be banned by most "assault weapon" laws being proposed. So why in the world did I believe that I needed it? Well, here's the truth. I purchased it for my second wife that is handicapped for self-defense. She has limited mobility (i.e. she can't run) and the greatest fear is that she would be home alone at night in bed when an intruder breaks into the house. The shotgun is kept loaded (without a round chambered) next to the head of the bed (slightly concealed). The intruder would probably wake her allowing her a few moments to grab the gun. Assuming the intruder comes down the hall to the bedroom we wanted a firearm with a distinctive sound and nothing in the world sounds like the pump action of a 12 gauge when a round is chambered. The hope is that the sound alone will stop the intruder from entering the bedroom. The stock is folding because trying to bring a fully stocked 12 gauge to bear on a target is cumbersome to say the least. The folded stock and pistol grip (which is necessary to even hold the gun with the stock folded) allows her the ability to aim the shotgun. The shotgun also has a light, similiar to a flashlight (not a targeting laser) to illuminate the "target" to prevent an accidental shooting of someone that isn't an intruder. All of this is actually to prevent having to actually shoot someone. The sound alone should logically stop the intruder from entering the bedroom and hopefully the intruder will leave the home immediately. The folding stock and pistol grip are absolutely necessary to allow the firearm to be used while laying in bed and the attached light is because the situation is assumed to be in the dark. All of this is exclusively about a woman defending herself from an attack. It's not about shooting anyone although she unquestionably would if the intruder didn't flee and attempted to attack her while she's in bed. Yes, she could own a 9 mm Glock but the odds are much greater that she'd actually have to shoot a person if that was the weapon of choice. That sound of a 12 gauge chambering a round alone is worth ten 9 mm Glock pistols when it comes to deterring a person from entering a room. Now, this is the logical explanation and I'd challenge any gun control advocate to explain why she should be denied the use of this firearm to defend herself from a person that would break into her home and possibly rape and kill her. She has a necessity for this "assault" weapon that would be prohibited if we based gun control upon the appearance of a firearm.
As noted the necessity for this "assault" weapon is for self-defense in the home and it was the best possible firearm I could find for that purpose. It is both safe and deadly. It avoids accidental shooting and it's intent is to prevent having to use it at all. Additionally, because it's a shotgun as opposed to something like a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, if it ever was used it is highly unlikely that a neighbor could accidently be killed or wounded. The walls would stop the shotgun pellets but they won't stop a round from a 9 mm. This "assault" weapon is all about safety and self-defense and is not a sporting weapon or a a hunting weapon. It's exclusively about my wife protecting herself from acts of aggression by a criminal and it gives her a fighting chance to survive any encounter as described. Hopefully she'll never need to use it, ever, and that is the point of owning it. Could the same weapon be used for nefarious purposes? Absolutely but that is because of the intent of the person and not because of the "appearance" of the firearm. The firearm is functional based upon it's intended design and it's the best possible firearm IMHO for that purpose. It was not designed to kill people in a theater or a school anymore than an automobile being designed to kill people on the highway. It's is designed for self-defense in a home, period.
I had never considered the reasons that one would choose such a weapon.... but when you break it down to the specifics.. its a good choice. I'm not really a gun person.. as my experience is limited to duck hunting and skeet shooting.. but I intend to share your information with my brothers. Thanks. I will be curious as to what other gun owners have to say.
I dunno where you live, but if you're really worried about someone breaking into your house and killing people, the answer isn't to buy a gun, the answer is to move. Your ability to own this gun, means that this gun is being manufactured in large quantities which means it is highly available to anyone, including criminals. That is why all guns must be banned.
What does banning guns do about the 300 million that are already on the street? The criminals already have guns and you have no right to tell me that I can't protect my family. Now about the "assault" weapon. The AR15 is the most popular rifle used in shooting competitions across America. Hundreds of thousands of us participate in shooting sports. How would you like politicians to tell you that you can no longer enjoy your favorite lawful activity?
Where? I'm unaware of anywhere in the United States were burgleries/home break-ins don't occur. Break-ins even occur in gated communities with armed security guards. Criminals (i.e. convicted felons) are already prohibited from owning firearms but then criminals don't typically follow the law so these laws are ignored by them. Of course can could ban all firearms but a person with even limited skill can still manufacture a firearm in their garage. It might be illegal but the criminal doesn't care about that. There is also the misuse of information by both gun control and gun rights groups related to homicides. Gun control isn't the determining factor in the murder rates of a nation. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html The problem isn't the firearms but instead the culture of violence in the United States. We have a high culture of violence, higher than many other countries but lower than some, and it is the culture of violence that needs to be addressed. Yes, my wife has an "assault" weapon based upon appearnace that is solely for the purpose of preventing a murder or killing of anyone because, like all Americans, any of us can be the victim of violence. If a burgler breaks into her home it doesn't even matter if they have a gun, or a knife, or their bare hands, she would probably not be able to defend herself against such an attacker that was intent upon raping and killing her. That is a FACT. At the sametime, because she does have an "assault" weapon, she can defend herself if necessary and hopefully would never have to even use it against an home invader. As noted there is no sound more distinctive than a round being chambered in a 12 gauge shotgun and hopefully that sound alone would encourage the intruder to leave the home without the shotgun ever being fired.
What you are saying is completely ridiculous and I hear it out of all of you little gun control advocates. The government media has scared you my friend, they have given you an illusion but what the truth is that the vast majority of gun related homicides are done with illegal guns, which very few of them are stolen, most of them are smuggled into this country. Now go ahead, come back with another foolish gun control "statistic", but keep in mind that the second amendmant keeps the government from walking all over us more than they allready do, that is why they want to take it away.
The USA is deeply, deeply sick. Why are you all so terrified of your neighbours, but for the fact that the death-merchants arm them to the teeth?
Gradually, through harsh penalties for gun ownership and buyback programs, most of those guns can be reclaimed. easy. shooting facilities will be allowed to rent guns to those of you who want to shoot.
Why? Against democracy, are we? Or just capitalist government? In the latter case, I see what you mean, but taking power by the working majority will be a tough fight.
actually, that's not true. most guns used in crimes come from domestic sources. It used to be that we could track these guns to a handful of bad acting dealers. But now we don't know, since you gun nuts have stopped the government from tracking guns. - - - Updated - - - you first
Through most of there actions, they have shown us that there pockets are more important than the people, and that they would do a lot more than you think to reach that goal of boalstering there pockets and consolidating power away from the people
So whenever criminals move into the neighborhood or target a particular area, we must move? That's the most short-sighted claptrap I've heard in a really long time. Are you british?
they may occur, but they are fairly rare. In most communities, the chances of you being murdered during a home break-in is extremely low. that's cause the laws are not enforced because the pro-gun lobby in washington has weakened the laws tremendously, and have gutted enforcement. It's all about availability. Manufacturing a gun yourself takes a lot more time/energy/skill than buying one. And it would be difficult to manufacture one that would be effective enough to commit mass murder. Of course we wont prevent all criminals from having guns. The goal is to make them as unavailable as possible. there is no such thing as a 'determining factor' for murder rates, since murder rates are determined by many many factors. But gun availability IS certainly a factor, and thus something that must be done to address it. Of course, other things have to be done too (increased taxes for police funding, social programs for the mentally ill, etc) That's funny. that's really funny. First you cite America's "culture of violence." Then you say--well, my wife has a high powered shotgun so she can blow a guy's brains out if she wants to!! Dude--people like you ARE the main problem in America's culture of violence. The culture of violence isn't watching Tom Cruise on TV running from a building as it blows up in the background. The culture of violence is people like you--who fantasize about using a gun to blow off an intruder's head.
Agreed they are everywhere, which is why more people should legaly own guns too deter any government from making a step from corrupt to tyranical.
Doesn't work, as my family found out in the 1830s and 1840s. One good strike is much more effective than all the bang-bangs. The Americans won because most ordinary British supported them during the French War, but they've been confused ever since.
there is nothing about this government that is "tyranical" - we have a democracy--we vote every 2 years for what we want. You only consider it a tyranny cause your guy didn't win. That's isn't a tyranny. It's simply called--losing an election--and you know what--it's supposed to suck when you lose an election. You're just being a sore loser. You need to calm down.
Acrually, I did not vote as I have lost faith in the political figures of late. They are all just after your pockets, they are not for the people.
I am failing to see any point you are trying to make here, nothing in this post has anything to do with what I am saying.
Well, I actually agree with many of the things the government is doing--and I wish it would do more. I wish it would raise taxes and spend MORE money. But that's another story. In any case, this is a diverse country, with people of many different preferences. And that's why we have a democracy. But just because you lost an election and the government is doing things you dont like, doesn't mean it gives you the right to take up a gun and start shooting people. Because many other people agree with many of the things the government is doing, and WE have voices too. But as civilized people, we don't threaten other people with guns. We threaten them with our political power and vote.
I didn't lose anything, I threatened no one and I have not picked up a firearm and shot anyone. You are now talking like a fool and have shown just how afraid of something that you obviously know nothing about(guns). You also continue to spew steriotipical statements about gun owners living in the wild west type of society, therefor because of your incompetant state of mind I see no real reason trying to debate anything with what you might think as reality.
