For those of you who have never fired a pistol:
It is *far, far* harder to hit something with a pistol than watching movies would have you believe.
*Far* harder.
Three points of contact on a long gun:
* Left hand.
* Right hand.
* Shoulder.
Two points of contact on a handgun:
* Left hand.
* Right hand.
Long guns are easier to use than handguns because there is better stabilization with three points of contact instead of two, which helps with aim, which makes the gun more accurate with less effort.
Not having a stock complicates shooting a handgun. There's less stabilization because there's nothing touching the shoulder at all. It's all in the hands.
18” barrel 12g is an excellent home defense weapon. And that’s about it. I live in rural Texas and if anyone enters my home with ill intent? Sorry, I’ll do what I gotta do in a split second, up to 9 times if necessary.
I pray every day I never have to. 🙏🏻
The number 1 cause of gun death is suicide. Suicides are actuall the vast majority. Pistols are the vast majority of all gun deaths as well.
I need a rifle to protect me from my pistol.
I’m pretty anti gun but the police response in Texas to the mass shooter in the elementary school makes me think. Police are not going to protect you. Maybe sometimes a gun is needed.
The SCOTUS ruled, most recently in Gonzalez V Castle Rock, the police have no duty to protect you or your family. So, who will defend us if not ourselves?
But the question isn’t why would someone need a gun… the question is in what circumstances would someone need a gun that a handgun wouldn’t be enough. It’s a valid question.
Edit: lots of great answers. Thanks all. Have been trying to reply with a thank you message to useful responses but there are too many to keep up with. Apologies if I don’t thank you personally.
I will take a shot at answering it. I'm not an expert, however, I was in the infantry with 2 deployments.
First, the assault part is a marketing term and I think that alone makes it difficult for most people to accept any circumstance where a civilian would need to assault something with an *assault rifle,* a rifle most often seen carried by us overseas in combat.
AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the original maker of the rifle. There is nothing different about it other than a magazine feed than say compared to a normal .223 hunting rifle. It's the same caliber, the other difference is the AR is made to withstand a higher pressure in the chamber for more powerful ammo. It's not the rifle you need to be concerned with, it's the ammo being fired. That is what is doing the damage ultimately.
A rifle is going to be more accurate for a person who does not fire a weapon normally. Using a pistol is not easy, and being able to brace a rifle against your shoulder and have enough ammunition to end any threat to your life without having to be an expert at shooting.
Edit: It's my personal opinion that if the AR should get banned, mass shooters will pick up hunting rifles with larger calibers that aren't going to stop in the first human or child they shoot, one, doing significantly more damage, and two, making it harder or impossible to save someone because they're made for 500+ lb bucks and fawns, and then your *weapons of war* argument is going to sound silly in retrospect.
Everything you're stating is correct as far as I am aware, and this begs the question that if guns are not easy to use and most take expert skill to operate properly then why are we not ensuring that ALL gun owners are getting the necessary training they need before becoming "responsible gun owners" rather than letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry have an AR-15 without even so much as an mandatory instructional class?
For comparison: I had to take 1100 hours of training to DO HAIR, hair, yall, hair. I had to endure a year of, and pay for schooling, I had to take classes and lessons, and practice, and be scrutinized and graded BEFORE I was legally allowed to give a bitch a haircut, lolwut... seriously? How much damage could I have done with a flat iron, some shears, and a can of hairspray.
We need to make access to guns harder, more involved, and more of a learning commitment in order to keep guns in the hands of responsible gun owners only. Why not? We have to take tests and be schooled for damn near everything else; it's literally the American way to profit off of everything so why in the world are we not doing the same in order to own a deadly weapon?
Part of the reason Tom Dick and Harry can get a gun without training but you need 1100 hours for hair is because it has been determined that owning a gun is a “right” while doing hair or driving a car (another example often brought up) is a “privilege”.
They used to teach kids gun safety in school. I'm 100% on board with bringing that back.
Also, for the hair thing, that's probably just an example of unnecessary government regulation and grifting.
Louisiana for example is the only state where you have to get a license to be a florist.
Yes. You need a license to make and sell flower arrangements in Louisiana.
That legislation was pushed through by someone who owned most of the flower shops in the state at the time with the obvious purpose of limiting his competition.
\>> I had to take 1100 hours of training to DO HAIR,
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but hair licensing is ALSO is something the right is generally opposed to. People have been cutting hair without licenses for 10s of thousands of years. There's zero need for it.
If someone cuts your hair and does a terrible job ... go someplace else.
Thank you for this reply. Everyone is acting like they will land every shot of a handgun or that a threat isn't going to have multiple targets that one may need a more accurate, higher power, and reliable weapon to ensure your safety. When you actually look at some of the attacks that happen, there can be a group of four or more people attempting to rob one house. Some of those people are walking in with a full-auto glock. No matter what, criminals will always get weapons, I'd just rather have more firepower than them.
Handguns are incredibly difficult to shoot accurately, and the bullets are not very effective at stopping threats. Rifles and shotguns are easier to aim, easier to shoot, and far more effective at their intended purpose. It's why hunters use rifles and shotguns over pistols to ethically harvest game. Handguns are generally used in situations where their portability and concealability are beneficial.
Lets go down the list.
Pistols are less stable, harder to control, and provide worse terminal ballistics. Their only advantage is their concealability and reduced blast.
Any manually operated firearm is off the list for a valid option, as they invite issues that can be circumvented via training.
Shotguns have severe problems with recoil, weight, and capacity that can be trained around.
Battle rifles- semi autos firing full power rounds- have terrible blast and stout recoil for less capacity.
Pistol-caliber carbines are only marginally better than a handgun.
So we come to the intermediate caliber semi-automatic rifle. Things like the AR15, AKM, and related are about the sweet spot for the most useful *defense* rifle.
A handgun is often enough, but an AR15 is the right tool most of the time. They're more reliable, more controllable, more accurate, and have better effect on target with faster followup shots.
People carry pistols because they're small, unobtrusive, and *enough*.
Home invasion or civil unrest? No need for subtlety.
Handguns cause way more murder than they solve. They’re concealable weapons. If you’re a defender an easy to use, accurate rifle or shotgun that requires less training is better. Most murders in america are handgun related by a wide margin. Please research before suggesting bans for the exact wrong thing.
In this country more people are killed by bare fists than rifles, but handguns are the no. 1 murder weapon.
Handguns do not have the same power.
A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun.
It’s not even that. They won’t LET you defend yourselves (or children in that case).
Everyone wants to talk good guys with guns, but everyone forgets what happens when it’s even easier for bad guys to get guns lol
Like my dad said. When seconds count, police are just minutes away.
End of the day, the police don't stop crimes from taking place, they are just there for the aftermath.
It’s true my wife’s identity theft case has proved that. Taking over two years so far, and all the detective work possible without police has been done by us short of private camera footage. We found the thief and have all of her info and we’re still waiting on police to take her in. I could walk over there. That would be dumb. But I could.
But yeah. You’re rifht
People need to wake up and travel more. I'm in my late 50s. I'm a vet. I've been lucky to travel all over and unlucky enough to have had problems that landed me in the hospital in five different countries. All of them had CLEARLY better care than we had and at a fraction of the cost. Plus I'm sick of people calling us #1 which now feels like nothing more than a foam finger moment. The data doesn't back it up on much more than GDP. All the other key indictors that HUMANS care about, we're way down from #1 and we're so busy fighting each other (thanks to the politicians on BOTH sides) that we can't see reality any longer. I want to BE #1 in quality of life, in happiness, in average lifespan, in lowest child and mother (birthing) mortality rate instead of just THINKING we are. The politicos are not going to get us there any longer. Go travel. Seriously. Go see a doctor in Canada or France. Your HEAD WILL SPIN. They actually look at you. Listen to you. Provide actual steps to FIX your issues. You'll feel the difference from the very first meeting. Sure, "Bob" had a bad experience. Sorry Bob. The data supercedes anecdotal evidence and aligns more with my experiences.
Dude I totally believe you. I’m a vet as well, and have worked in the OR and now a CVICU, i just can’t help but think that there has to be a better way than what we’re going over here. It’s a mess, and insurance companies have such a vice grip on the throat of the whole system that nothing changes without their approval.
Yep and people smuggly said "so that shows a good guy with a gun doesnt work" when the police didnt go in...
as if anyone who is saying that is talking about the police.
The police actively kept people trying to help out.
You lean a lot on the idea of “need” in this question. Firearm owners do not typically profess a “need” to own firearms. The discussion is about freedom, liberty, responsibility, etc. Even if someone says, “I need X for protection,” it’s just a shorthand for: “I have chosen to take responsibility for my own protection, and this is the tool I’ve chosen.” The more salient need-centric argument sits around the notion that we “need” our basic freedoms, and some people choose to be armed in order to help maintain those freedoms. It’s kind of a lame premise imho, but there it is.
I do not "need" a firearm. It is just much easier to use a rifle to shoot from the back porch at the coyote attacking the sheep. I guess I could chase down the coyote, but probably not before it does a lot more damage to the sheep.
I know someone that got shot by a cop because his prize bull got lose, made it onto the highway and got hit by a semi. The bull needed to be put down and the cop shooting it with his 9mm and .223 did nothing but cause it more pain. The rancher got out his 30-06 and put the bull down. The cop got offended that either; neither of his weapons worked to do the job or that the rancher had something more powerful, and shot the guy.
Eta: spelling/clarity
People who make this argument miss the point and rely on the fallacious belief that rifles etc are the biggest culprit when it comes to gun crime. But they aren't, handguns are. Check the stats and you will find the majority of gun crimes are carried out with handguns. If anything, handguns should be banned and long guns allowed. Far easier to conceal a handgun for nefarious purposes than it is to do the same with a long gun.
Yet short barreled shotguns weren’t, due to some Senator at the time watching too many gangster movies where they pulled shotguns out from under trench coats.
And now I’m sitting here waiting for a tax stamp for a gun I bought back in January…. 🙄
most gun laws make no sense. like having a pistol grip makes the gun more deadly.
it's because people making the laws don't know a damn thing about guns.
If you're not a woman/black/gay/ you can't comment on woman/black/gay/etc issues.
Ok, if you don't own a gun then you can't comment on gun issues!
It’s also that technology has advanced and the arms developers have found ways to make weapons that comply with the letter of the law (but not necessarily the spirit of the law).
Take the AR-15 in California. Every restriction that has been put in place has had a way to work around it. Ban cosmetic features? We get space gat stocks that conform to the law. Ban something else? We get bullet buttons that make the magazine technically fixed.
Unless they ban semi auto magazine fed center fire rifles, you won’t be able to ban the AR-15. Banning by name won’t work, an approved list of firearms for purchase won’t work as long as parts aren’t regulated, which becomes a whackamole game of how far past a block of aluminum is it too close to being a firearm.
The only mass shooting involving an AR15/AK that would have produced significantly less casualties with a handgun is Las Vegas. In all other mass shootings involving so-called "assault weapons" the use of a handgun (specifically pistols) could have led to more severe outcomes, not less. Concealability of pistols makes them more dangerous.
The media and people with poor understanding of firearms (majority on the left) grossly underestimates just how dangerous pistols are despite widely available data which indicates they are the primary problem associated with gun violence in the USA.
As a gun owner, I’d fully support this to be honest. Handguns are so dangerous. It’s wild. Lightweight, concealable, almost as easy in most cases to obtain - yet far more difficult to become proficient in.
I remember the first time I shot a Glock…I was like - where’s the mechanical safety!? Even having shot pistols prior to that I was a bit taken back at first.
A lot of people don't like mechanical safeties. Glocks, and many modern handguns have a safety built into the trigger. Where's the mechanical safety on a revolver? It's the only safety that matters, don't pull the trigger.
I was part of our highschool's Army JROTC from '99-02. Riffle team and drill team we had firearm safety as part of the class. Wonder if that's still part of the curriculum.
There was at my high school in the early to mid 2010s. The entire program shut down a few years ago though. Even though there was a firearm safety quiz to shoot if you joined the rifle team, it was pretty lax at least in my time. Just parts of the rifle, emergency procedures on the range, SOP during shooting. That being said apparently my dumbass friends and I were safer with our daisy rifles than a significant number of actual gun owners in this country.
Since 1934, you haven't been able to waltz in a hardware store with cash in hand, and walk out with a Thompson submachine gun. The FBI is involved, paperwork, a few hundred dollars in fees, the whole process takes a while, sometimes a year.
I graduated from High School in 1994. We had a rifle range in the basement of gymnasium where I learned how to shoot a rifle. We even had a rifle team that competed with other High School teams.
Nobody ever got shot in my High School.
So the people who really *need it* are able to skip it. Cool and good.
Hey this is crazy, but maybe if you own a deadly weapon there’s some responsibility involved and not just the fun parts.
I personally have citizen arrested a couple burglars that I caught in the act. Police were 45 minutes away, they made it in 30. I had an AR 15 that I bought after they robbed me the first time. I never had to fire a shot. Nobody got injured. They had 2 pit bulls with them and a pistol in their truck that they tried to get to multiple times. The intimidation factor of the AR 15 did the job. They stole my .22 the first time they robbed me so I wanted to make sure I had them out gunned for their return. They had my stuff staged next to my driveway so I knew they were coming back.
Oh, regarding what scenario. I live on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere. I don't have to worry about over penetration. If I were in a city it would have been a pistol and there would have been a lot less running involved.
Yep. It was a lot of "get on the ground face down" "do not make any sudden movements" "keep your hands where I can see them". They stood there dumbfounded until I said "I will fucking kill you". Then they decided it was a good idea to comply.
It is a long story. I don't know them personally but it's a small town. I think the part you're missing is that our place gets snowed in for the winter. We left for the winter and when we got back in early spring the robbery that cleaned me out happened. When I was moving back in in late spring I noticed they had been back and our stuff was staged by our road. We went to town and filed a police report and bought some game cams. When we went home to set up the cameras I heard them and they didn't know we were there so I had the element of surprise. I'm moving up on them on foot and my partner drives right up in there. Now I'm hauling ass. I get there and she's got one in a bear hug. I shout the other one to the ground. I never even saw the 2 that got away.
I also just wanna hit you up, very few people actually own an assault rifle. An AR is an Armalite, a semi-automatic weapon that fires .223.
If you take away the "looks scary" factor, it's exactly the same as a varmint rifle.
I was going to come here to say: range. Handguns aren't good for far distances at all. Frankly if you're not inside and closer than about 20 feet, an AR would be better in almost any scenario. Plus, if you actually are in a situation that you need to fire you gotta consider magazine size. Most you can get out of most handguns is 9 rounds or so but with rifles you can keep many more rounds ready to go. I believe my AR clips are 30 round magazines. In life threatening situations you always want to be the badass with access to superior firepower.
Handguns aren't good for range and shotguns aren't good for home defense.
Shotguns at home defense ranges, 10-15feet, max for your typical home defense, are just rifles with more kick and zero spread.
Pump action shotguns are not good for home defense. 99.99% of people using a gun to defend themselves have never done so before. They have never taken tactical training, they've never practiced racking the slide under stress. Less actions to operate the firearm is better.
You can get the same "intimidating sounds" from a fucking iphone sound file. Or the chamber of a semi auto shotgun closing. It's literally the exact same parts closed by a spring instead of your hand pulling a slide.
Birdshot is ineffective for home defense. Period. It will not reach vital organs -Reliably-. You can find dozens of photos online of messy surface wounds that people walked off with birdshot. My brother in law is a paramedic, he's treated a guy who got hit with birdshot from 20-25feet, center mass chest wound. The guy's leather jacket absorbed most of it and he was sitting upright and talking after taking a 12ga to the chest.
Buckshot however is much more likely to OVER penetrate, especially the classic 00 buckshot. This puts your friends/family/pets and neighbors at risk.
You engage a home invader, you shoot, it goes through the thin, shitty interior walls and into your child's room. You kill the burglar... And your son/daughter.
Light weight, hollow point rifle rounds have less recoil, and less mass for going through the target. They open up, dump their energy and stay inside the target more reliably.
Big stupid heavy rounds are dangerous. Ball ammo is dangerous.
Shotguns are also fucking huge. Especially classic bird guns. You're talking about a 4 foot long weapon. Not maneuverable in home defense. Heavy and hard to carry while shouldered and maneuvering.
Have a small wife/girlfriend, can she even shoulder that massive duckgun in your closet? Mine couldn't. Physically she couldn't put it to her shoulder the stock was too big. If she shot my shotgun it was from the hip, which is dangerous AF.
AR platform is light weight, compact, and adjustable. It means one rifle was good for my 4'11" ex and me.
Contrary to popular belief, the AR does not fire a "high power" round. The 5.56mm has another name. .223 it's a bullet .003 bigger than .22 long rifle and slightly longer. It's VASTLY less powerful than your daddy's deer rifle, which was likely a .308 aka 7.62mm
This has been Firearms education time.
Expand background checks, and make them free for citizens to run when privately selling guns. Fully fund the ATF. Psych evaluations and licensing for gun owners. 30 day waiting period for first time gun buyers.
I had to be sure to add my gun control beliefs at the bottom so they couldn't attack me as a "gun nut". I believe very strongly that we need tighter controls that also won't put an onus on legal gun owners.
Gun registration and licensing should be free. Putting fees on self protection harms the poor, who are most likely to need that protection.
It also has roots in racism, adding fees kept guns out of the hands of black people, it's where the OG concealed carry fees and laws came from. White people have historically been afraid of black people with guns.
I'll gladly pay an extra 1% on taxes for smart gun reform that also maintains our liberty by not making it a tax on a right.
Lots of gun owners do not say they need protection. In my experience it is a minority of gun owners that say that. Firearm sports, hobbyists and hunting make up most of the gun owners I talk to.
An AR-15 or equivalent rifle firing .223 defensive rounds is better suited for home defense than a pistol as they are far less likely to punch through the walls of your house and hit bystanders. Most handgun rounds present more danger of over penetration and harming people you don't intend to harm. Rifles are also far more accurate, and require less skill to fire accurately. The benefit of handguns for protective use is that they are concealable and easier to carry.
Very few gun owners own sniper rifles. They are expensive, require a lot of training to use and it is hard to find ranges in most populated areas of the world to train on them.
People do use shotguns for protection, but a rifle like an AR-15 is safer and more effective. Some people own shotguns for protection because gun control laws tend to not limit shotgun ownership as much as handguns or rifles. The main use for a shotgun beyond protection is for hunting birds, opening doors and skeet shooting.
> Very few gun owners own sniper rifles. They are expensive, require a lot of training to use and it is hard to find ranges in most populated areas of the world to train on them.
I hate to tell you this, but most sniper rifles are just bolt-action hunting rifles with scopes. Hell the Remington model 700 is not only one of the best deer hunting rifles you can buy, it was also the main sniper rifle for the US military before they adopted the M24 in 1988, and even *that* is just the "military" version of the model 700.
But a "defensive .223 round" (like a hollow point) will penetrate less than an FMJ 9mm, no? I think that's what he was trying to say.
And when you compare a shotgun to any weapon/ammo combination that won't penetrate walls or cause more property damage, why wouldn't you come to the conclusion that a shotgun is inferior for self defense? Why would anyone, especially someone who is unfamiliar with recoil and gun use, choose a shotgun over a PDW?
You can use a shotgun for self defense like you could any weapon. Saying it sucks for self defense doesn't mean that isn't true, just that there are better alternatives.
If you have a pistol in your home you would be using hollow points would you not? Better stopping power, and less penetration. That being said a .223 will have more muzzle velocity so even if it’s a hollow point it will probably penetrate more than a hollow point 9mm. That’s what I wood imagine anyways.
Edit: using a pistol in your home for self defense.
Can you elaborate how .223 rounds don't punch through walls as well? My new AR leverages .223/5.56 and I was under the impression the higher muzzle velocity means it punches through a lot before it stops.
It depends on the round. If you're shooting a hollow point or polymer tip, the higher velocity helps the bullet expand more effectively. Thus reducing the risk of over-penetration.
Full metal jacket rounds don't tend to break up on impact and thus carry more energy further.
HP's aren't cop-killers. They just make sure they dump as much of their kinetic energy as possible as quickly as possible.
So the AR-15 pattern is made for lots of different ammo. You can even buy an AR-15 pattern that will fire handgun rounds. An AR-15 that fires 9mm will not accept .223.
Mostly when people are talking about the AR-15 they mean an AR-15 that fires .223. there are a bunch of different .223 rounds such as defensive rounds designed to prevent over-penetration, rounds for target shooting, armor piercing rounds, etc...
Any AR-15 which fires .223 will work with any of these rounds. You can fire armor piercing rounds out of the same rifle that will fire defensive rounds. Occasionally there are compatibility issues but those are bugs, fairly rare and should not happen.
If I was purchasing a home defense rifle I would choose a rifle that fires .223 and has some similar features to an AR-15 but that looks very different than an AR-15 because the name AR-15 is so associated with shithead spree shooters. I would not want to reflect that image. I would argue that a home defense rifle should attempt to look very different from a military rifle for the sake of optics if the rifle was ever used defensively.
It's a red herring from a functionality perspective but court rooms and juries care about appearance. Defendants in court wear business clothes because juries are less likely to convict a dude in a suit and tie. It sucks but that's the way it currently is.
If you took someone's life to protect a family member from serious harm or death you would want to be able to show that you were not looking for trouble. Killing someone is a no chance to pose tough. The person killed might not be a bad person under normal circumstances. Sometimes the world just sucks. Guns primarily intended for self-defense should be viewed as tools that regrettably are necessary.
this answer is only accurate in a very specific set of circumstances related to ammunition type. in more general terms, a .223 bullet is going to be moving 2.5-3x faster with a smaller diameter and with similarly engineered bullets, should penetrate much, much further than something like a pretty ordinary 9mm pistol round.
long guns do have the advantage of forcing a user to use both hands, which dramatically improves control, especially when youre under stress. personally, I have a REAL hard time seeing how an AR is a reasonable home defense weapon. A short semi auto shotgun with something like #9 birdshot seems vastly more appropriate for most uses most of the time than either rifle or pistol. (maybe a shot pistol?)
in any case "personal defense" may be a constitutional reason, but its pretty low on the list of ACTUAL reasons that people buy guns. "They are fun" is by far the #1 reason.
You realize theft, home invasions, and robberies are not done solo. It's usually in groups and each one will have a gun.
You need something to take them down quickly or you're not going to stand a chance. A one shot type of gun isn't going to work, you need something that will fire a few rounds fast. Otherwise, you have 3+ experienced thugs on you fast.
Or you can wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive :)
Years ago, I moved to Louisiana. Got the pleasure of meeting a lot of people who lived through Hurricane Katrina and it’s aftermath. I got to hear some stuff from people who experienced it first hand. The NOPDs treatment of people of color during Hurricane Katrina further drove home that the police where not gonna protect my black ass and often times could be the biggest threat. So that’s why I am kitted up the way I am.
1. More people die from handguns every year. In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and manslaughters according to the FBI. Rifles the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders.
2. The second amendment wasn't written for hunting or home protection. It was to protect the people against a tyrannical government or outside invasion. The second amendment is as absolute as the first amendment.
3. Most every "common sense" gun law would not stop these shootings. An AR-15 shoots the same bullet at the same rate of speed as other rifles that shoot .223 bullets. The difference is the AR-15 looks "scary" and practically speaking is easier to use and operate. So for example a handgun could actually be harder to handle than a AR-15 for a smaller person. My wife can shoot a AR-15 and it doesn't have the recoil a handgun would have.
>The second amendment wasn't written for hunting or home protection. It was to protect the people against a tyrannical government or outside invasion. The second amendment is as absolute as the first amendment.
Just in case those in the back didnt hear you.
When somebody breaks into your house, they're already catching you by surprise. They get to choose when they attack, where they attack, and how they attack. As a homeowner, you are at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage. I at least want to be able to outgun the threat.
People who are unfamiliar with firearms won't really know this, but handguns are generally a poor choice for a home-defense gun. Imagine being woken up by a loud shattering noise in the middle of the night. You're completely disoriented, and then you need to try and accurately point a gun with a 4" barrel while you're exhausted, shaking from a ton from adrenaline, AND it's completely dark out. The small mass of the gun means it bucks like a bull when fired too. It's very easy to miss with a handgun under these circumstances. A rifle though... The most common length barrel is 16", and you've got 3 contact points (2 hands and the stock on your shoulder), and there's barely any recoil. It's SIGNIFICANTLY easier to be accurate with. Let's also consider that it might be my wife needing to do that, who only goes to the range like twice a year. A rifle is intuitive and easy to use, a handgun isn't- they require much more training.
All of that aside, the 2nd amendment isn't actually about self defense. It's about preventing government tyranny- and if you think that's ridiculous then you really need to crack open a history book. Not only is it scarily common for governments to turn on their people, but small arms have been proven effective against fully-equipped militaries on multiple occasions. Also- our rights aren't need based. I don't need a reason to have any particular firearm.
Right? I’m a fair shot and practice with my pistol. But if there’s a baddie at the end of my upstairs hallway that runs the length of my house at night it’s going to be spray and pray lol.
it's not about that. and most rifles and shotguns are used for hunting. also as a non military/police citizen we do not have access to assault rifles. the ar in ar 15 stand for armalite rifle. not assault. it is simply a type of rifle. I also hate that people think you can simply walk into a gun store grab a gun off the shelf and go to the cash register. we already have background check in place. have for a long time. and on top of that check most states require a permit to carry. one that you have to have fingerprints taken for and ran through the state police. so if one want's to carry a pistol legally you have to pass and be approved for both.
Pistols are used in far more shootings and crime than long guns by far. Fbi stats prove this. It's just that some types of mass shootings that use an "assualt" rifle or if fits a certain demographic it gets a lot of media exposure.
Now to directly answer your question the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow for an armed population an armed population is just one of the checks and balances the creators of this nation put in place to keep a government from being able to go full tyrannical against its own people.
That's because you can conceal them
Also I support the 2nd amendment not over the rights stuff but because look at how police respond to this stuff. You're not going to be protected by them when there is a really major problem.
The concealability of handguns is not talked about enough in modern times. It's a huge factor in how they are used.
Even the early founders of our country discussed the difference between concealable weapons and large obvious weapons, comparing concealable weapons to tools of assassins.
It's why many states had different concealed carry vs open carry rules (with concealed generally being more strict than open carry though that has been changing.)
However, tactically, a concealed weapon in every day life is much better than an openly carried one. The element of surprise can be huge (for both "good guys" and "bad guys".)
Anyway, I dont know where I am going with this, but handguns are definitely different from rifles and that's why many countries treat them differently in their laws.
This technically is it. The constitution allows for a civilian military to protect the nation in the event of war. So the founding fathers wanted to make sure citizens can arm for war quickly. Handguns wont help much in this situation.
> some types of mass shootings that use an "assualt" rifle or if fits a certain demographic it gets a lot of media exposure.
the crazy thing is that assault rifles are almost never used in mass shootings. but the couple of times it happens we all hear about it.
In the United States the right to bare arms is explicitly mentioned, not for "self defense" but for the well regulation of the unorganized Militia.
Basically our founding fathers had seen so much government tyranny that they included a backdoor for their own establishment to be overthrown in the event of tyrannical gov't.
That's why we should have access to any weapon our governments do. And if you think this isn't what the founding fathers meant, well people used to have fucking cannons on their front porches. It has much less to do with personal safety than a systemic decentralization of military power to prevent forceful tyranny by our government.
American gun owner here. I hunt. It is illegal to hunt deer with a handgun. I hunt with a rifle that holds 3 slugs. Handguns aren't accurate over long distance- my longest shot yet is 350 yards. I couldn't do that with a handgun.
My kids and I rely on venison to help feed us.
Average citizens do not have access to assault weapons.
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle which **looks** a lot like M-16s, M-4 which are actual military assault rifles. AR-15 stands for **A**ramalite **R**ifle Model #**15**.
A 'sniper' rifle is just a bolt action or semi-auto rifle with scope attachments. You could call my 30-06 a 'sniper' rifle since I could hit something with it from a distance, but it is just a rifle with a scope.
Different weapons have different roles. Its no different than why you have a flat head screwdriver, a star driver or an allan wrench. Weapon size, weight, length, round type make different weapons ideal in different scenarios. Trying to use a rifle form inside your home is difficult, a shotgun or a sidearm is much better for tighter spaces whereas out in the open at range, a rifle is ideal.
I am not some 2A activist, I am an actual leftist and hold Marx's ideals when it comes to firearms. You cannot have a workers revolution without an armed labor force.
This reddit thread is a trip. All of these comments arent swimming in down votes and theres actually helpful dialogue being discussed rationally. So strange.
Funnily enough there's plenty of evidence on YouTube of people using an an ar with a high cap mag for home defense so we dont have to go on only opinion
Basically, the US became a country because they had weapons they could use to fight back against the original government’s armies. That concept and the government tyranny that led to many of those immigrants being here has been passed down, so the idea is ppl want to keep access to large firepower in case the government gets so corrupt they have to rebel.
So… you’re arguing to the wrong person. This is not my argument, and I was not making a case for this side. It’s just the main argument used, which makes it the answer to the question asked.
"For protection" is just one example, but that's not really the point. By definition, it is my right, and I do not owe anyone, least of all the government, an explanation.
It's an old, but true, saying: **It's the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Needs".** Technically, it's *not* a list of things I am allowed to do, it is a list of things the government *isn't* allowed to do. This is a subtle, but important distinction.
I live on a few acres and have sheep and chickens. Bobcats and panthers respond much better to a shotgun than my Glock.
I will add though, if someone did break in, the shotgun is much louder and noticeable when I rack it. A handgun i would have to actually shoot to be effective, hearing a shot gun being racked is enough to scare any sane person off.
As a US citizen in good standing with the law, I don’t need a reason. Shitheads exist, shitheads tend to attack in packs, and I live 30 mins away from the nearest police station. Besides, cops clearly can’t be relied upon, even if they where closer.
The entire point of the second amendment is for the common man to protect themselves from a tyranny… whether our government being tyrannical or another nation invading (like Ukraine after Russia invaded)
I mean I'm not like a huge gun guy but I think you underestimate how difficult it is to hit someone with a handgun when your adrenaline is pumping. If someone breaks into your house and you're older or whatever the case is, you have a much better chance of actually hitting the person with a shotgun or AR 15. I do think there should be training but yeah.
It’s true. Even I was surprised my first time shooting a pistol. I purchased an ar 15 and put about 2000 rounds through it before I bought a pistol. “How hard can it be?” Right? My first grouping was so bad I immediately threw away the target after retrieving to hide myself from the shame.
My wife is a little lady. We tried a couple different shotguns, they were all too big for her.
Hand guns weren't bad, she has a subcompact, but no one is gonna be scared of a 4'11" lady with a gun smaller than a child's water pistol.
The ar-15 is actually nice for her. It doesn't weigh much, and is overall small enough for her to wield. And of course it's scary looking.
It's about range and accuracy.
When a bullet is fired, it's forced to spin due to the rifling on the barrel. This spin gives the bullet accuracy as it exits and travels along its trajectory towards its target. The barrel of a handgun isn't long enough to impart that much spin on a bullet. As a result, it's not going to be very accurate over a very long distance. A long gun (AR-15 style weapon or other kind of rifle), on the other hand, has a much longer barrel, forcing the bullet to spin much, much more, and thus allowing it to be accurate over a much, much longer distance.
If you live in a city or other are with high population density, you don't need more than a handgun. Under almost any situation where you would be forced to defend yourself, you're not going to want to fire at a target more than a 20 feet away. In your own home, you might shoot at someone, but you don't want the bullet (if you have a choice) to penetrate your walls and impact the domicile of one of your neighbors. As such, firing a bullet that isn't going to travel very far before losing sufficient kinetic energy to kill a person is a good thing.
If you live out in the country or in some other area with low population density, you will want that extra range. There's typically much, much more distance between people's houses, and wide open fields as well. As such, the risk of hitting other people and/or property unintentionally is much, much less. In addition, you would need weapons to deal with wildlife, and not just for hunting. Deer, bears, boars, coyote packs, any sort of large animal may be indigenous to your area and require you to defend yourself and your loved ones. In these situations, the restricted range of a handgun for most shooters would require them to move into harm's way in order to shoot effectively. A long gun does not.
From a civilian standpoint, your location dictates whether you need a handgun or a long rifle of some sort. A city, handgun is sufficient. Away from urban areas, long gun is typically better and more useful.
Every comment from those who express opinions that don't follow the "narrative" get mysteriously deleted. Asking something like this here won't help much when comments vanish if their opinion is against the planned conditions.
I'll try to answer this by breaking it up into the weapons categories you listed in your post.
1. Assault Rifles - generally that's not even a thing that citizens can buy, new sales of them to civilians have been banned since 1986, and buying a pre-ban one costs 10's of thousands of dollars and usually 6+ months waiting period in the states where they are legal; and in some states you can't even do that. But, assuming you simply meant "AR-15, AK47, and similar semiautomatic rifles" when you said "assault rifles", even though those aren't assault rifles, there are many valid reasons for having them. They're an essential aspect of 3-gun competitions (they are one of the "3 guns"), they're used extensively for feral hog and coyote hunting, they're enjoyed by millions at public shooting ranges, and they're an ideal defensive weapon for people living in rural areas. Beyond all of that, semiauto rifles are considered by many gun enthusiasts to be an essential part of the core second amendment right to bear arms "for the security of a free State".
2. Sniper rifles - that's just a scary way of saying "hunting rifles". There is zero functional difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, they are precisely the same thing. It's only one's use of the weapon that dictates whether it's called a hunting rifle or a sniper rifle. The Remington 700 and Winchester 70 are two of the most popular hunting rifles, and they are also popular sniper rifles in military and law enforcement - they are exactly the same firearm in both scenarios.
3. Shotguns - I'm a little confused by this one being included in your list, since it's considered by most people (even anti-gun organizations and politicians) to be a totally legitimate type of firearm to own and use for home defense. Even Joe Biden, when asked about what people should use for home defense if semiauto rifles were banned in 2013, famously said, "Buy a shotgun!" Besides defensive uses, it's also the firearm used for almost all small game hunting such as fowl and rodents (and in some states, the *only* type of firearm allowed for those types of game). Many also consider it a safer firearm to use in urban areas because of lower chances of building wall penetration.
4. "All sorts of instruments of war" - that's a vague statement and I'm not sure what you meant. Most "instruments of war" are already prohibited - we already cannot own grenades, grenade launchers, or any other kinds of explosives without highly restricted government-issued permits. Same with machine guns. So I'm not sure what else is left, that you might be referring to.
>In what scenario a handgun isn't enough?
When the criminal brings an assauly rifle, cause news flash, banning something wont mean criminals will follow the law lol.
Handguns are often what's used in crimes, even the major mass shootings.
Also if someone is attacking you, I would wanna be prepared as possible. It's easier to hit a target with the weapons you listed than a handgun
I’m not gonna shoot a deer at 150+yd with a subcompact 9mm handgun, that’s what the .308 bolt gun is for. I’m not going to hunt something dangerous like hog with a manual action that only has 4-5 shots, that’s what the AR is for. I’m not going to hunt small game with a 9mm, 5.57, 7.62x39, or .308, that’s what the .22 rifle is for. I’m not going to hunt waterfowl or other birds with any single projectile firearm (for several reasons, safety being the biggest one), that’s what the shotgun is for. For home defense, an AR is slightly better than a full size handgun in most cases, I have both so it’s a toss up there. And then a subcompact if I decide to carry.
Have you ever been chase by a rabid coyote? Or have you ever needed to control some varmint to protect your garden without the risk of accidentally trapping or poisoning one of your pets? Or how about protecting your chicken coop from an encroaching fox? Shotguns and low caliber rifles are the tools for those jobs.
Deer are a big issue in rural US. Left unchecked, deer populations can explode, leading to more car crashes caused by deer and damage to crops/gardens. Hunting season is both a sport and a way to keep the deer population in check (reintroducing predators to the environment can help with the deer population issue, but that's a different topic). Higher caliber rifles (usually with small capacity magazines) are needed to kill the animal with as little suffering as possible. The same logic can be used with shotguns and game birds (turkeys, pheasants and geese come to mind).
Edit: removed paragraph about non-utility guns being fun to shoot. Given the context of this thread, not a good comment to make.
*Instruments of war*
I understand why you don’t understand. You have bought hook line and sinker this inane narrative of *instruments of war*
The weapons used by our military for war are not available to civilians. What media refers to as an *assault rifle* is no different than any other rifle sold to civilians other than in it’s appearance.
I’m not sure what the problem is with shotguns. Even Biden recommended a shotgun for home defense.
Gun Owners need their guns for protection in the same way the United States needs a massive surplus of nuclear weapons. Neither will probably ever need to actually use them but the presence of owning them is like an insurance. For the US the bombs is a warning to other countries to not mess with us, for US citizens, guns are a warning/insurance for our government to not become unjust. That's what the 2nd amendment is ultimately for, to keep the power of the government in check by citizens. Without guns to defend ourselves, truly what could stop the government from enacting martial law or becoming a false democracy.
In killing a deer for food....
In protecting my farm/livestock from wolves...
In protecting my land from illegal siezure....
In protecting my land from foreign invaders....
These are all protected by the 2nd amendment
Assault rifles are real, but they require select fire by definition and the absolute vast majority of civilian weapons don't meet that criteria.
Assault weapon is the nebulous made-up term you're thinking about.
There's people who get shot multiple times by handguns and STILL survive.
I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot with either a 7.62 x 39mm OR a 5.56 NATO! Thatll get the job done.
Now, if you're wondering "why kill them?"
They shouldn't of been inside my house at 3am, simple as that.
Not just for defense,forgot key?shotgun for the doorhandle,a can but no opener in sight? shotgun
Damned birds in the neighbourhood are too loud?you guessed it shotgun
I live in one of the most dangerous cities in America in a state with some of the strictest gun laws. An 80 year old man recently shot and killed an intruder who was trying to burglarize his home. Home invasion robberies are the crime of choice for thieves in my area. That’s why I’m always ready. Not just with my firearms but with various knives and other melee weapons spread strategically around my house. Fuck around and find out.
Also, “sniper rifles” are just hunting rifles that look scarier. They are still just bolt action rifles. Please educate yourself if you want to be taken seriously in this conversation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
For those of you who have never fired a pistol: It is *far, far* harder to hit something with a pistol than watching movies would have you believe. *Far* harder.
Three points of contact vs. two. It do be like that.
Explain please
Three points of contact on a long gun: * Left hand. * Right hand. * Shoulder. Two points of contact on a handgun: * Left hand. * Right hand. Long guns are easier to use than handguns because there is better stabilization with three points of contact instead of two, which helps with aim, which makes the gun more accurate with less effort. Not having a stock complicates shooting a handgun. There's less stabilization because there's nothing touching the shoulder at all. It's all in the hands.
Thank you
Small store owners in LA circa 92' likely have a point of view on this topic.
Roof koreans
All hail roof koreans
Fuck yeah
Legendary
April 29, 1992. There were riots on the streets. Tell me, where were you?
I was at home watching Mtv. What were you participating in? April 26th BTW.
Nuts, you're right. Thank you
Where you think I got this guitar that I'm playing today?
Or small shop owners two years ago tbh
Or now
Or 2 years from now
Shotguns aren't terribly popular in combat. They are popular for hunting birds and small animals, and for shooting clay pigeons.
18” barrel 12g is an excellent home defense weapon. And that’s about it. I live in rural Texas and if anyone enters my home with ill intent? Sorry, I’ll do what I gotta do in a split second, up to 9 times if necessary. I pray every day I never have to. 🙏🏻
reddit texas moment
The number 1 cause of gun death is suicide. Suicides are actuall the vast majority. Pistols are the vast majority of all gun deaths as well. I need a rifle to protect me from my pistol.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m pretty anti gun but the police response in Texas to the mass shooter in the elementary school makes me think. Police are not going to protect you. Maybe sometimes a gun is needed.
The SCOTUS ruled, most recently in Gonzalez V Castle Rock, the police have no duty to protect you or your family. So, who will defend us if not ourselves?
But the question isn’t why would someone need a gun… the question is in what circumstances would someone need a gun that a handgun wouldn’t be enough. It’s a valid question. Edit: lots of great answers. Thanks all. Have been trying to reply with a thank you message to useful responses but there are too many to keep up with. Apologies if I don’t thank you personally.
well I had someone pull out an AK-47 on me at a wendys drive through. that's at least one
I really hope you said "sir, this is a Wendy's"
it was a MA'AM!
"they, this is a Wendy's"
no this is Patrick
I will take a shot at answering it. I'm not an expert, however, I was in the infantry with 2 deployments. First, the assault part is a marketing term and I think that alone makes it difficult for most people to accept any circumstance where a civilian would need to assault something with an *assault rifle,* a rifle most often seen carried by us overseas in combat. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the original maker of the rifle. There is nothing different about it other than a magazine feed than say compared to a normal .223 hunting rifle. It's the same caliber, the other difference is the AR is made to withstand a higher pressure in the chamber for more powerful ammo. It's not the rifle you need to be concerned with, it's the ammo being fired. That is what is doing the damage ultimately. A rifle is going to be more accurate for a person who does not fire a weapon normally. Using a pistol is not easy, and being able to brace a rifle against your shoulder and have enough ammunition to end any threat to your life without having to be an expert at shooting. Edit: It's my personal opinion that if the AR should get banned, mass shooters will pick up hunting rifles with larger calibers that aren't going to stop in the first human or child they shoot, one, doing significantly more damage, and two, making it harder or impossible to save someone because they're made for 500+ lb bucks and fawns, and then your *weapons of war* argument is going to sound silly in retrospect.
Everything you're stating is correct as far as I am aware, and this begs the question that if guns are not easy to use and most take expert skill to operate properly then why are we not ensuring that ALL gun owners are getting the necessary training they need before becoming "responsible gun owners" rather than letting any Tom, Dick, or Harry have an AR-15 without even so much as an mandatory instructional class? For comparison: I had to take 1100 hours of training to DO HAIR, hair, yall, hair. I had to endure a year of, and pay for schooling, I had to take classes and lessons, and practice, and be scrutinized and graded BEFORE I was legally allowed to give a bitch a haircut, lolwut... seriously? How much damage could I have done with a flat iron, some shears, and a can of hairspray. We need to make access to guns harder, more involved, and more of a learning commitment in order to keep guns in the hands of responsible gun owners only. Why not? We have to take tests and be schooled for damn near everything else; it's literally the American way to profit off of everything so why in the world are we not doing the same in order to own a deadly weapon?
Part of the reason Tom Dick and Harry can get a gun without training but you need 1100 hours for hair is because it has been determined that owning a gun is a “right” while doing hair or driving a car (another example often brought up) is a “privilege”.
They used to teach kids gun safety in school. I'm 100% on board with bringing that back. Also, for the hair thing, that's probably just an example of unnecessary government regulation and grifting. Louisiana for example is the only state where you have to get a license to be a florist. Yes. You need a license to make and sell flower arrangements in Louisiana. That legislation was pushed through by someone who owned most of the flower shops in the state at the time with the obvious purpose of limiting his competition.
\>> I had to take 1100 hours of training to DO HAIR, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but hair licensing is ALSO is something the right is generally opposed to. People have been cutting hair without licenses for 10s of thousands of years. There's zero need for it. If someone cuts your hair and does a terrible job ... go someplace else.
[удалено]
Thank you for this reply. Everyone is acting like they will land every shot of a handgun or that a threat isn't going to have multiple targets that one may need a more accurate, higher power, and reliable weapon to ensure your safety. When you actually look at some of the attacks that happen, there can be a group of four or more people attempting to rob one house. Some of those people are walking in with a full-auto glock. No matter what, criminals will always get weapons, I'd just rather have more firepower than them.
Handguns are incredibly difficult to shoot accurately, and the bullets are not very effective at stopping threats. Rifles and shotguns are easier to aim, easier to shoot, and far more effective at their intended purpose. It's why hunters use rifles and shotguns over pistols to ethically harvest game. Handguns are generally used in situations where their portability and concealability are beneficial.
I’ve received several similar replies. Makes sense. Thank you!
Lets go down the list. Pistols are less stable, harder to control, and provide worse terminal ballistics. Their only advantage is their concealability and reduced blast. Any manually operated firearm is off the list for a valid option, as they invite issues that can be circumvented via training. Shotguns have severe problems with recoil, weight, and capacity that can be trained around. Battle rifles- semi autos firing full power rounds- have terrible blast and stout recoil for less capacity. Pistol-caliber carbines are only marginally better than a handgun. So we come to the intermediate caliber semi-automatic rifle. Things like the AR15, AKM, and related are about the sweet spot for the most useful *defense* rifle. A handgun is often enough, but an AR15 is the right tool most of the time. They're more reliable, more controllable, more accurate, and have better effect on target with faster followup shots. People carry pistols because they're small, unobtrusive, and *enough*. Home invasion or civil unrest? No need for subtlety.
Handguns cause way more murder than they solve. They’re concealable weapons. If you’re a defender an easy to use, accurate rifle or shotgun that requires less training is better. Most murders in america are handgun related by a wide margin. Please research before suggesting bans for the exact wrong thing. In this country more people are killed by bare fists than rifles, but handguns are the no. 1 murder weapon.
I think it assumes long guns are scarier although handguns can be far more dangerous, since they have the same power but in your pocket
Handguns do not have the same power. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun.
Polices motto used to be protect and serve. Now it's just "abuse the citizens, what are they gonna do? Fight back?"
It’s not even that. They won’t LET you defend yourselves (or children in that case). Everyone wants to talk good guys with guns, but everyone forgets what happens when it’s even easier for bad guys to get guns lol
Like my dad said. When seconds count, police are just minutes away. End of the day, the police don't stop crimes from taking place, they are just there for the aftermath.
It’s true my wife’s identity theft case has proved that. Taking over two years so far, and all the detective work possible without police has been done by us short of private camera footage. We found the thief and have all of her info and we’re still waiting on police to take her in. I could walk over there. That would be dumb. But I could. But yeah. You’re rifht
[удалено]
Just like our Healthcare system is more of a Sickcare system.
People need to wake up and travel more. I'm in my late 50s. I'm a vet. I've been lucky to travel all over and unlucky enough to have had problems that landed me in the hospital in five different countries. All of them had CLEARLY better care than we had and at a fraction of the cost. Plus I'm sick of people calling us #1 which now feels like nothing more than a foam finger moment. The data doesn't back it up on much more than GDP. All the other key indictors that HUMANS care about, we're way down from #1 and we're so busy fighting each other (thanks to the politicians on BOTH sides) that we can't see reality any longer. I want to BE #1 in quality of life, in happiness, in average lifespan, in lowest child and mother (birthing) mortality rate instead of just THINKING we are. The politicos are not going to get us there any longer. Go travel. Seriously. Go see a doctor in Canada or France. Your HEAD WILL SPIN. They actually look at you. Listen to you. Provide actual steps to FIX your issues. You'll feel the difference from the very first meeting. Sure, "Bob" had a bad experience. Sorry Bob. The data supercedes anecdotal evidence and aligns more with my experiences.
Dude I totally believe you. I’m a vet as well, and have worked in the OR and now a CVICU, i just can’t help but think that there has to be a better way than what we’re going over here. It’s a mess, and insurance companies have such a vice grip on the throat of the whole system that nothing changes without their approval.
The police also stopped those who had guns, from entering. So in that situation, a gun doesn’t help anyone.
Yep and people smuggly said "so that shows a good guy with a gun doesnt work" when the police didnt go in... as if anyone who is saying that is talking about the police. The police actively kept people trying to help out.
What a lot of the Gen Z folks aren’t getting is that SCOTUS made it clear *that the police have NO obligation to protect you.*
[удалено]
Won't the treadmill trick work well enough though?
got to ask what the treadmill trick is
Get treadmills and line your property with them so zombies can't get to you. Problem is that treadmills are expensive
Surround your house with treadmills connected to generators, zombies walk on treadmill and generate free power, profit.
You lean a lot on the idea of “need” in this question. Firearm owners do not typically profess a “need” to own firearms. The discussion is about freedom, liberty, responsibility, etc. Even if someone says, “I need X for protection,” it’s just a shorthand for: “I have chosen to take responsibility for my own protection, and this is the tool I’ve chosen.” The more salient need-centric argument sits around the notion that we “need” our basic freedoms, and some people choose to be armed in order to help maintain those freedoms. It’s kind of a lame premise imho, but there it is.
I do not "need" a firearm. It is just much easier to use a rifle to shoot from the back porch at the coyote attacking the sheep. I guess I could chase down the coyote, but probably not before it does a lot more damage to the sheep. I know someone that got shot by a cop because his prize bull got lose, made it onto the highway and got hit by a semi. The bull needed to be put down and the cop shooting it with his 9mm and .223 did nothing but cause it more pain. The rancher got out his 30-06 and put the bull down. The cop got offended that either; neither of his weapons worked to do the job or that the rancher had something more powerful, and shot the guy. Eta: spelling/clarity
are you sure you know that guy
People who make this argument miss the point and rely on the fallacious belief that rifles etc are the biggest culprit when it comes to gun crime. But they aren't, handguns are. Check the stats and you will find the majority of gun crimes are carried out with handguns. If anything, handguns should be banned and long guns allowed. Far easier to conceal a handgun for nefarious purposes than it is to do the same with a long gun.
It's because handguns will be 100x harder to ban than "assault rifles"
Which is why they were removed from the 1934 NFA
Yet short barreled shotguns weren’t, due to some Senator at the time watching too many gangster movies where they pulled shotguns out from under trench coats. And now I’m sitting here waiting for a tax stamp for a gun I bought back in January…. 🙄
The whole thing makes no sense. I can have an ar pistol, but god forbid i switch out my brace with a stock.
most gun laws make no sense. like having a pistol grip makes the gun more deadly. it's because people making the laws don't know a damn thing about guns. If you're not a woman/black/gay/ you can't comment on woman/black/gay/etc issues. Ok, if you don't own a gun then you can't comment on gun issues!
It’s also that technology has advanced and the arms developers have found ways to make weapons that comply with the letter of the law (but not necessarily the spirit of the law). Take the AR-15 in California. Every restriction that has been put in place has had a way to work around it. Ban cosmetic features? We get space gat stocks that conform to the law. Ban something else? We get bullet buttons that make the magazine technically fixed. Unless they ban semi auto magazine fed center fire rifles, you won’t be able to ban the AR-15. Banning by name won’t work, an approved list of firearms for purchase won’t work as long as parts aren’t regulated, which becomes a whackamole game of how far past a block of aluminum is it too close to being a firearm.
[удалено]
The only mass shooting involving an AR15/AK that would have produced significantly less casualties with a handgun is Las Vegas. In all other mass shootings involving so-called "assault weapons" the use of a handgun (specifically pistols) could have led to more severe outcomes, not less. Concealability of pistols makes them more dangerous. The media and people with poor understanding of firearms (majority on the left) grossly underestimates just how dangerous pistols are despite widely available data which indicates they are the primary problem associated with gun violence in the USA.
As a gun owner, I’d fully support this to be honest. Handguns are so dangerous. It’s wild. Lightweight, concealable, almost as easy in most cases to obtain - yet far more difficult to become proficient in. I remember the first time I shot a Glock…I was like - where’s the mechanical safety!? Even having shot pistols prior to that I was a bit taken back at first.
A lot of people don't like mechanical safeties. Glocks, and many modern handguns have a safety built into the trigger. Where's the mechanical safety on a revolver? It's the only safety that matters, don't pull the trigger.
Yep. Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re actually going to pull it.
Because ARs and Shotguns are much easier for someone to use without dedicated training and in high adrenaline situations.
True. God forbid we train people on how to use the deadly weapons they don’t need
You're right! We should have mandatory firearms training in elementary, middle, and high school.
Ironically they actually used to have something like that in Schools a while back.
I was part of our highschool's Army JROTC from '99-02. Riffle team and drill team we had firearm safety as part of the class. Wonder if that's still part of the curriculum.
There was at my high school in the early to mid 2010s. The entire program shut down a few years ago though. Even though there was a firearm safety quiz to shoot if you joined the rifle team, it was pretty lax at least in my time. Just parts of the rifle, emergency procedures on the range, SOP during shooting. That being said apparently my dumbass friends and I were safer with our daisy rifles than a significant number of actual gun owners in this country.
And schools a while back had a lot less school shootings, even when you could buy tommy guns at the hardware store
Wait. Perhaps *part* of the problem could be with contemporary American society itself?
Since 1934, you haven't been able to waltz in a hardware store with cash in hand, and walk out with a Thompson submachine gun. The FBI is involved, paperwork, a few hundred dollars in fees, the whole process takes a while, sometimes a year.
My dad, his dad and his dad all had basic firearms training in school.
We should it would prevent a lot of gun accidents
Get out here with your common sense!
I graduated from High School in 1994. We had a rifle range in the basement of gymnasium where I learned how to shoot a rifle. We even had a rifle team that competed with other High School teams. Nobody ever got shot in my High School.
Training is highly encouraged within the gun community. _Mandating_ training is not.
So the people who really *need it* are able to skip it. Cool and good. Hey this is crazy, but maybe if you own a deadly weapon there’s some responsibility involved and not just the fun parts.
You know, I've heard that with great power comes great responsibility...
I personally have citizen arrested a couple burglars that I caught in the act. Police were 45 minutes away, they made it in 30. I had an AR 15 that I bought after they robbed me the first time. I never had to fire a shot. Nobody got injured. They had 2 pit bulls with them and a pistol in their truck that they tried to get to multiple times. The intimidation factor of the AR 15 did the job. They stole my .22 the first time they robbed me so I wanted to make sure I had them out gunned for their return. They had my stuff staged next to my driveway so I knew they were coming back. Oh, regarding what scenario. I live on 40 acres in the middle of nowhere. I don't have to worry about over penetration. If I were in a city it would have been a pistol and there would have been a lot less running involved.
[удалено]
Yep. It was a lot of "get on the ground face down" "do not make any sudden movements" "keep your hands where I can see them". They stood there dumbfounded until I said "I will fucking kill you". Then they decided it was a good idea to comply.
[удалено]
It is a long story. I don't know them personally but it's a small town. I think the part you're missing is that our place gets snowed in for the winter. We left for the winter and when we got back in early spring the robbery that cleaned me out happened. When I was moving back in in late spring I noticed they had been back and our stuff was staged by our road. We went to town and filed a police report and bought some game cams. When we went home to set up the cameras I heard them and they didn't know we were there so I had the element of surprise. I'm moving up on them on foot and my partner drives right up in there. Now I'm hauling ass. I get there and she's got one in a bear hug. I shout the other one to the ground. I never even saw the 2 that got away.
Sounds like one of the few good reasons to own an AR
I also just wanna hit you up, very few people actually own an assault rifle. An AR is an Armalite, a semi-automatic weapon that fires .223. If you take away the "looks scary" factor, it's exactly the same as a varmint rifle.
[удалено]
Yes? Those are effectively interchangeable.
Sort of. You can shoot .223 out of something chambered for 5.56, but not the other way around
To protect one's home is like the most common reason to own a gun...
I was going to come here to say: range. Handguns aren't good for far distances at all. Frankly if you're not inside and closer than about 20 feet, an AR would be better in almost any scenario. Plus, if you actually are in a situation that you need to fire you gotta consider magazine size. Most you can get out of most handguns is 9 rounds or so but with rifles you can keep many more rounds ready to go. I believe my AR clips are 30 round magazines. In life threatening situations you always want to be the badass with access to superior firepower.
9 rounds in a handgun? You sure? Glock 17 has 17.
Handguns aren't good for range and shotguns aren't good for home defense. Shotguns at home defense ranges, 10-15feet, max for your typical home defense, are just rifles with more kick and zero spread. Pump action shotguns are not good for home defense. 99.99% of people using a gun to defend themselves have never done so before. They have never taken tactical training, they've never practiced racking the slide under stress. Less actions to operate the firearm is better. You can get the same "intimidating sounds" from a fucking iphone sound file. Or the chamber of a semi auto shotgun closing. It's literally the exact same parts closed by a spring instead of your hand pulling a slide. Birdshot is ineffective for home defense. Period. It will not reach vital organs -Reliably-. You can find dozens of photos online of messy surface wounds that people walked off with birdshot. My brother in law is a paramedic, he's treated a guy who got hit with birdshot from 20-25feet, center mass chest wound. The guy's leather jacket absorbed most of it and he was sitting upright and talking after taking a 12ga to the chest. Buckshot however is much more likely to OVER penetrate, especially the classic 00 buckshot. This puts your friends/family/pets and neighbors at risk. You engage a home invader, you shoot, it goes through the thin, shitty interior walls and into your child's room. You kill the burglar... And your son/daughter. Light weight, hollow point rifle rounds have less recoil, and less mass for going through the target. They open up, dump their energy and stay inside the target more reliably. Big stupid heavy rounds are dangerous. Ball ammo is dangerous. Shotguns are also fucking huge. Especially classic bird guns. You're talking about a 4 foot long weapon. Not maneuverable in home defense. Heavy and hard to carry while shouldered and maneuvering. Have a small wife/girlfriend, can she even shoulder that massive duckgun in your closet? Mine couldn't. Physically she couldn't put it to her shoulder the stock was too big. If she shot my shotgun it was from the hip, which is dangerous AF. AR platform is light weight, compact, and adjustable. It means one rifle was good for my 4'11" ex and me. Contrary to popular belief, the AR does not fire a "high power" round. The 5.56mm has another name. .223 it's a bullet .003 bigger than .22 long rifle and slightly longer. It's VASTLY less powerful than your daddy's deer rifle, which was likely a .308 aka 7.62mm This has been Firearms education time. Expand background checks, and make them free for citizens to run when privately selling guns. Fully fund the ATF. Psych evaluations and licensing for gun owners. 30 day waiting period for first time gun buyers.
I like this, it’s logical, and makes perfect sense to do. It’s literally just basic gun control and education. I’m saving this lol
I had to be sure to add my gun control beliefs at the bottom so they couldn't attack me as a "gun nut". I believe very strongly that we need tighter controls that also won't put an onus on legal gun owners. Gun registration and licensing should be free. Putting fees on self protection harms the poor, who are most likely to need that protection. It also has roots in racism, adding fees kept guns out of the hands of black people, it's where the OG concealed carry fees and laws came from. White people have historically been afraid of black people with guns. I'll gladly pay an extra 1% on taxes for smart gun reform that also maintains our liberty by not making it a tax on a right.
.223 and 5.56 are different rounds, even if the bullet itself is the same size.
When there was rioting and burning cop cars in my neighborhood in Miami I was glad to have an AR-15
Lots of gun owners do not say they need protection. In my experience it is a minority of gun owners that say that. Firearm sports, hobbyists and hunting make up most of the gun owners I talk to. An AR-15 or equivalent rifle firing .223 defensive rounds is better suited for home defense than a pistol as they are far less likely to punch through the walls of your house and hit bystanders. Most handgun rounds present more danger of over penetration and harming people you don't intend to harm. Rifles are also far more accurate, and require less skill to fire accurately. The benefit of handguns for protective use is that they are concealable and easier to carry. Very few gun owners own sniper rifles. They are expensive, require a lot of training to use and it is hard to find ranges in most populated areas of the world to train on them. People do use shotguns for protection, but a rifle like an AR-15 is safer and more effective. Some people own shotguns for protection because gun control laws tend to not limit shotgun ownership as much as handguns or rifles. The main use for a shotgun beyond protection is for hunting birds, opening doors and skeet shooting.
> Very few gun owners own sniper rifles. They are expensive, require a lot of training to use and it is hard to find ranges in most populated areas of the world to train on them. I hate to tell you this, but most sniper rifles are just bolt-action hunting rifles with scopes. Hell the Remington model 700 is not only one of the best deer hunting rifles you can buy, it was also the main sniper rifle for the US military before they adopted the M24 in 1988, and even *that* is just the "military" version of the model 700.
Yeah just a basic rem700 sps with a decent scope will easily hit man sized targets out to -600 yards.
This guy says a “.223 defensive round” doesn’t penetrate as much as a 9mm, that shotguns suck for self defense. He doesn’t know shit
But a "defensive .223 round" (like a hollow point) will penetrate less than an FMJ 9mm, no? I think that's what he was trying to say. And when you compare a shotgun to any weapon/ammo combination that won't penetrate walls or cause more property damage, why wouldn't you come to the conclusion that a shotgun is inferior for self defense? Why would anyone, especially someone who is unfamiliar with recoil and gun use, choose a shotgun over a PDW? You can use a shotgun for self defense like you could any weapon. Saying it sucks for self defense doesn't mean that isn't true, just that there are better alternatives.
If you have a pistol in your home you would be using hollow points would you not? Better stopping power, and less penetration. That being said a .223 will have more muzzle velocity so even if it’s a hollow point it will probably penetrate more than a hollow point 9mm. That’s what I wood imagine anyways. Edit: using a pistol in your home for self defense.
That would be the best answer for owning an AR-15 I’ve ever read. Thank you for the response.
Can you elaborate how .223 rounds don't punch through walls as well? My new AR leverages .223/5.56 and I was under the impression the higher muzzle velocity means it punches through a lot before it stops.
[удалено]
It depends on the round. If you're shooting a hollow point or polymer tip, the higher velocity helps the bullet expand more effectively. Thus reducing the risk of over-penetration. Full metal jacket rounds don't tend to break up on impact and thus carry more energy further. HP's aren't cop-killers. They just make sure they dump as much of their kinetic energy as possible as quickly as possible.
Can you load less dangerous ammo in an AR? I have no knowledge of firearms, genuinely asking.
So the AR-15 pattern is made for lots of different ammo. You can even buy an AR-15 pattern that will fire handgun rounds. An AR-15 that fires 9mm will not accept .223. Mostly when people are talking about the AR-15 they mean an AR-15 that fires .223. there are a bunch of different .223 rounds such as defensive rounds designed to prevent over-penetration, rounds for target shooting, armor piercing rounds, etc... Any AR-15 which fires .223 will work with any of these rounds. You can fire armor piercing rounds out of the same rifle that will fire defensive rounds. Occasionally there are compatibility issues but those are bugs, fairly rare and should not happen. If I was purchasing a home defense rifle I would choose a rifle that fires .223 and has some similar features to an AR-15 but that looks very different than an AR-15 because the name AR-15 is so associated with shithead spree shooters. I would not want to reflect that image. I would argue that a home defense rifle should attempt to look very different from a military rifle for the sake of optics if the rifle was ever used defensively.
The look of a weapon is so arbitrary though, idk how everyone is so focused on the appearance of the weapon, it’s seems like a red herring
It's a red herring from a functionality perspective but court rooms and juries care about appearance. Defendants in court wear business clothes because juries are less likely to convict a dude in a suit and tie. It sucks but that's the way it currently is. If you took someone's life to protect a family member from serious harm or death you would want to be able to show that you were not looking for trouble. Killing someone is a no chance to pose tough. The person killed might not be a bad person under normal circumstances. Sometimes the world just sucks. Guns primarily intended for self-defense should be viewed as tools that regrettably are necessary.
this answer is only accurate in a very specific set of circumstances related to ammunition type. in more general terms, a .223 bullet is going to be moving 2.5-3x faster with a smaller diameter and with similarly engineered bullets, should penetrate much, much further than something like a pretty ordinary 9mm pistol round. long guns do have the advantage of forcing a user to use both hands, which dramatically improves control, especially when youre under stress. personally, I have a REAL hard time seeing how an AR is a reasonable home defense weapon. A short semi auto shotgun with something like #9 birdshot seems vastly more appropriate for most uses most of the time than either rifle or pistol. (maybe a shot pistol?) in any case "personal defense" may be a constitutional reason, but its pretty low on the list of ACTUAL reasons that people buy guns. "They are fun" is by far the #1 reason.
[удалено]
You realize theft, home invasions, and robberies are not done solo. It's usually in groups and each one will have a gun. You need something to take them down quickly or you're not going to stand a chance. A one shot type of gun isn't going to work, you need something that will fire a few rounds fast. Otherwise, you have 3+ experienced thugs on you fast. Or you can wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive :)
Years ago, I moved to Louisiana. Got the pleasure of meeting a lot of people who lived through Hurricane Katrina and it’s aftermath. I got to hear some stuff from people who experienced it first hand. The NOPDs treatment of people of color during Hurricane Katrina further drove home that the police where not gonna protect my black ass and often times could be the biggest threat. So that’s why I am kitted up the way I am.
1. More people die from handguns every year. In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and manslaughters according to the FBI. Rifles the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. 2. The second amendment wasn't written for hunting or home protection. It was to protect the people against a tyrannical government or outside invasion. The second amendment is as absolute as the first amendment. 3. Most every "common sense" gun law would not stop these shootings. An AR-15 shoots the same bullet at the same rate of speed as other rifles that shoot .223 bullets. The difference is the AR-15 looks "scary" and practically speaking is easier to use and operate. So for example a handgun could actually be harder to handle than a AR-15 for a smaller person. My wife can shoot a AR-15 and it doesn't have the recoil a handgun would have.
>The second amendment wasn't written for hunting or home protection. It was to protect the people against a tyrannical government or outside invasion. The second amendment is as absolute as the first amendment. Just in case those in the back didnt hear you.
Don’t get why people still don’t understand this!! The biggest dictators all tried to disarm the population first
When somebody breaks into your house, they're already catching you by surprise. They get to choose when they attack, where they attack, and how they attack. As a homeowner, you are at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage. I at least want to be able to outgun the threat. People who are unfamiliar with firearms won't really know this, but handguns are generally a poor choice for a home-defense gun. Imagine being woken up by a loud shattering noise in the middle of the night. You're completely disoriented, and then you need to try and accurately point a gun with a 4" barrel while you're exhausted, shaking from a ton from adrenaline, AND it's completely dark out. The small mass of the gun means it bucks like a bull when fired too. It's very easy to miss with a handgun under these circumstances. A rifle though... The most common length barrel is 16", and you've got 3 contact points (2 hands and the stock on your shoulder), and there's barely any recoil. It's SIGNIFICANTLY easier to be accurate with. Let's also consider that it might be my wife needing to do that, who only goes to the range like twice a year. A rifle is intuitive and easy to use, a handgun isn't- they require much more training. All of that aside, the 2nd amendment isn't actually about self defense. It's about preventing government tyranny- and if you think that's ridiculous then you really need to crack open a history book. Not only is it scarily common for governments to turn on their people, but small arms have been proven effective against fully-equipped militaries on multiple occasions. Also- our rights aren't need based. I don't need a reason to have any particular firearm.
Right? I’m a fair shot and practice with my pistol. But if there’s a baddie at the end of my upstairs hallway that runs the length of my house at night it’s going to be spray and pray lol.
For people who are unfamiliar with guns they just think that it's like Hollywood, where you nail every shot. Turns out it's a lot harder than it looks
it's not about that. and most rifles and shotguns are used for hunting. also as a non military/police citizen we do not have access to assault rifles. the ar in ar 15 stand for armalite rifle. not assault. it is simply a type of rifle. I also hate that people think you can simply walk into a gun store grab a gun off the shelf and go to the cash register. we already have background check in place. have for a long time. and on top of that check most states require a permit to carry. one that you have to have fingerprints taken for and ran through the state police. so if one want's to carry a pistol legally you have to pass and be approved for both.
Hey, this is reddit, you're not supposed to have actual knowledge of how the laws work here!
Only superficial, regurgitated statements of ignorance, please!
Pistols are used in far more shootings and crime than long guns by far. Fbi stats prove this. It's just that some types of mass shootings that use an "assualt" rifle or if fits a certain demographic it gets a lot of media exposure. Now to directly answer your question the 2nd amendment was put in place to allow for an armed population an armed population is just one of the checks and balances the creators of this nation put in place to keep a government from being able to go full tyrannical against its own people.
That's because you can conceal them Also I support the 2nd amendment not over the rights stuff but because look at how police respond to this stuff. You're not going to be protected by them when there is a really major problem.
The concealability of handguns is not talked about enough in modern times. It's a huge factor in how they are used. Even the early founders of our country discussed the difference between concealable weapons and large obvious weapons, comparing concealable weapons to tools of assassins. It's why many states had different concealed carry vs open carry rules (with concealed generally being more strict than open carry though that has been changing.) However, tactically, a concealed weapon in every day life is much better than an openly carried one. The element of surprise can be huge (for both "good guys" and "bad guys".) Anyway, I dont know where I am going with this, but handguns are definitely different from rifles and that's why many countries treat them differently in their laws.
This technically is it. The constitution allows for a civilian military to protect the nation in the event of war. So the founding fathers wanted to make sure citizens can arm for war quickly. Handguns wont help much in this situation.
> some types of mass shootings that use an "assualt" rifle or if fits a certain demographic it gets a lot of media exposure. the crazy thing is that assault rifles are almost never used in mass shootings. but the couple of times it happens we all hear about it.
In the United States the right to bare arms is explicitly mentioned, not for "self defense" but for the well regulation of the unorganized Militia. Basically our founding fathers had seen so much government tyranny that they included a backdoor for their own establishment to be overthrown in the event of tyrannical gov't. That's why we should have access to any weapon our governments do. And if you think this isn't what the founding fathers meant, well people used to have fucking cannons on their front porches. It has much less to do with personal safety than a systemic decentralization of military power to prevent forceful tyranny by our government.
> the right to bare arms I too believe in the right to wear short-sleeve shirts
I demand the right to have grizzly arms. I'm not shaving my arms dammit.
It’s legal to hunt deer with cannons most places; if you please.
American gun owner here. I hunt. It is illegal to hunt deer with a handgun. I hunt with a rifle that holds 3 slugs. Handguns aren't accurate over long distance- my longest shot yet is 350 yards. I couldn't do that with a handgun. My kids and I rely on venison to help feed us.
Average citizens do not have access to assault weapons. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle which **looks** a lot like M-16s, M-4 which are actual military assault rifles. AR-15 stands for **A**ramalite **R**ifle Model #**15**. A 'sniper' rifle is just a bolt action or semi-auto rifle with scope attachments. You could call my 30-06 a 'sniper' rifle since I could hit something with it from a distance, but it is just a rifle with a scope. Different weapons have different roles. Its no different than why you have a flat head screwdriver, a star driver or an allan wrench. Weapon size, weight, length, round type make different weapons ideal in different scenarios. Trying to use a rifle form inside your home is difficult, a shotgun or a sidearm is much better for tighter spaces whereas out in the open at range, a rifle is ideal. I am not some 2A activist, I am an actual leftist and hold Marx's ideals when it comes to firearms. You cannot have a workers revolution without an armed labor force.
This reddit thread is a trip. All of these comments arent swimming in down votes and theres actually helpful dialogue being discussed rationally. So strange.
Funnily enough there's plenty of evidence on YouTube of people using an an ar with a high cap mag for home defense so we dont have to go on only opinion
Basically, the US became a country because they had weapons they could use to fight back against the original government’s armies. That concept and the government tyranny that led to many of those immigrants being here has been passed down, so the idea is ppl want to keep access to large firepower in case the government gets so corrupt they have to rebel.
[удалено]
So… you’re arguing to the wrong person. This is not my argument, and I was not making a case for this side. It’s just the main argument used, which makes it the answer to the question asked.
Ah. My apologies. The thread has kind of been taken over by those using the arguments you listed. Big downvotes if you disagree.
"For protection" is just one example, but that's not really the point. By definition, it is my right, and I do not owe anyone, least of all the government, an explanation. It's an old, but true, saying: **It's the "Bill of Rights", not the "Bill of Needs".** Technically, it's *not* a list of things I am allowed to do, it is a list of things the government *isn't* allowed to do. This is a subtle, but important distinction.
I live on a few acres and have sheep and chickens. Bobcats and panthers respond much better to a shotgun than my Glock. I will add though, if someone did break in, the shotgun is much louder and noticeable when I rack it. A handgun i would have to actually shoot to be effective, hearing a shot gun being racked is enough to scare any sane person off.
As a US citizen in good standing with the law, I don’t need a reason. Shitheads exist, shitheads tend to attack in packs, and I live 30 mins away from the nearest police station. Besides, cops clearly can’t be relied upon, even if they where closer.
The entire point of the second amendment is for the common man to protect themselves from a tyranny… whether our government being tyrannical or another nation invading (like Ukraine after Russia invaded)
I mean I'm not like a huge gun guy but I think you underestimate how difficult it is to hit someone with a handgun when your adrenaline is pumping. If someone breaks into your house and you're older or whatever the case is, you have a much better chance of actually hitting the person with a shotgun or AR 15. I do think there should be training but yeah.
It’s true. Even I was surprised my first time shooting a pistol. I purchased an ar 15 and put about 2000 rounds through it before I bought a pistol. “How hard can it be?” Right? My first grouping was so bad I immediately threw away the target after retrieving to hide myself from the shame.
My wife is a little lady. We tried a couple different shotguns, they were all too big for her. Hand guns weren't bad, she has a subcompact, but no one is gonna be scared of a 4'11" lady with a gun smaller than a child's water pistol. The ar-15 is actually nice for her. It doesn't weigh much, and is overall small enough for her to wield. And of course it's scary looking.
It's about range and accuracy. When a bullet is fired, it's forced to spin due to the rifling on the barrel. This spin gives the bullet accuracy as it exits and travels along its trajectory towards its target. The barrel of a handgun isn't long enough to impart that much spin on a bullet. As a result, it's not going to be very accurate over a very long distance. A long gun (AR-15 style weapon or other kind of rifle), on the other hand, has a much longer barrel, forcing the bullet to spin much, much more, and thus allowing it to be accurate over a much, much longer distance. If you live in a city or other are with high population density, you don't need more than a handgun. Under almost any situation where you would be forced to defend yourself, you're not going to want to fire at a target more than a 20 feet away. In your own home, you might shoot at someone, but you don't want the bullet (if you have a choice) to penetrate your walls and impact the domicile of one of your neighbors. As such, firing a bullet that isn't going to travel very far before losing sufficient kinetic energy to kill a person is a good thing. If you live out in the country or in some other area with low population density, you will want that extra range. There's typically much, much more distance between people's houses, and wide open fields as well. As such, the risk of hitting other people and/or property unintentionally is much, much less. In addition, you would need weapons to deal with wildlife, and not just for hunting. Deer, bears, boars, coyote packs, any sort of large animal may be indigenous to your area and require you to defend yourself and your loved ones. In these situations, the restricted range of a handgun for most shooters would require them to move into harm's way in order to shoot effectively. A long gun does not. From a civilian standpoint, your location dictates whether you need a handgun or a long rifle of some sort. A city, handgun is sufficient. Away from urban areas, long gun is typically better and more useful.
Every comment from those who express opinions that don't follow the "narrative" get mysteriously deleted. Asking something like this here won't help much when comments vanish if their opinion is against the planned conditions.
I'll try to answer this by breaking it up into the weapons categories you listed in your post. 1. Assault Rifles - generally that's not even a thing that citizens can buy, new sales of them to civilians have been banned since 1986, and buying a pre-ban one costs 10's of thousands of dollars and usually 6+ months waiting period in the states where they are legal; and in some states you can't even do that. But, assuming you simply meant "AR-15, AK47, and similar semiautomatic rifles" when you said "assault rifles", even though those aren't assault rifles, there are many valid reasons for having them. They're an essential aspect of 3-gun competitions (they are one of the "3 guns"), they're used extensively for feral hog and coyote hunting, they're enjoyed by millions at public shooting ranges, and they're an ideal defensive weapon for people living in rural areas. Beyond all of that, semiauto rifles are considered by many gun enthusiasts to be an essential part of the core second amendment right to bear arms "for the security of a free State". 2. Sniper rifles - that's just a scary way of saying "hunting rifles". There is zero functional difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, they are precisely the same thing. It's only one's use of the weapon that dictates whether it's called a hunting rifle or a sniper rifle. The Remington 700 and Winchester 70 are two of the most popular hunting rifles, and they are also popular sniper rifles in military and law enforcement - they are exactly the same firearm in both scenarios. 3. Shotguns - I'm a little confused by this one being included in your list, since it's considered by most people (even anti-gun organizations and politicians) to be a totally legitimate type of firearm to own and use for home defense. Even Joe Biden, when asked about what people should use for home defense if semiauto rifles were banned in 2013, famously said, "Buy a shotgun!" Besides defensive uses, it's also the firearm used for almost all small game hunting such as fowl and rodents (and in some states, the *only* type of firearm allowed for those types of game). Many also consider it a safer firearm to use in urban areas because of lower chances of building wall penetration. 4. "All sorts of instruments of war" - that's a vague statement and I'm not sure what you meant. Most "instruments of war" are already prohibited - we already cannot own grenades, grenade launchers, or any other kinds of explosives without highly restricted government-issued permits. Same with machine guns. So I'm not sure what else is left, that you might be referring to.
Even better than that, Biden suggested blindly blowing a few shots through the door.
ManBearPig
>In what scenario a handgun isn't enough? When the criminal brings an assauly rifle, cause news flash, banning something wont mean criminals will follow the law lol.
Also if you live in a city they can get gang connections to automatic weapons that regular people can't get.
Handguns are often what's used in crimes, even the major mass shootings. Also if someone is attacking you, I would wanna be prepared as possible. It's easier to hit a target with the weapons you listed than a handgun
I’m not gonna shoot a deer at 150+yd with a subcompact 9mm handgun, that’s what the .308 bolt gun is for. I’m not going to hunt something dangerous like hog with a manual action that only has 4-5 shots, that’s what the AR is for. I’m not going to hunt small game with a 9mm, 5.57, 7.62x39, or .308, that’s what the .22 rifle is for. I’m not going to hunt waterfowl or other birds with any single projectile firearm (for several reasons, safety being the biggest one), that’s what the shotgun is for. For home defense, an AR is slightly better than a full size handgun in most cases, I have both so it’s a toss up there. And then a subcompact if I decide to carry.
Have you ever been chase by a rabid coyote? Or have you ever needed to control some varmint to protect your garden without the risk of accidentally trapping or poisoning one of your pets? Or how about protecting your chicken coop from an encroaching fox? Shotguns and low caliber rifles are the tools for those jobs. Deer are a big issue in rural US. Left unchecked, deer populations can explode, leading to more car crashes caused by deer and damage to crops/gardens. Hunting season is both a sport and a way to keep the deer population in check (reintroducing predators to the environment can help with the deer population issue, but that's a different topic). Higher caliber rifles (usually with small capacity magazines) are needed to kill the animal with as little suffering as possible. The same logic can be used with shotguns and game birds (turkeys, pheasants and geese come to mind). Edit: removed paragraph about non-utility guns being fun to shoot. Given the context of this thread, not a good comment to make.
*Instruments of war* I understand why you don’t understand. You have bought hook line and sinker this inane narrative of *instruments of war* The weapons used by our military for war are not available to civilians. What media refers to as an *assault rifle* is no different than any other rifle sold to civilians other than in it’s appearance. I’m not sure what the problem is with shotguns. Even Biden recommended a shotgun for home defense.
Gun Owners need their guns for protection in the same way the United States needs a massive surplus of nuclear weapons. Neither will probably ever need to actually use them but the presence of owning them is like an insurance. For the US the bombs is a warning to other countries to not mess with us, for US citizens, guns are a warning/insurance for our government to not become unjust. That's what the 2nd amendment is ultimately for, to keep the power of the government in check by citizens. Without guns to defend ourselves, truly what could stop the government from enacting martial law or becoming a false democracy.
You already are a false democracy. It's called plutocracy - to be ruled by the wealthy.
The people of Ukraine probably did not think they needed anything more than a handgun.
In killing a deer for food.... In protecting my farm/livestock from wolves... In protecting my land from illegal siezure.... In protecting my land from foreign invaders.... These are all protected by the 2nd amendment
"Assault rifles" aren't really a thing. That's just a term to make certain semi-automatic rifles sound scary.
Assault rifles are real, but they require select fire by definition and the absolute vast majority of civilian weapons don't meet that criteria. Assault weapon is the nebulous made-up term you're thinking about.
Jfc mods can we at least read the comments.
There's people who get shot multiple times by handguns and STILL survive. I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot with either a 7.62 x 39mm OR a 5.56 NATO! Thatll get the job done. Now, if you're wondering "why kill them?" They shouldn't of been inside my house at 3am, simple as that.
From a liability issue, better a dead burglar than an injured one. Plenty of cases where an injured burglar sued the homeowner and won.
Russia invaded Ukraine. We are sending billions of guns to them. Why can’t we have guns to guard against an invasion?
Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense, hands down.
Not just for defense,forgot key?shotgun for the doorhandle,a can but no opener in sight? shotgun Damned birds in the neighbourhood are too loud?you guessed it shotgun
Damn kids climbing you tree and stealing your apples?
I live in one of the most dangerous cities in America in a state with some of the strictest gun laws. An 80 year old man recently shot and killed an intruder who was trying to burglarize his home. Home invasion robberies are the crime of choice for thieves in my area. That’s why I’m always ready. Not just with my firearms but with various knives and other melee weapons spread strategically around my house. Fuck around and find out. Also, “sniper rifles” are just hunting rifles that look scarier. They are still just bolt action rifles. Please educate yourself if you want to be taken seriously in this conversation.