Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Rezzy]

I know and I acknowledge that as a valid and legitimate reason for gun ownership. My opinions on gun control don't fall under 'should people be allowed to own guns' (well, mostly don't fall under) but 'should X type of gun be available for purchase'. Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant city-slicker, but I don't see why semi-automatic weapons and other assorted weaponry should be so easily obtainable by the masses when every reason for owning a gun (like the one you mentioned) seem easily doable with hunting rifles and handguns.

The problem is many hunting rifles could easily be used as weapons of mass murder. Most deer rifles have a large caliber because it is deemed inhumane to try to kill them with anything smaller. Hunting is a big part of the culture of rural America; that's why people tend to get so defensive when they feel their guns are threatened.

[spoiler=This is advertised as a deer hunting rifle.]

[Time the Crestfallen]

The problem is many hunting rifles could easily be used as weapons of mass murder. Most deer rifles have a large caliber because it is deemed inhumane to try to kill them with anything smaller. Hunting is a big part of the culture of rural America; that's why people tend to get so defensive when they feel their guns are threatened.

[spoiler=This is advertised as a deer hunting rifle.]

You mean to tell me that hunting rifles don't all look antique? Everything I know is a lie.

I'd say that any gun has potential to be used for mass murder. The military isn't running around hacking at people with swords and axes for a reason. The problem is the all-or-nothing attitude a lot of people seem have i.e. we either ban all guns or legalise all guns. I'd like to think we can start with a reasonable compromise (i.e. ban/heavily restrict the selling of semi-automatics) and see where things go from there, but the idea of a middle-ground seems dead to most people so what the fuck do I know.

[Duff Ostrich]

So, to Duff: you say that as I am not American (I actually am, but I've been living in Prague for a while now, and I also don't particularly care about American values if I disagree with them) then I'm not shying away from the fact that gun control tries to restrict freedom; this is true. But now you have to answer me this: what practical benefit do guns bring to society? Why, beyond that they are what America stands for, should citizens have access to them. Don't say "Its their right". Rights can and should be violated; for example, incitement to violence doesn't fall under freedom of speech.

Citizens should have access to firearms for a variety of reasons: Hunting, self defense, pest control, target shooting, as a guarantee against a tyrannical government, and because they want them. The funny thing with freedom is that we don't have to justify why we're allowed to do anything, but we do have to justify restrictive legislation. The arguments for banning firearms are so fundamentally weak that I don't need any other justification to oppose it.

Alright, mate. You singled in on three words in parenthesis because it's my personal opinion that guns should be regulated at least as opposed to a fucking free-for-all where gun development has come a far way from the muskets when it was 1790, and the notion that the NRA don't care about who they sell guns to because they are just concerned with selling as many as possible, which is true. But who cares, I brought it up, apparently, because I think that Americans shouldn't require more than handguns and simple (hunting) rifles to 'defend' themselves with or people that have mental illness that leads to aggression shouldn't be permitted to acquiring them. Should they?

But for someone who's said this in the past

Should I really be surprised?

The NRA doesn't sell guns. They sell their lobbying power, as well as some merchandise and a few trade magazines, but they are certainly not gun manufacturers.

In any case what I "singled in on" was your entire first post, where you dedicated a handful of paragraphs to calling Americans cowards and knocking down strawmen. It is not only your perception of the gun debate but of the entire American people that is warped beyond any recognizable reality. It is, in a word, wrong, and deserved to be called out as such.

Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant city-slicker, but I don't see why semi-automatic weapons and other assorted weaponry should be so easily obtainable by the masses when every reason for owning a gun (like the one you mentioned) seem easily doable with hunting rifles and handguns.

Hunting rifles and handguns often are semiautomatic. Consider for a moment, what do you think is the functional difference between these two weapons?

https://www.policeone.com/the-tacticalist/articles/7209499-Assault-weapons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/

As you may have guessed, it's a trick question. For our purposes they're essentially the same. From the link:

• ​They are semi-automatic in operation.

• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.

• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.

• They are both "black" rifles.

• Both have pistol grips.

A lot of folks that don't know much about firearms (and there's obviously nothing wrong with that) end up buying into the dogma that the AR-15 and other rifles of similar infamy are these unstoppable killing machines, but that simply isn't the case. What civilians are permitted to purchase are a far cry from their fully automatic counterparts in the military.

Here's some more evidence of my point:

The AR-15 is not a “high powered” rifle. Yes, it has more power than a handgun – all rifles do. But when you’re talking about rifles, the AR-15’s .223 / 5.56mm ammunition is considered so low powered that it is banned from hunting large game like deer and elk because it cannot humanely take them down in one shot like most other rifle calibers can.

In some states like Washington, all big game must be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber ammunition – relegating the AR-15 to small game and varmint duty exactly because it is a low-powered rifle.

Most hunters today choose .308 or .300 Win Mag as their ammunition of choice.

http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/

Knowledge is power, greater even than that of the dreaded AR-15!

[Rezzy]

You mean to tell me that hunting rifles don't all look antique? Everything I know is a lie.

I'd say that any gun has potential to be used for mass murder. The military isn't running around hacking at people with swords and axes for a reason. The problem is the all-or-nothing attitude a lot of people seem have i.e. we either ban all guns or legalise all guns. I'd like to think we can start with a reasonable compromise (i.e. ban/heavily restrict the selling of semi-automatics) and see where things go from there, but the idea of a middle-ground seems dead to most people so what the fuck do I know.

The problem with a proposed ban to all semi-automatics, is that most guns that aren't revolvers are semi-automatic. Fully automatic is a machine gun where multiple bullets come out with each pull of the trigger and they are pretty much universally banned. With semi-automatic, only one bullet comes out per trigger pull, and 90% of guns are semiautomatic and the term says nothing about caliber or killing power. Technically a BB gun is semiautomatic by virtue of shooting one round at a time and not having to reload in between shots.

EDIT: To everyone, I understand your views that you think gun control laws should be stricter and I respect your opinions. I just want to make sure everyone understands the correct terminology for an informed opinion. I'm glad I live in an age where we can have discussions like these. I harbor no hard feelings toward anyone, and I hope no one does towards me.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Rezzy

[Augestein]

I know and I acknowledge that as a valid and legitimate reason for gun ownership. My opinions on gun control don't fall under 'should people be allowed to own guns' (well, mostly don't fall under) but 'should X type of gun be available for purchase'. Maybe it's because I'm an ignorant city-slicker, but I don't see why semi-automatic weapons and other assorted weaponry should be so easily obtainable by the masses when every reason for owning a gun (like the one you mentioned) seem easily doable with hunting rifles and handguns.

A bear. Handguns are pretty useless against them. Hunting rifles don't quite cut it either. Of course avoiding them altogether is another thing entirely :D

I completely agree with you, in case you misinferred my last post.

I grew up in rural downstate Illinois, and I could often hear coyotes howling at night from my bedroom. To my east, was a cow farm, to my west was a wooded area that had lots of wildlife, including coyotes and deer. It was also common for me to hear gunshots during deer season.

Mine, too when I was growing up. St Louis, not so much, but we have different problems here.

Oh no. I was in absolute agreement there. People actually hunt for deer in my area. There's definitely a reason to have them. Sorry for the confusion.

[Time the Crestfallen]

The problem with a proposed ban to all semi-automatics, is that most guns that aren't revolvers are semi-automatic. Fully automatic is a machine gun where multiple bullets come out with each pull of the trigger and they are pretty much universally banned. With semi-automatic, only one bullet comes out per trigger pull, and 90% of guns are semiautomatic and the term says nothing about caliber or killing power. Technically a BB gun is semiautomatic by virtue of shooting one round at a time and not having to reload in between shots.

EDIT: To everyone, I understand your views that you think gun control laws should be stricter and I respect your opinions. I just want to make sure everyone understands the correct terminology for an informed opinion. I'm glad I live in an age where we can have discussions like these. I harbor no hard feelings toward anyone, and I hope no one does towards me.

I stand by what I said, although I will correct that when I say 'semi-automatic' I'm referring specifically to semi-automatic rifles and that I'm looking more at 'restriction' than banning. For people who live in rural areas were animal defence and assorted issues are a real concern, I see no problem with them having more lax processes although I still think semi-automatic rifles are a bit overkill for most scenarios (but again, city-slicker. What do I know about rural life?). When you're looking at sub/urban areas though, I see no reason for them to own semi-automatic rifles.

A bear. Handguns are pretty useless against them. Hunting rifles don't quite cut it either. Of course avoiding them altogether is another thing entirely :D

Again, when I say 'restriction' I'm looking more at sub/urban areas since that's the only lifestyle I've ever known. Besides, bears seem like something that should be handled by...well, not civilians and even if you do find yourself in such a situation, shooting it seems like the absolute last thing you should do.

[Augestein]

Again, when I say 'restriction' I'm looking more at sub/urban areas since that's the only lifestyle I've ever known. Besides, bears seem like something that should be handled by...well, not civilians and even if you do find yourself in such a situation, shooting it seems like the absolute last thing you should do.

People really need to stop pretending people don't get what they are saying. You asked. I answered. Of course you would try to avoid it. That's what I just said. Honestly, there's a getting to be a bit too much aggressiveness and "you don't understands" in here. I'm out.

[blah the Prussian]

Citizens should have access to firearms for a variety of reasons: Hunting, self defense, pest control, target shooting, as a guarantee against a tyrannical government, and because they want them. The funny thing with freedom is that we don't have to justify why we're allowed to do anything, but we do have to justify restrictive legislation. The arguments for banning firearms are so fundamentally weak that I don't need any other justification to oppose it.

I am not in support of a complete ban on guns, so that addresses all concerns except guns being used against a tyrannical government. I'll leave it to people more knowledgable on the specific mechanics of firearm operation than myself to decide s should be allowed and which shouldn't. As for rebellion against a "tyrannical" government, that causes more problems than it solves. Look at, for example, Cliven Bundy. There's no way you can argue what he did was okay. I'm much more in favor of limiting the ability of people to BREAK THE LAW than I am giving the people the ability to, if they're lucky, kill a few soldiers on the off chance the government becomes oppressive. Also note that oppression is subjective. The idea that you have the right to rebel against laws you disagree with is dangerously disrespectful towards rule of law. As to your opinions on freedom, I dislike arguing philosophy because everything is subjective. Suffice it to say we have different opinions on freedom.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

all the rebel talk isn't taking into account that chances are if a rebellion did ever happen, other countrys would be more then happy to swoop in and "save" the american people from its oppressive government by inserting thier own government to take its place after the war.

i very easily could see Russia wanting to take that chance to turn the country into part of itself.

I'm sayin, murica can't afford any kind of civil war for its own sake.

Edited June 15, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[tuvarkz]

Again, when I say 'restriction' I'm looking more at sub/urban areas since that's the only lifestyle I've ever known. Besides, bears seem like something that should be handled by...well, not civilians and even if you do find yourself in such a situation, shooting it seems like the absolute last thing you should do.

Well, the situation with finding a bear is that, unlike being aware of your house being under a robbery, you have absolutely zero guarantee help will come in time even if you request it. You cannot fight the bear back in any way outside of a properly charged weapon (There's bear sprays, but you have a minimal chance to actually get the bear to stop if it's charging at you, and the momentum could still mean you could end up under a big, angry bear). Playing dead won't work with all bears (And you could be too nervous to recognize which kind of bear it is); and worse, you may find an aggressive bear or one that may seem to be stalking you. There's no "lucky blow" with or without an improvised weapon that may stop the bear (Well, unless you have a big mean spiky stick that can double as a bear hunting spear, and again, bracing against a charge is not advised) or a chance to outrun it.

This sounds like a big scare story, but it's a honest assessment of what happens if you find a bear.

[Moblin Major General]

I am not in support of a complete ban on guns, so that addresses all concerns except guns being used against a tyrannical government. I'll leave it to people more knowledgable on the specific mechanics of firearm operation than myself to decide s should be allowed and which shouldn't. As for rebellion against a "tyrannical" government, that causes more problems than it solves. Look at, for example, Cliven Bundy. There's no way you can argue what he did was okay. I'm much more in favor of limiting the ability of people to BREAK THE LAW than I am giving the people the ability to, if they're lucky, kill a few soldiers on the off chance the government becomes oppressive. Also note that oppression is subjective. The idea that you have the right to rebel against laws you disagree with is dangerously disrespectful towards rule of law. As to your opinions on freedom, I dislike arguing philosophy because everything is subjective. Suffice it to say we have different opinions on freedom.

Your view of oppression is inaccurate because you view rulers being ordained by God and keeping to what are now extinct bloodlines. Of course they would restrict access to weapons. That's how "order" is maintained. That idea is as old as the paintings that portray it. Need I remind you that the eugenics employed pre-1900 were far worse than racist, and that you agree with the objectification and trading of women like commodities? Even a rational monarch views this as a matter of state, not a glaring problem with monarchy, which is a problem because people will practice what their leaders think is OK. That's why The South still holds on to a lot of their prejudiced ideals even to this day. Granted, Europe exploited Africa long after North America did. America is the antithesis of your ideology, meaning that you hate everything it stands for as a matter of principle.

[blah the Prussian]

Your view of oppression is inaccurate because you view rulers being ordained by God and keeping to what are now extinct bloodlines. Of course they would restrict access to weapons. That's how "order" is maintained. That idea is as old as the paintings that portray it. Need I remind you that the eugenics employed pre-1900 were far worse than racist, and that you agree with the objectification and trading of women like commodities? Even a rational monarch views this as a matter of state, not a glaring problem with monarchy, which is a problem because people will practice what their leaders think is OK. That's why The South still holds on to a lot of their prejudiced ideals even to this day. Granted, Europe exploited Africa long after North America did. America is the antithesis of your ideology, meaning that you hate everything it stands for as a matter of principle.

WHAT? I never at any point indicated that I supported sexual slavery, and I have no idea where you got that. Oh yeah, and also it helps to mention that the only two countries that practiced Eugenics were Nazi Germany and, problematically, the USA, niether of which were Monarchies. I think that, save perhaps for the Saudi King, you will be hard pressed to find a single monarch today who supports any of what you listed. Hell, you'd have to go way farther back than 1900 to find a single European monarch in support of sexual slavery. Regardless, the maintnence of order is of course necessary for society to function. If rebellions spring up every time someone doesn't like something, the state collapses. Of course it's okay to disagree with the government, but this shouldn't be done violently, not in democracies, anyway. If you don't like the law, you work to change it, you don't use violence against it. And no, America isn't the antithesis of my ideology; I'd say that Jacobin France fits the bill better. Maybe you should work on those mind reading abilities. I don't appreciate being told what I think.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Well, the situation with finding a bear is that, unlike being aware of your house being under a robbery, you have absolutely zero guarantee help will come in time even if you request it. You cannot fight the bear back in any way outside of a properly charged weapon (There's bear sprays, but you have a minimal chance to actually get the bear to stop if it's charging at you, and the momentum could still mean you could end up under a big, angry bear). Playing dead won't work with all bears (And you could be too nervous to recognize which kind of bear it is); and worse, you may find an aggressive bear or one that may seem to be stalking you. There's no "lucky blow" with or without an improvised weapon that may stop the bear (Well, unless you have a big mean spiky stick that can double as a bear hunting spear, and again, bracing against a charge is not advised) or a chance to outrun it.

This sounds like a big scare story, but it's a honest assessment of what happens if you find a bear.

Yes, but like you said there's no way to fight back without a properly charged weapon. Even shooting a bear doesn't seem very practical unless you get a perfect head/vital organ shot with a gun powerful enough to vaporise it.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Phillius

[eclipse]

Your view of oppression is inaccurate because you view rulers being ordained by God and keeping to what are now extinct bloodlines. Of course they would restrict access to weapons. That's how "order" is maintained. That idea is as old as the paintings that portray it. Need I remind you that the eugenics employed pre-1900 were far worse than racist, and that you agree with the objectification and trading of women like commodities? Even a rational monarch views this as a matter of state, not a glaring problem with monarchy, which is a problem because people will practice what their leaders think is OK. That's why The South still holds on to a lot of their prejudiced ideals even to this day. Granted, Europe exploited Africa long after North America did. America is the antithesis of your ideology, meaning that you hate everything it stands for as a matter of principle.

Go ahead and disagree with someone's opinion, that's fine. Do NOT speak for their beliefs, or presuppose their motives.

If I see this again, from ANYONE in this topic, it'll be an automatic warning.

[Esau of Isaac]

It seems like I only post in SD in gun-related topics. :(

I stand by what I said, although I will correct that when I say 'semi-automatic' I'm referring specifically to semi-automatic rifles and that I'm looking more at 'restriction' than banning. For people who live in rural areas were animal defence and assorted issues are a real concern, I see no problem with them having more lax processes although I still think semi-automatic rifles are a bit overkill for most scenarios (but again, city-slicker. What do I know about rural life?). When you're looking at sub/urban areas though, I see no reason for them to own semi-automatic rifles.

What do you mean when you say "overkill"? What scenario, when you would be using a pistol, would be "overkill" to be using a rifle? And which rifle, specifically?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Esau of Isaac

[Time the Crestfallen]

It seems like I only post in SD in gun-related topics. :(

What do you mean when you say "overkill"? What scenario, when you would be using a pistol, would be "overkill" to be using a rifle? And which rifle, specifically?

When I say 'overkill' it's about applying an unnecessary amount of firepower for the situation at hand i.e. does ones realistically need a rifle to be semi-automatic for hunting X? I personally don't see the need for rifles to be semi-automatic if you're hunting something like deer or coyotes (although someone with more experience in such matters might think otherwise), but if you live in an are where bears are common, then you should absolutely be allowed to own a semi-auto. In sub/urban ares however, even if you're very concerned with self-defence and home invasions, you do not need a semi-automatic rifle for any reason imo. In fact, I'd argue that guns as a whole are a bad idea for self defence because of the idea that they're always lethal.

[Phoenix Wright]

well, most rifles are semi-automatic unless you either want them to be bolt-action, fully auto, or reloaded like guns in the 18th century. though i probably agree with you at the end of the day, i don't really get what you're trying to say.

most guns sold in the united states (or at least california) are semi-auto.

[Rezzy]

The problem with having different laws in rural versus urban areas is that they're unenforceable, except for people who'd follow the law anyway. It ends up going de facto to the least restrictive availability and that's why the gang members have so many guns in Chicago and other cities.

If there's one law for rural downstate Illinois, saying that semiautomatic pistols and rifles are okay, but in Chicago, they're not, one simply has to drive down I-55 and pick up their guns downstate, before bringing them back up to Chicago. The only way to prevent that would be to build a wall around the city and set up check points at every entrance, but that is entering a level of inconvenience and heavy handedness that most Americans aren't willing to accept.

For animals, there's not really any notion of overkill. If you're trying to kill an animal that could potentially kill you, you want the most powerful weapon available, otherwise you risk just injuring them and making them mad.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Rezzy

[Time the Crestfallen]

The problem with having different laws in rural versus urban areas is that they're unenforceable, except for people who'd follow the law anyway. It ends up going de facto to the least restrictive availability and that's why the gang members have so many guns in Chicago and other cities.

If there's one law for rural downstate Illinois, saying that semiautomatic pistols and rifles are okay, but in Chicago, they're not, one simply has to drive down I-55 and pick up their guns downstate, before bringing them back up to Chicago. The only way to prevent that would be to build a wall around the city and set up check points at every entrance, but that is entering a level of inconvenience and heavy handedness that most Americans aren't willing to accept.

For animals, there's not really any notion of overkill. If you're trying to kill an animal that could potentially kill you, you want the most powerful weapon available, otherwise you risk just injuring them and making them mad.

That's what background checks are for though. Again, I can only offer my country as an example but semi-automatic rimfire rifles are Category C fire arms and farm owners are specified as being able to own them on wikipedia (not the best source granted, but I haven't been able to find any other sources for ownership qualification). Restricting access is not the only solution, we can also look at background checks and the rationale for owning guns. Again, if you want a certain type of semi-automatic rifle or bullet caliber because bears and other such things are a real concern, go for it. If you want the same thing for home defence, then maybe look at alternatives.

[Moblin Major General]

WHAT? I never at any point indicated that I supported sexual slavery, and I have no idea where you got that. Oh yeah, and also it helps to mention that the only two countries that practiced Eugenics were Nazi Germany and, problematically, the USA, niether of which were Monarchies. I think that, save perhaps for the Saudi King, you will be hard pressed to find a single monarch today who supports any of what you listed. Hell, you'd have to go way farther back than 1900 to find a single European monarch in support of sexual slavery. Regardless, the maintnence of order is of course necessary for society to function. If rebellions spring up every time someone doesn't like something, the state collapses. Of course it's okay to disagree with the government, but this shouldn't be done violently, not in democracies, anyway. If you don't like the law, you work to change it, you don't use violence against it. And no, America isn't the antithesis of my ideology; I'd say that Jacobin France fits the bill better. Maybe you should work on those mind reading abilities. I don't appreciate being told what I think.

That was not the intent, and I'm sorry. I meant to say more along the lines of kings marrying off their daughters as if they had no rights, and the fact that marrying commoners was illegal made for a lot of inbreeding, causing many late monarchs in Europe to be weak and incompetent. When I said eugenics, I meant selective breeding, but misapplied the concept I was looking for. Also, about revolt, although the Declaration of Independence isn't law, it outlines our basic, unspoken civil liberties,written by the biggest advocate for the Bi!l of Rights. He understood that written law won't protect the people forever.

@eclipse: I wasn't trying to assume, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply his actual opinion. If I am asked to stop posting in this thread, I will. That was unbecoming, rude, and offensive, and I wanted to apologize, not just to blah, or to the mods, but to everybody, especially those who think lesser of me because of my conclusion jumps.

[Esau of Isaac]

When I say 'overkill' it's about applying an unnecessary amount of firepower for the situation at hand i.e. does ones realistically need a rifle to be semi-automatic for hunting X? I personally don't see the need for rifles to be semi-automatic if you're hunting something like deer or coyotes (although someone with more experience in such matters might think otherwise), but if you live in an are where bears are common, then you should absolutely be allowed to own a semi-auto. In sub/urban ares however, even if you're very concerned with self-defence and home invasions, you do not need a semi-automatic rifle for any reason imo. In fact, I'd argue that guns as a whole are a bad idea for self defence because of the idea that they're always lethal.

1.) Do you know what semi-automatic means? Why would you argue that rifles should not be semi-automatic in self-defense situations, when pistols assumedly are?

2.) If you're concerned with self-defense, then you should have the most effective weapon at hand. Why would you use a less effective weapon to defend yourself? It defies logic.

3.) Guns aren't always lethal. It is quite common for people to survive being shot. It's not even rare for people to be shot and then flee, only succumbing to injuries later.

[Time the Crestfallen]

1.) Do you know what semi-automatic means? Why would you argue that rifles should not be semi-automatic in self-defense situations, when pistols assumedly are?

2.) If you're concerned with self-defense, then you should have the most effective weapon at hand. Why would you use a less effective weapon to defend yourself? It defies logic.

3.) Guns aren't always lethal. It is quite common for people to survive being shot. It's not even rare for people to be shot and then flee, only succumbing to injuries later.

Semi-automatic means you shoot once for every pull of the trigger. I was going to respond with a comparison between the lethality of rifles and pistols, the psychology/willingness of people to shoot another human being and the use of alternative methods of home defence such as tasers, but clearly you all have different views on the matter of guns that I certainly won't be able to change and this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll just bow out while I can.

[Baldrick]

3.) Guns aren't always lethal. It is quite common for people to survive being shot. It's not even rare for people to be shot and then flee, only succumbing to injuries later.

I think that's what he was saying? "The idea that they're always lethal", as in people think they're more effective at stopping people than they actually are.

[Esau of Isaac]

Semi-automatic means you shoot once for every pull of the trigger. I was going to respond with a comparison between the lethality of rifles and pistols, the psychology/willingness of people to shoot another human being and the use of alternative methods of home defence such as tasers, but clearly you all have different views on the matter of guns that I certainly won't be able to change and this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll just bow out while I can.

1.) Lethality how? Rifles can be chambered in different calibers, same as pistols. People continue to assume that all rifles are some kind of high-powered elephant gun, when they aren't. The most commonly-used rifles tend to fire bullets that are of comparable caliber to most pistols used in self-defense.

2.) You want to use a taser to defend your home, be my guest. The last thing I care about when my home is being invaded is the safety of the home invader.

I think that's what he was saying? "The idea that they're always lethal", as in people think they're more effective at stopping people than they actually are.

I mean, I agree that public perception of firearms is quite out of whack, but I don't think perceiving them to be more lethal than they are is a huge point against firearm ownership.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Esau of Isaac

[Baldrick]

I mean, I agree that public perception of firearms is quite out of whack, but I don't think perceiving them to be more lethal than they are is a huge point against firearm ownership.

It would be if people think a gun is enough to stop home invaders and don't invest in additional security.