Why firearms will not be banned

reply to post by newcovenant


exactly.

As far as your other post, I agree with it too.

Many if not most schools do have the metal detectors and it's become commonplace to them. While it may be a bit of a pain in the rump, it does offer more protection and peace of mind.

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Pardon sir, but you've made a disastrously erroneous assumption in your post, specifically that one and only one shot is needed to eliminate the threat of home invasion. Unfortunately, home invasions are rarely carried out by a single individual, although many murders and "crimes of passion" often involve one and only one perpetrator.

My point is that although your glorious assumption regarding one-shot kills has some merit for a single predator it's completely baseless if an "entry team" of predators arrives. Consider how many entrances there are to your own home and that each of those entrances could be breached by multiple predators. Consider the location of your home's entrances and consider crossfire, cover and multiple assailants - then consider reload time. In such situations it would be extremely difficult to achieve multiple one shot kills with multiple assailants - if not impossible.

I must agree with you in that the best form of gun control insures that you hit your target - preferably with small groups!

ganjoa

Granted there may be more than one person breaking in. Chances are, when you shoot one, the others will be quite startled. A single action revolver is efficient enough to handle the situation. It's also easier to get hold of than the uzi locked in your gun cabinet. If you have an uzi and it's not locked in a gun cabinet, I question the sanity of the owner especially if there are children in the house.
A single action revolver in the bedside table that the children are aware of and respect, knowing it's not a toy and not to be touched is much more effective.

Originally posted by LightCraft

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
It's pretty darn sad when the power you exert is in the size of the gun you are holding as opposed to your skill with a lower caliber and non-automatic gun.

It takes ONE shot to stop a predator that's breaking into your home. ONE. Not 50 fired in succession.

Seriously, if you are that lousy with a gun, you probably shouldn't have one at all.

It's like "tiny man syndrome". The more pathetic you are, the bigger the gun you need I guess.

You're living in a fantasy land! There are hundreds and hundreds of documented cases where assailants are shot multiple times and keep on coming!

The whole "one shot" thing is ridiculous. The reality is: you need to shoot until the threat STOPS. Not shoot once and HOPE the guy doesn't shoot back.

And limiting capacity is a bad idea too. What happens in situations where multiple assailants kick in your door. Are you going to stop and say "uhh can't you please wait for me to reload?" Get with it man.

If you are not effective with a single shot, you shouldn't own a firearm anyway

Originally posted by Gauss
Thanks for clarifying the process needed, OP. For those of us not American (who yet care about the second amendment) this thread was very helpful in understanding the workings.

You are very welcome and I'm happy to be the voice of reason in a sea of insane shouting

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


I'm not sure a single action revolver fits the bill, but I'm with you on having your weapons secured, especially if you have kids. That's why there are no kids allowed on my locked and gated property, as well as a pack of big dogs outside (married 40 years, no kids). On the other hand, there's no worry about having to unlock and load the firearm in the unlikely event it's use is required (and we maintain 2 inch handgun groups at 50 yards).

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa



Knowing how to utilize your weapons is much more important than worrying about what the weapons are